On the various moral problems in the Bible

Quoting The scientific philosopher

*credit to madmikesamerica for the info.

A reading of the Bible yourself will reveal even more appalling stuff, and some very pleasing passages as well.

There are various threads running through the OT: there are the prophetic threads, the holiness threads, the historical threads, the liturgical threads, and so on. Warfare in Biblical times and places was brutal, and sometimes the intent was genocidal: kill the women, children, and men, making sure that nobody survives. The holiness threads include some fairly brutal guidance for people who behave contrary to the local norms.

So, as has been noted elsewhere, the Bible is basically adult reading material, and one has to parse out the brutal from the pacifistic passages, like Isaiah 52:7,

How lovely on the mountains Are the feet of him who brings good news, Who announces peace And brings good news of happiness, Who announces salvation, And says to Zion, "Your God reigns!"

We will pass over in silence the fact that sometimes "feet" were a euphemism for "penis". For instance, in one passage, there is reference to someone "covering their feet" and another someone shaved their feet. Probably not their feet, more likely their dick. Or, in a passage someone touches his father's thigh and swears loyalty. I bet it wasn't his "thigh" that he swore on.

But never mind that.

One has to remember that ancient Israel was founded in the middle of a cross roads between various competing power blocks, and had to defend itself, and even then didn't succeed a good share of the time.

It is possible to pull several quite different narratives out of the Bible for one's own use.

Quoting The scientific philosopher

There are many other atrocities in the bible and I urge you to research them.

Is there a point to this? The Bible says to do what we all can agree are bad things, therefore [fill in the blank].

Quoting T Clark

Is there a point to this?

Are you serious? The guiding book of one of the world's most popular religions is filled with misogyny, homophobia, genocide, and racism and your response is basically, so what?

As a non-Christian who's only skimmed parts of the Bible, I'm wondering if there's a fundamental distinction to be made between the Old and New Testaments when it comes to these sorts of issues? To my knowledge the more troubling things in the Bible--at least from our current perspective--are only found in the OT, while the NT seems much more aligned with modern values.

I'm largely ignorant as to how the reconciliation between the two takes place, other than being vaguely aware of explanations which point to the radically different historical contexts in which they occur.

I will say, however, that it seems as though many secular and progressive-minded people--who are often hostile to religion in an unqualified way--often mock and ridicule Christians and Christianity without realizing how deeply it's influenced their own values and beliefs. The religion has clearly been appropriated by racists, imperialists, and other reactionaries to justify heinous things, but it's also inspired many an anti-slavery abolitionist, anti-war pacifist, etc. through the years when these positions may not have been as popular or respectable as they are now.

Things like compassion for the less fortunate, the equality of all souls before God, and the inherent value and dignity of all human life seem to have their origin in the NT, right? The Enlightenment (and it's later development into socialism) are even understood by some, like Hegel and Nietzsche, as the secularization of these Biblical ideals.

And it's precisely this lingering moral influence that motivated Nietzsche's critique of Christianity! Or, more properly perhaps, his critique of the specific values which it was the first to articulate (compassion, equality, etc.) at the expense of a more "natural" and honest appraisal of the necessary conditions for an affirming life.

I've found it a bit odd that some of the most militantly non-religious, anti-Christian people frame their critique of it (more charitably, it's historical distortions, which they generally make no effort to distinguish from more genuine expressions) in terms of the very values that arose through the religion they're so strongly criticizing. Seems a little unfair. Apologies for the digression.

Quoting Erik

Things like compassion for the less fortunate, the equality of all souls before God, and the inherent value and dignity of all human life seem to have their origin in the NT, right?

No.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6236/796
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201105/how-hunter-gatherers-maintained-their-egalitarian-ways
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22071-inequality-why-egalitarian-societies-died-out/
https://www.zmescience.com/science/anthropology/early-human-societies-sexual-egalitarian-90534534/

I could go on.
There's absolutely no evidence that any of the values Christianity claims were instilled by Christianity. Every single one can be seen directly in pre-Christian societies and can be seen having been eroded in heavily Christianised societies, it's absolute nonsense to say that Christianity has anything to do with these values.

We only have one history so we cannot possibly use that fact that things turned out as they did to justify a belief that they can only have been the result of influences around at the time. Unless we can re-run history without those influences it is nothing but idle speculation.

Reply to Pseudonym What I imagine was meant is, in the context of christianity.

I'll take a look at each of these links and maybe respond in more depth later, but I did read some of the blog post and found it interesting. I don't think that positing hunter-gatherer tribes as largely peaceful and egalitarian necessarily precludes also acknowledging the significance of Christianity in disseminating similar positions within much larger and more stratified societies. Maintaining the equality of all members within a tribe of 20-50 people seems quite a bit different than acknowledging the equality of all people within all tribes.

