highlyeccentric | Next on the list of People Who Earn Points

Entry tags:

quotes,
theology

Next on the list of People Who Earn Points

A few weeks ago, Archaeostronomy won a special package of Bonus Points from me (not that I imagine he wanted them nor noticed their aquisition), for noting that creationism is an offence to sane christianity just as it is to him.

Today's Bonus Points go to Greta Christina, for pointing out something I hadn't even started to forumulate myself. When people- ok,

goblinpaladin- start on the rant about Christianity, and Christian morality, etc being founded on the 'cowardly' basis of either a) fear of God or b) desire to PLEASE God or c) both, I tend to just shut up and frown. Because it seems wrong, but how is one to argue without declaring one's morality to be nonreligious?¹

However, Greta pokes holes in the argument on her own, staunchly athiestic terms.

"The logical conclusion of atheism is amorality/ nihilism/ meaninglessness."

If you've been hanging around the atheism debates for long, you've almost certainly run into this argument....

It's an annoying argument. Largely because it flatly ignores the actual reality on the ground: the fact that most atheists are moral people, aren't nihilistic, and do find great meaning in their lives and the lives of others. It's an argument that prioritizes the believer's own beliefs and prejudices over the actual reality that's sitting three feet in front of them staring them in the face....

I want to talk about a parallel argument that I've seen some atheists make -- an argument that I think is every bit as flawed, every bit as troubling, every bit as willing to ignore evidence in favor of one's own prejudices.

It's the argument that theistic morality is inferior to atheist morality....
The argument goes roughly like this: Theistic morality -- and the idea that theism is necessary to morality, the idea that without a belief in God people will have no reason to be good -- is a childish morality. It's a morality that's based on fear of punishment and the desire for reward... and therefore it's an immature morality. The atheist morality is based on genuine feelings of compassion and empathy and fairness, a deep consciousness that other people have just as much right to live in this world as you yourself do... and therefore, it's a more mature, more truly moral morality than the childish theistic morality that "good" is what you get rewarded for and "bad" is what you get punished for.

And there are two reasons I think this is a bad argument.

Firstly, she argues for the neurological hardwiring of human morality, which sounds very scientific and smart, but probably doesn't make much difference in terms of value judgements like 'cowardly'... the argument is about the terms we FRAME morality in, anyway.

She goes on:

here's my second argument against this idea:

It contradicts reality.

I know a fair number of theists and other religious/ spiritual believers. And they clearly have the same basis for their morality as I do for mine. The believers I know don't do good because they're afraid of Hell. Many of them don't even believe in Hell. They do good for the exact same reasons I do: because they feel compassion and empathy for others, because they believe in justice and fairness, because they understand that other people are people just like they are, because they want to see the world be a better place for everybody.

They may believe that these morals were planted in us by God, while I believe they were planted in us by the evolution of our genetic hard-wiring. But the basic morals, and the basic motivations for those morals, are essentially the same as mine.

And if I don't like it when bigoted theists deny the reality of my morality, then it's not right for me to turn around and be just as big a reality-denying bigot as they are.

So, again: bonus points for including sane religites as a key point of the argument, rather than as a disclaimer clause.

~

1. And I do persist in the, ah, delusion that i do have some religious foundation in my moral system. I'm allowed to be deluded, so ner.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm paraphrasing Dawkins from a different context, but in my view the Greta "logical conclusion" seems to be to erect a philosophical barrier where there is no need to do so, with the effect of creating a smokescreen (Brenton has the book where this is from).

For someone to look for meaning for his/her life in some sort of ultimate "purpose" to the universe is in my view extremely self-indulgent. Life is full of a million smaller and more immediate concerns day to day. Even if the logical conclusion is that ultimately life is amoral/ nihilistic/ meaningless, does that not create more meaning in the immediate concerns of the present? From here I can only move to an argument by personal example (as you do) - I find that for me and for other atheists it does.

You can add me to that list of atheists, Anonymous Reader.

Your link takes you to Archaeostronomy, not Christina's post. So, uh, if and when you fix that, then I'll argue with you. *grins*

Because, believe it or not, I do have an argument for you. I just need to be certain of everything Christina said.

oh, fuckery. it was two in the morning, i suck

Okay, right. As you've already pointed out, her first reason for disagreeing with the argument is flawed: the point isn't about where morality comes from, but the way it is societally structured. I already *know* that the broad basis of everyone's morality (probably) comes from genetic influence as much as anything. The issue at hand is how that morality is interpreted- be it from a "Daddy WILL spank you" God or personal thought and exploration.

But the other problem with that argument is that our broad morality might be genetic (don't lie, cheat, murder) but specifics of it are not. If it were so simple, we would not have a traditional of philosophical and ethical study spanning millennia. There are details that hard-wiring does not provide. There are people whose genetic predispositions differ slightly that we must convince rationally to do good.

In other words, her first criticism only addresses part of the point, and even then not very effectively. The medium through which we interpret morality is as relevant as the morality itself. Moreover, there are details of morality not inherited and/or that must be discussed and refined. Slavery is evil NOW but it was not two centuries ago: a shift in the moral Zeitgeist.

She does make a side note, saying that the hellfire-and-heavenflowers justification of Christian morality is pretty sick, so she acknowledges that criticism. Fine. I think it's a stronger criticism of her point than she does, but whatever.

...when you ask them [believers] whether they would steal or murder if it could be proven to them that God didn't exist, in my experience most of them say No.

True, many of them do say no. But in my experiences with arguing with them -especially fundamentalists- they only say this because they do not believe it is possible to show God does not exist. They do not say no because they would not; they say no because they do not believe the question is worth responding to honestly. The few who do genuinely say no are also usually people who have a startlingly non-religious morality, a point I will come back to later.

Greta is clearly speaking to more liberal Christians than I in these discussions. At any rate, the Christian who says, "No, I would not murder if God did not exist," lose the argument right there. They have essentially pointed out that their morality does not rely on God. This doesn't make the atheist argument wrong: it makes it right. Truly moral people Do Not Rely On God for Morality.

So Some religites- the ones who acknowledge their morality does not depend on God, are the good people Christina talks about. Fine.

But that doesn't make the atheist argument wrong. The atheist argument is "People who rely on God for their morality are relying on fear to do good. This is bad. Therefore they are bad people. We do NOT do that. Therefore we are good people." Any Christian who does not fall into the category espoused in the first sentence, the argument does not apply to.

Let us face it: Christian 'morality' as espoused in the Bible is abhorrent. It's cruel, it's twisted. Torture and murder and sacrifice of first-borns is okay if God wills it. No modern, thinking, moral person can deny that the God of the Bible is fucked-up. When you add in the idea that one MUST be good lest this God punish you, you have the makings of a twisted morality. Anyone holding to it is clearly not a moral person -according to modern morality- by definition.

Christians who do not hold to it, are therefore exactly the same as Atheists. Not lesser, nor greater. Not the best of men. Just people, but ones who have shed the hideous and the frightening for the enlightened and the freedom of choice.

Or, to put it more simply, the atheist argument Greta is railing against is only made against those Christians to whom it applies, and not to all of them, everywhere.

fundamentalists are not the epitome of the more general category of theists, as you keep implying (e.g. your comment "especially fundamentalists")

i would say that my morality is absolutely centred, rooted, dependent on god; that doesn't mean that if suddenly it was proved that god didn't exist i would become immoral, but my morality would have to change (probably only in subtle ways, but it would certainly change).

Let us face it: Christian 'morality' as espoused in the Bible is abhorrent. It's cruel, it's twisted. Torture and murder and sacrifice of first-borns is okay if God wills it. No modern, thinking, moral person can deny that the God of the Bible is fucked-up.

this is also a gross generalisation. the bible is not one text with a homogenous image of god. it is many texts with at least as many different conceptions of god and morality - it's totally unfair to say that the whole thing depicts a fucked-up god.

when you talk about christians who do not hold to the morality espoused in the bible, i hope you're not thinking of me. yes, i take a critical approach to the bible and the moralities found in it; but i also believe that in a non-literal sense, the bible is god-breathed and means a lot to me.