I'm also a little suspicious of the idea that hunter-gatherer tribes maintained a deep respect for the individual autonomy of those tribal members. I would assume (perhaps erroneously) that the mere notion of individual autonomy could only arise within a fairly sophisticated moral and intellectual framework. Furthermore, the claim the author makes regarding this commitment to individuality seems vitiated by the his later claim that:

"The writings of anthropologists make it clear that hunter-gatherers were not passively egalitarian; they were actively so. Indeed, in the words of anthropologist Richard Lee, they were fiercely egalitarian.[2] They would not tolerate anyone's boasting, or putting on airs, or trying to lord it over others. Their first line of defense was ridicule. If anyone--especially if some young man--attempted to act better than others or failed to show proper humility in daily life, the rest of the group, especially the elders, would make fun of that person until proper humility was shown."

How does putting intense pressure on each member to conform to the egalitarian values of the tribe square with their ostensible valuing of the autonomy of each individual? I'll read it through again to see if there's a solution to the dilemma, but that seems a bit contradictory. To me, it would appear that individuality would need to be subordinated to the larger goals of the group in order to maintain its collective existence.

But I'm honestly not emotionally-invested in this issue, and if it turns out that I'm wrong then I'll gladly shift my position and give credit where credit is due. Or perhaps other, much more knowledgeable members who may be partial to Christianity (or religion more generally) will pick up the position I briefly outlined and defend it in a way that I'm incapable of.

Reply to Pseudonym Wow, for a moment, I thought this is @charleton >:O

Quoting Erik

I would assume (perhaps erroneously) that the mere notion of individual autonomy could only arise within a fairly sophisticated moral and intellectual framework.

I'm curious as to why you would assume this, perhaps you could expand?

Quoting Erik

How does putting intense pressure on each member to conform to the egalitarian values of the tribe square with their ostensible valuing of the autonomy of each individual?

Pretty much in the same way as any respect for egalitarian values must. We cannot just let murderers murder out of respect for their autonomy, because it interferes with the autonomy of another. Tribes living from hand-to-mouth recognised that if one tribe member got ideas of grandeur that could literally be deadly to the tribe's survival, relying so heavily as it does on co-operation. At least, that's the theory.

Quoting Erik

Maintaining the equality of all members within a tribe of 20-50 people seems quite a bit different than acknowledging the equality of all people within all tribes.

I'm also a little suspicious of the idea that hunter-gatherer tribes maintained a deep respect for the individual autonomy of those tribal members.

I think your problem is based on a lack of basic knowledge. People who study h/g Society would not accept your caricature. In the world c 15kbp the entire world was covered with 1000s of disparate groups of humans. Understanding them has to come from extant h/g societies. What we can learn from these studies is that there is NO possible caricature that fits and the diversity of the strategies covers every conceivable extreme in human culture. If we were to chose the Yanomami tribe of the Amazon, we find possibly the most bellicose, vicious and aggressive way of life, misogynistic and hateful. Contrast that with the Hadza, and the San of Southern Africa and we get the most kind, thoughtful egalitarian and sharing strategies that put any so-called Christian to shame. In particular the !Kung San have no word for thanks you, since sharing, giving and co-operating are the norm. They scorn ostentatious gestures of generosity, have no concept of property except for one or two personal items.
Looking wider you can find gender equal tribes, where women hunt and men look after the children. And the complete opposite where women are nothing more than chattel, like biblical society.

But make no mistake the "Original Affluent Society" , characterised by Marshal Sahlins, that is egalitarian is a fact of human society and still today more than just history.

Quoting Pseudonym

I'm curious as to why you would assume this, perhaps you could expand?

Provisionally, I'd say that when I think of individual autonomy I think of things like the Cartesian ego, an emphasis on the primacy of subjectivity and self-consciousness, a "rich inner life," and social contract theory grounded in atomic individuality, just to name a few. These and related concepts took a very long time to develop in the West.

I imagine most "experts" would agree that the ancient Greeks had reached a fairly high level of social and philosophical complexity during the times of Plato and Aristotle, and yet to my knowledge even they hadn't developed a notion of autonomous individuality comparable to our modern understanding of it.

These and other things seem to be preconditions for making any sense at all of autonomous individuality. But I'll assume the idea as it relates to hunter-gatherer tribes may be used in a much different way than we currently use it. If so, I think that difference should be highlighted in order to avoid confusion.

Quoting Pseudonym

Pretty much in the same way as any respect for egalitarian values must. We cannot just let murderers murder out of respect for their autonomy, because it interferes with the autonomy of another. Tribes living from hand-to-mouth recognised that if one tribe member got ideas of grandeur that could literally be deadly to the tribe's survival, relying so heavily as it does on co-operation. At least, that's the theory.