*smiles*

thankee Bron.

blimey, that was quick!

"Especially fundamentalists" was simply meaning that fundamentalists are especially prone to saying that only because they do not believe it is possible to demonstrate God's lack of existence. Some liberal Christians do it as well, not all fundamentalists do. It is simply more prevalent within fundamentalist Christianity.

You note that your morality is 'absolutely centred' on God, but do not give any details of what this means. Do you only have your morality for fear of retribution? Knowing you, no. Do you only have your morality in hope of reward? Again, knowing you, no. You have your morality from compassion for others, and a sincere desire to improve the mundane world* and the lives of those dwelling within. This is the same morality as an atheist.

You may believe that God instilled these virtues in you, or that this is what He would like you to do, but that isn't my point. Your morality does not step from the "or else" model that other Christians -in my experience the majority- use. Therefore, the 'atheist argument' that Christina is railing against does not apply to you.

I say this, of course, based on several assumptions about your belief in God. If you would care to define how and why your morality would change, then I may alter my sentiment. This is merely based on my brief, shallow, knowledge of you thus far.

[As an aside, of course your morality wouldn't vanish. Morality is probably at least partially hard-wired. Moreoever, merely ceasing to believe in God doesn't mean you stop thinking about moral and ethical questions. It shouldn't need to be said, but atheists stop thinking God exists all the time and no more of them commit murder than Christians.]

the bible is not one text with a homogenous image of god. it is many texts with at least as many different conceptions of god and morality - it's totally unfair to say that the whole thing depicts a fucked-up god.

I was mostly referring to the Old Testament, but it is a moot point. The God is meant to be the One God throughout the entire text, is it not? You cannot claim that a God willing and eager to commit genocide is a pleasant figure, nor can you claim that a God ordering someone to sacrifice a beloved son is a nice entity. If the God of the Bible is only one God, a perfect, eternal and changeless God, then it is an unpleasant God.

If, however, you are willing to say that God changes, then that is a different argument.

Besides, the God/Jesus of the New Testament is only really better by comparison with that of the Old. He still does not measure up to contemporary standards of morality.

I'm not thinking of anyone specifically, but your morality seems at striking odds with the words and teachings of several biblical passages- not just the Old Testament (which is obviously vicious), but also several of the Christ's disciples. I cannot imagine you are fond of Peter or Paul, and you would disagree with Christ's treatment of the Canaanite woman in Matthew 15:21-28.

i also believe that in a non-literal sense, the bible is god-breathed and means a lot to me.

What does that mean? Folk who say that usually mean something like: "I believe and adore a nice God, who loves me and His people. So when I look at the Bible, I ignore or heavily re-interpret the horrible things and read the lovely things that I already agree with. This means that I can believe in my lovely God and still say that his morality is in the Bible, even though I am using my own -independent- morality to decide what is moral in the book, what is not, and what needs to be twisted to fit."

If the book is God-breathed, why didn't God breathe a little bit less genocide and torture and proclamations against women, homosexuals, non-Jews and unbelievers?

===
*Amusingly, 'mundane' derives from the Latin mundus, meaning 'world.' So 'mundane world' is 'worldly world.' Oh, language.

it seems to me that sometimes you argue that "religion, per se, is a fundamentally flawed (at best; at worst, corrupt and corrupting) system" and at other times you argue that "well, actually, people who aren't TOO religious, i.e. fundamentalist, are actually okay, because they are remarkably similar to me/atheists".

You note that your morality is 'absolutely centred' on God, but do not give any details of what this means. Do you only have your morality for fear of retribution? Knowing you, no. Do you only have your morality in hope of reward? Again, knowing you, no. You have your morality from compassion for others, and a sincere desire to improve the mundane world* and the lives of those dwelling within. This is the same morality as an atheist.

again i think you are basing your argument on a caricature of christianity/religion, or perhaps a minority view - the "fear of retribution". you want to say that people like me aren't "one of those", but maintain that "those" types are not just loony fringe-deists, but in some way demonstrate the fundamental abhorrence/flaw of deism itself.

my morality may have the same results as that of an atheist such as yourself - compassion, commitment to social justice, etc; however there will be differences in how i approach certain issues because my morality is based in a different world view from yours.

you say that "the majority" of theists/deists/whatever you've come across are of the "fear of retribution" type; may i suggest your sample size and/or sampling method are problematic. but even if there are a lot of these whackos in the world, it doesn't justify your (occasional) argument that there is something wrong with religion per se.

I was mostly referring to the Old Testament, but it is a moot point. The God is meant to be the One God throughout the entire text, is it not? You cannot claim that a God willing and eager to commit genocide is a pleasant figure, nor can you claim that a God ordering someone to sacrifice a beloved son is a nice entity. If the God of the Bible is only one God, a perfect, eternal and changeless God, then it is an unpleasant God.

it is not at all a moot point! you are only allowing me one way of reading the bible here - a very fundamentalist, literalist way which assumes that the bible was written in the same way that muslims believe the koran was written (god spoke, mohammad listened and copied it down directly). there are a number of other ways to understand the bible; i see the hebrew scriptures as the story of israel trying to live in covenant with god, and trying to express their relationship with god and their idea of who god is, but getting it horribly wrong sometimes (although sometimes for good reason - when you're experiencing a genocide or extreme persecution, it's fairly reasonable to want god to smash your enemies' babies against rocks. it's not nice, but neither was their situation).

for the record, i do think that god changes, but you don't have to believe that to believe what i say above.

Besides, the God/Jesus of the New Testament is only really better by comparison with that of the Old. He still does not measure up to contemporary standards of morality.

uh... that's because the new testament wasn't written in contemporary times! hey man, you're the historian! not that long ago you were telling me i could hardly expect machiaveli to give moral advice to princes because it was a different time and it was (according to you) inconceivable for a prince to act morally (by our standards)...

as for the story of the canaanite woman that you mention, yes, christ did initially fail to treat her better than anyone else in his time would have (maybe we can expect more of him, maybe not, i'm not sure); the striking thing is that he changes his mind after listening to what she says back to him.

What does that mean? Folk who say that usually mean something like: "I believe and adore a nice God, who loves me and His people. So when I look at the Bible, I ignore or heavily re-interpret the horrible things and read the lovely things that I already agree with. This means that I can believe in my lovely God and still say that his morality is in the Bible, even though I am using my own -independent- morality to decide what is moral in the book, what is not, and what needs to be twisted to fit."

actually, i think that's closer to what you want me to believe than anything else. you are happy to endorse my christianity as long as it is essentially mediated by an independent, rational morality of my own - if i do this, then i am suitably non-religious and you put me in the category of "exceptional, non-loony christians".

what does it mean that the bible is god-breathed? that is a complex question that does need to be left open. it's very difficult to deal with the horrors in the bible; we always need to remember that, and not worship the bible itself. but neither do i ignore the whole thing; in faith i continue to read it and pray with it and try to listen to god through it. that's not a simple, deterministic, literal process by any means, and is just something you have to do as a person of faith, not as an intellectual project.

If the book is God-breathed, why didn't God breathe a little bit less genocide and torture and proclamations against women, homosexuals, non-Jews and unbelievers?

well, i agree that it would be nice if the bible was even more ahead of its time than it is in many ways; but it would be stretching it a bit to ask god to put in a few verses about how great it is to be gay in a section written thousands of years ago well before gay came to mean something other than happy...

Yes, he listened to her after she said that she was a dog and could have the scraps from the table of her betters. Jesus Christ: racist pig.

What about the bit where Christ gets his feet washed rather than helping out the poor? After all, the poor are always going to be poor, right? Jesus Christ: Liberal voter.

you are happy to endorse my christianity as long as it is essentially mediated by an independent, rational morality of my own...

Pretty much, yes. Only because the morality of Christianity is so fucking awful, you understand.