Well, let's at least acknowledge the massive difference between expressions of individuality which involve murdering other individuals and the much more benign examples offered up by the writer, like "boasting" and "putting on airs."

Quoting charleton

I think your problem is based on a lack of basic knowledge. People who study h/g Society would not accept your caricature.

Isn't the "noble savage" a caricature?

That's the picture painted of the hunter-gatherer in the blog post I read. It's likely that both sides simplify and ignore things that don't fit their model.

But you could be right. I sincerely appreciate being disabused of my ignorance on matters such as these.

Reply to Erik Yes. JJ Rousseau used the idea effectively in a political platform used to critique so-called 'civilised' society. With most caricatures there is much to recommend it factually.

For sure, and I appreciate Rousseau's doing so. It seems like the motif goes much further back than modern times even, with Tacitus (if I recall correctly) favorably juxtaposing the barbarian Germanic tribes with the effeminate and decadent Romans of his time.

Quoting Erik

an emphasis on the primacy of subjectivity and self-consciousness, a "rich inner life" and social contract theory grounded in atomic individuality,

Sorry, I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Perhaps you could provide me with some examples of behaviour which might demonstrate some of the above traits that is common in modern society but absent in hunter-gather society. That might help to clarify things.

Quoting Erik

... the much more benign examples offered up by the writer, like "boasting" and "putting on airs."

I thought I had just explained how, in hunter-gatherer society, these are far from benign, is there something you don't understand, or disagree with.

Quoting Pseudonym

I thought I had just explained how, in hunter-gatherer society, these are far from benign, is there something you don't understand, or disagree with.

Maybe you could offer examples of what forms of "autonomous individuality" were commonly embraced and practiced in those early hunter-gatherer societies. If boasting is seen as a threat to the tribe, I'm honestly at a loss to understand how respect for the freedom of the individual has much meaning. Current prejudice, perhaps.

Quoting Pseudonym

Sorry, I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Perhaps you could provide me with some examples of behaviour which might demonstrate some of the above traits that is common in modern society but absent in hunter-gather society. That might help to clarify things.

Individual rights as enshrined in our political constitutions. Specifically things like freedom of speech and freedom of conscience as developed in liberal democracies; the Reformation idea that each individual stands in a relationship to God alone and does not need a mediating clergy; a language in which concepts like individuality and "self-consciousness" seem to posit an inner/outer split that's probably not as natural or as obvious as it now seems to us and which seems to underlie assumptions about autonomous individuality, etc.

But maybe you can point out the historical precedents underlying hunter-gatherer individuality, though, as evinced in their language and customs. So far, what they understood by autonomous individuality appears to be a far cry from what we understand by it. Will you acknowledge that we may talking about vastly different notions here? And that we may be retroactively projecting certain ideas and values that have meaning for us onto previous groups that they may not have ascribed to or even understood in our sense? Seems an incredibly ahistorical approach.

Quoting Erik

Maybe you could offer examples of what forms of "autonomous individuality" were commonly embraced and practiced in those early hunter-gatherer societies.

Certainly.

1. Hunter gather tribes almost never tell their children what to do, there are no schools, no formal education and children are free to do exactly as they please. From Gosso, "Hunter-gatherers do not give orders to their children; for example, no adult announces bedtime. At night, children remain around adults until they feel tired and fall asleep.… Parakana adults [of Brazil] do not interfere with their children’s lives. They never beat, scold, or behave aggressively with them" Contrast this with the forced education of modern societies.

2. You could look at Shu Nimonjiya's work with the Mlabri of Northern Thailand where she concludes "...personal autonomy is an important social principle among the Mlabri. In fact, they said, “For us, ‘freedom’ is to think alone and do alone”.

3. Robert Moïse concludes after living with the Bayaka "individuals [are] deeply committed to personal autonomy are able to produce an enduring social order based on extensive cooperation and a "dense" sociality. He argues that this is achieved though a decision-making process which approaches each decision by maximising the ability for each participant to do as they please.

I'm not sure how many examples you want, but I'm happy to dig out as many as you're interested in reading.

Quoting Erik

Individual rights as enshrined in our political constitutions. Specifically things like freedom of speech and the freedom of conscience as developed in liberal democracies, the Reformation idea that each individual stands in a relationship to God alone and does not need a mediating clergy, a language in which concepts like individuality and "self-consciousness" seem to posit an inner/outer split that is probably not as "natural" or obvious as it now seems to us, etc.

I'm still not seeing where you're getting your data from. You've said rights are enshrined in our constitutions, but not provided any evidence that they were not similarly enshrined in the unwritten social codes of early hunter gatherers. What evidence do you have that freedom of speech was ever restricted in hunter-gatherer societies, any more than it is today? I've just provided examples of how freedom of conscience is held in very high regard in hunter gatherer societies, I'm not seeing any contrary evidence that any such societies ever disregarded it.