Which you seem to understand, given that you used the phrase (which I really like!) 'horrors of the bible.'

...it would be stretching it a bit to ask god to put in a few verses about how great it is to be gay...

Really? Is it really asking to much of a 'perfect, loving God' to not include quotes which will lead to thousands of deaths and a continuing pogrom of hatred and murder? Would it really have been too much to ask God to just say what he meant rather than hinting at things? Would it really have been too much for Jesus to have a quiet word with his disciples and say "No, brothers, love is the most important thing. Yea, whether it be between a man and a man, a woman and a woman or a man and a woman. Do not let thy personal distaste affect thy words; preach not the evils of love between men."

Because if he'd said that -just once- then maybe people wouldn't be able to quote from that nasty letter to justify homophobia.

Maybe he could have said, "Oh people! Let it be known that God thinks women are neat; yea, let them be teachers amongst you: even of the holy Scripture!" Because then we could have women priests.

Etcetera.

I do not think it would have been too much to ask, no. Sure, no-one would have listened. His messenger-son would have been crucified...OH WAIT. THAT HAPPENED ANYWAY. Indeed, that was the point! And then people would have had the messages already there when the morality got around to looking at them.

I'd still have issues with religion -I have so many!- but it would be one less argument that could be made.

in general, here you are making the same mistakes as EU types who refuse to understand that the bible was written in SPECIFIC HISTORICAL CONTEXTS. like you, they tend to assume that everything in the bible was really, mostly, written for people today - hence they think it's wrong to be gay, because otherwise surely god would've put something in there for us to know.

can you stop putting words into my mouth? you are completely misrepresenting what i believe about god. i do not think that god works outside of history. god does not zip down and tell us some crazy shit that doesn't even make sense to us, but will make sense to people over 2000 years in the future. she doesn't do that now, and she didn't do it then.

i know you're joking about jesus as a liberal voter, but the fundamental problem there is the same one you are making in this whole comment - that somehow jesus' words and life (or any part of the bible) can be extracted and put in today's context and judged by today's standards.

that's exactly what i'd expect from an EU person, but not an educated, critically-thinking historian.

and yes! there are horrors in the bible; horrors in christian history and tradition; ongoing horrors today. do you think i'm not aware of that and fighting it constantly?

i am certainly not claiming that the bible is perfect, i don't know where you got such an idea from.

in fact i think it's crucial to hold onto those horrors, to never forget that no matter how much we think we are close to god etc, we are still at least (if not more) capable of horrors as everyone else. to remind us that the bible IS product of its times, of the people and communities who wrote it and compiled it, and therefore represents our own brokenness as much as anything else.

See, the brokenness is a good answer. If that was the only reason for studying the Bible, it would be more acceptable. It's not, so it's a moot point. But it's a good answer.

Do we really need the Bible to see that, though? Pick up any treatise on 20th century history and we can see human folly. Pick up any treatise on the medieval period to see religious folly. Go to Ireland to see modern human religious folly.

If the Bible was written in specific historical context -it was- then what possible relevance does it have today save -as I have said repeatedly- an historical, anthropological and mythographical tool? It is not FOR us, so why is such a massive percentage of the world's population (including you and Highly) studying it as a guide to daily life?

If the Bible is for people two thousand and three thousand years ago (New and Old, respectively), why study it now at all? It doesn't have your God in it, it doesn't have rules for you in it... Why study it in a religious context at all, then?

it seems to me that sometimes you argue that "religion, per se, is a fundamentally flawed (at best; at worst, corrupt and corrupting) system" and at other times you argue that "well, actually, people who aren't TOO religious, i.e. fundamentalist, are actually okay, because they are remarkably similar to me/atheists".

Pretty much, yes. Religion IS an inherently corrupt thing- actually, I would extend that to all forms of theism, and throw in some other supernatural kookery to boot. At the same time, though, some folk are more actively harmful than others. You and our hostess are not as bad as the Discovery Institute is or Falwell was, for instance.

again i think you are basing your argument on a caricature of christianity/religion, or perhaps a minority view

Maybe/maybe not. Nonetheless, I am not and never have been attempting to apply the argument to everyone, only to those who hold that perspective. If it doesn't apply to you, that's fine. If it doesn't apply to your churches, that's fine. But it certainly applies to large, well-financed evangelical churches in the 'States, it certainly applies to large swathes of EU, it applies to parts of Catholicism. Most Christians I've encountered, the argument applies.

Which may be a problem with my sampling, sure. I tend to encounter the loud Christians, the ones who rail against secularism or hold talks on campus or harass people or whatever. I am sure there are many quiet Christians or liberal Christians who differ. That's nice. I acknowledged that point in both my original response to Our Hostess and every one to you thus far.

my morality may have the same results as that of an atheist [...] however there will be differences in how i approach certain issues because my morality is based in a different world view from yours.

highlyeccentric and Christina were talking about the morality based on the carrot-or-stick. Christina claims that not all religious espouse it and the ones that do don't mean it anyway. I disagree; enough do that it is a problem, and they really do believe it. That it is factually untrue (they could stop believing in God and would still be moral; some do) is not the point: the point is that their belief is reprehensible.

Your morality would differ from mine on certain points. Super. Mine differs from Dawkins and Hitchens (certainly Hitchens!) on several points. Difference is good. Different moralities are good. Having morality based on fear or greed is not good.

even if there are a lot of these whackos in the world, it doesn't justify your (occasional) argument that there is something wrong with religion per se.

Yes it does. But that is, once again, a different argument. I am not, here, trying to argue that religion/theism is bad. Just that this particular facet of it is.

Sure. For a parallel, a medieval blogger thought the best response to the recent violence in Kenya was to help out the white American evangelists in the area rather than sending money to the Red Cross. That is one example of a different response to an issue (presumably also different from yours). It is also a good example of how religious morality is wrong-headed, prioritising a potential afterlife over the real problems of this one.

argh, and here another example of how you leap from 'some cases of reasoning that includes religious morality are wrong' to 'all religious morality is wrong'. you admit that this blogger's response would be different from mine, even though we are both (presumably) using 'religious morality'; but then you conclude, 'religious morality [you give no exceptions here] is wrong-headed ...'

you can argue that what you really meant was 'some religious morality is wrong-headed...', but you do this a lot - make broad generalisations and then back away from them. if you think religion per se is the root of the problem, then argue that! if religion per se is wrong, then you have to have a good argument that applies to people like me, amy, these quiet liberals you refer to, etc.

Nonetheless, this is not the issue under discussion here. highlyeccentric and Christina were talking about the morality based on the carrot-or-stick. Christina claims that not all religious espouse it and the ones that do don't mean it anyway. I disagree; enough do that it is a problem, and they really do believe it. That it is factually untrue (they could stop believing in God and would still be moral; some do) is not the point: the point is that their belief is reprehensible.

this is an interesting question, actually. highly's hero (pete hobson) argues that even people who claim, fervently, to believe in hell, actually don't, because otherwise they would never sleep at night. now there may be a few exceptions. but it's another complex question - what does it mean to really believe in something? if you go around saying you believe it, do you really believe it? who knows?

anyway, whatever. their belief, if they do believe it (and yes it is certainly possible that they do), IS reprehensible. we all agree on that.

Yes it does. But that is, once again, a different argument. I am not, here, trying to argue that religion/theism is bad. Just that this particular facet of it is.

ah, but these arguments always seem to start off with, and occasionally fall back on, the premise that religion/theism is bad. it's easy to argue that this particular facet of it is. you don't have to be the sharpest tool in the shed to see that. i expect more from you :)

Er, I said it was an example, which sort of implies that it wasn't an absolute statement. As it happens, I do think it is wrong-headed, but I was not trying to make a case for that in this instance. It is far too long to bring up in a comment thread; when I make my case for that, it will be on a post of its own right.

I do make broad generalisations and then back away from them! Because in my haste I often type something that is broader than I intend. So when called on it, I always clarify my point. I would have thought that would be a good thing, and always expect it from others.