I think possibly, as Charleton earlier suggested, you may simply be coming at this with modern society's prejudices about hunter gatherers, or am I still missing your point?

Reply to Erik But even Tacitus recognised that Rome prevailed. I'd put Tacitus in the camp of bigging-up your opponents to make yourself look good for conquering them.
He also seemed to be genuinely interesting in the way the Germans ran their political system, and historians and anthropologists use him as a source, especially in the interests of proto-democracy.

Fair enough, Pseudonym, but what if their children boasted? Would they be reprimanded like the adults? Are we to assume that children were given perfect freedom to do as they pleased and yet the adults were forced to rigidly conform to group values?

And also, pointing out that hunter-gatherer societies didn't subject their kids to schools or formal education of any sort is really odd, for the obvious reason that these things didn't even exist, and this because there was no need for them given the specific circumstances of the life of the tribe.

Concerning #2, the very idea of "personal" autonomy implies some sense of separateness from others. Again, if this term is being used in a special sense then IMO it should be clarified accordingly. As it is it carries strong connotations of the freedom of individuals to think and act in ways that aren't completely determined by larger social pressures and constraints. It's a matter of degree, though, and I'll gladly concede that absolute freedom and autonomy is a fiction.

I think I should also point out that this debate seems to have larger implications for many people that it doesn't for me. I'm not trying to disparage "primitive" peoples at all; in some ways they may have been much more advanced than us, and I'd like to explore these possibilities. This contrast appears to be way of criticizing "advanced" modern civilization in the very way that Rousseau did during his own time.

If that's so, then I want to make it clear that I'm not an uncritical proponent of the values and assumptions underlying our fast-paced consumerist world by any stretch. I'm actually a romantic of sorts who longs for a more "simplified" and less-alienated way of being than what we typically find in the West these days.

And when I say simplified I don't necessarily mean it in a negative way, and likewise more "developed" does not always equate to being superior in every way; in fact it could run contrary to being "developed" in essential ways: morally, ethically, environmentally, artistically... So I'm partly sympathetic to the position you're proposing here, but also haven't found much of it to be all that convincing so far.

Just wanted to throw that out there to avoid possible misunderstanding.

Reply to Erik

The key thing is that the adults are not reprimanded, they are ridiculed, or ostracised (in extreme cases). Children are treated the same way (except ostracisation, of which I have come across no examples involving children). It is a responsive justice, not a retributionary one, individuals are not forced to conform, they may do as they please, but so may the rest of the tribe, including ridiculing and ostracising.

Not that this is the place for such a discussion, but the key difference is the means of survival. Without land ownership, any individual has the means to their own survival, they can choose, should they so wish, to abandon the tribe and just wander around hunting their own food. Land is not owned, food is not owned. Thus a person is actually 'free' to do as they wish. Membership of a tribe is voluntary in that no member of a tribe actually creates a situation which restricts the ability of any other member to fend for themselves. This is contrasted with modern society where membership of society is not voluntary. The members of a society (through force of arms) create and maintain a situation where it is not possible for a person to abandon the tribe and fend for themselves. All land is owned, hunting is not free. The function of any social coercion to conform is therefore radically different in a society where one actually has a choice, than in one where one does not.

Quoting charleton

But even Tacitus recognised that Rome prevailed. I'd put Tacitus in the camp of bigging-up your opponents to make yourself look good for conquering them.
He also seemed to be genuinely interesting in the way the Germans ran their political system, and historians and anthropologists use him as a source, especially in the interests of proto-democracy.

Good points. I'll have to dust off Tacitus' book and give it another read.

Quoting Pseudonym

Are you serious? The guiding book of one of the world's most popular religions is filled with misogyny, homophobia, genocide, and racism and your response is basically, so what?

Here's what I said:

Quoting T Clark

Is there a point to this? The Bible says to do what we all can agree are bad things, therefore [fill in the blank].

I didn't dispute the litany of terrible things the church was accused of, I asked a question. What is the point of this? What do we do with this information? What conclusion do we draw? Let's try a few:

The Bible says to do what we all can agree are bad things, therefore.....

• no one should believe in the Christian God.
• no one should believe in any God.
• religion should be outlawed.
• Christians should be put in jail.
• people shouldn't give their money to religious institutions.
• the Christian church is evil.
• the clergy should be put in jail.
• we should stop giving tax breaks to religious institutions.

Are those the things you want? If not, what? The way the original post was presented, there seemed to be a point of view. This didn't seem to be presented just for information. There was a point. What was it?

Reply to Pseudonym Are we supposed to believe that all the stories you read in these books are true?

Reply to T Clark

This is a philosophical forum; the implication of your dismissal is that there is no philosophical discussion that results from the immorality of the bible (either that or you were just being