[T]heir belief, if they do believe it (and yes it is certainly possible that they do), IS reprehensible. we all agree on that.

So, uh, what are you disagreeing with? Was I not clear enough in my initial post that that was what I was saying?

I haven't fallen back on 'all religion' is bad yet; I am trying to make what would be one part of that argument here. That this kind of religious belief is bad. It seems self-evidently bad to you or I, but plenty of folk believe it.

As for Hobson, I always give people the credit that they believe what they say they do. I'll push them on it, but I'll believe their answers as being genuine. It seems to be the only fair thing to do.

If the Bible has been 'breathed by God,' then it is reasonable to use it as a text to see God's morality through it. One does not have to be a fundamentalist to use that argument. What other point does the Bible have, if not that? An historical source for the bronze-age, sure. A collection of mythology, sure. It is used for both of those things. However, if you are trying to use it as the basis for one's religion, then it MUST contain rules for living, or evidence for God's moral code.

The moral code for the God of the Old Testament is distinctly vile according to our modern precepts. If one is attempting to use it as a basis for morality, then one is using a pretty damn awful text as a basis for morality. That is my entire argument. The text is not relevant to the modern age; we have other sources for our morality.

look, again you are being way too simplistic. 'the moral code for the god of the old testament' is complex and often surprising. go and read some (good) biblical criticism...

it's not my problem if you insist that religion must = rules, moral code. i think otherwise, you apparently don't think such a thing possible...

If your God 'breathed' the Bible, he was evil then. He might be better now, that's great. But I see no evidence for it. The modern moral Zeitgeist is not based on anything from that collection of mythology and tribal stories.

sorry, wtf does the 'modern moral zeitgeist' have to do with anything? i'm not interested in obeying the modern moral zeitgeist...?

Your point about Machiavelli/Jesus only assists mine. The Bible is outdated as a collection of moral codes, and should be abandoned. And if one is abandoning the Bible as a measure of morality, what is left of Christianity?

this seems to me a strange argument, although i guess i might make sense to an ultra-modernist like yourself. personally i don't just throw out everything old or outdated. i would question whether the bible is a 'collection of moral codes' (and whether christianity is nothing more than the use of the bible as a measure of morality! it is more like a relationship with god, mediated through the church, my friend)

yes i think here the fundamental difference between you and i is that you seem to think that once things have been superseded, they are useless. i can see that from a scientific, modernist perspective that's logical, though, so i don't know how to convince you otherwise. although i would've thought that as a medievalist you would appreciate that some things are useful for different reasons - we can still learn from the past, even though stuff has happened since then/we are smarter (if that's what you believe).

as for the bible, obviously i have to take into account that it was written in a different context when i listen for what it means for me today.

The moral code of the Old Testament seems limited to "God kills bad guys and fucks over good guys." The book of Job, for instance, is a long spiel about how God is really damn mighty and you had better bow.

I fail to see the complexity; even granted there IS complexity, does that make it even remotely palatable?

Your definition of religion seems to differ from the discussions I have read on the subject, if you do not think it includes moral codes.

i'm not interested in obeying the modern moral zeitgeist...

But you do obey it. If anything, you are on the forward-moving fringe of it; pro-feminism, pro-choice, pro-freedom of thought, Green-voting, etc.

i don't just throw out everything old or outdated.

I didn't advocate that: just throwing out outdated morality. Morality that oppresses sexuality, that condemns homosexuality, that despises intellectualism. These are outdated and should be discarded.

The only parts of the Biblical morality not outdated are the universal parts- things that other holy texts speak of, things that are (probably) hard-wired into humanity. Compassion for others, not lying, stealing, etcetera.

Discard the rest, and what is the purpose of the Bible except as an historical, mythographical and anthropological tool?

[Christianity] is more like a relationship with god, mediated through the church, my friend.

And God is defined as He is depicted in the Bible, but if you are not using the Bible to define God (because the Biblical god is malevolent), then how do you define God? If you make him up, if you draw from other sources, then this is not really Christianity.

It still effectively is, of course, because of the central position of Christ. But it would be so different from the current image of the religion that it might as well be something else entirely.

Christianity -as currently extant- relies heavily on the Bible. Why, given that the moral picture of God contained within is at such odds with the picture contained in your heart and words?

you seem to think that once things have been superseded, they are useless.

Not necessarily. Certain things are useless- the old 'science' of astrology is useless for predicting the future, for instance. But astrology is valuable to understand for appreciating the medieval (or Assyrian or whatever) mindset. So it is useless for what it was once used for, but is it useless in a total sense? No.

So for these reasons, studying the Bible is terribly useful. It helps us understand bronze-age Judea. It helps us understand the late Empire, the entire medieval period and a great deal of modern literature. It helps us understand the development of ethics and morality, even. But as a guidebook on how to live? Utterly useless. A summary, picking out the good and useful bits, that could be handy. Ethics courses still often include parts of the Bible for such reasons.

i <3 you.

Oh,

ulfruna, you are the best.

Perhaps I should note that I *don't* think I make moral decisions as independant of the bible; nor does that seem to me to be what Greta's arguing. Her argument, as far as I can see, is that the morality of the Christians she knows is based upon principles of love, fairness, compassion, etc, and that the fact that they feel they get it from God (which for most Christians DOES include the bible, which she doesn't even mention here) unfortunately doesn't mean the morality is any less moral.

Bron's right. You operate on a binary system, whereby one is either a biblical literalist, or one cannot use the bible at all.

You don't think you do, but I wager a lot of money that you do. Your morality is compatible with parts of the Bible, but you ignore large swathes of it that you consider immoral. You consider these parts -perhaps?- to be the additions/corruptions of the flawed humans who wrote it, but you nonetheless ignore them.

Ergo, it seems obvious that you are not using the Bible to determine your morality. If you were, you would have no way of determining which bits were moral and which immoral.

You don't think you do, but I wager a lot of money that you do.

well that's nice, but granted that i THINK i do, this is a pointless argument.

Think what you like. It is not consistent with reality.

i don't give a FLYING FUCK what you think is reality, how do you expect bron or I to explain something to you when YOU WILL NOT ALLOW the basis of our argument?

call us insane and leave it at that, ok?

You have not shown me an argument yet. I claim that you do not derive your morality from the Bible. I claim that you rather already have morality and pick the parts of the Bible which are congruent with said pre-existing beliefs when looking to the Bible for moral instruction.

Your counter seems to be limited to 'nuh-uh.' I am not sure what I am disallowing from you here. I AM disallowing your assumption that what you are doing is derived from the Bible, yes. Of course I am. Because that is the entire point of the discussion; to determine if your belief on that front is accurate or not.

I am NOT trying to argue that your morality may or may not derive from God. You can be a moral person because of your God, or your belief in God, or whatever you like. That is not my problem here. My problem is that reading the Bible does not tell you what the God who has granted you said morality is like. Your (god-created?) internal morality tells you that independant of the Bible.

no, you will not allow it. i've TRIED explaining this to you before, at other times, and you simply declare that we're applying external morality.

you won't GET an explanation if you persist in shooting it down. all you can get an explanation of is what we THINK that we're doing, and you're not fucking interested in that.

I'm not interested in an explanation of what you think you are doing. I am interested in an explanation of what you ARE doing. Every time you try to explain what you are doing, it seems identical in function -if not form- with simply picking and choosing. Until you can state clearly and eloquently how it is different, I am forced to conclude that you are wrong.

Perhaps your chaplain could explain it better.

Nonetheless, the point of rational argument is to sit down and analyse what one is doing. What do you really have to lose from realising that your morality is not Biblical? Surely it is freeing, if nothing else; no more guilt about skipping Bible study! *grins*

1. And I do persist in the, ah, delusion that i do have some religious foundation in my moral system. I'm allowed to be deluded, so ner.

hehe :)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Next on the list of People Who Earn Points

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Part One

Re: Part One

no subject

Part Two

Re: Part Two

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject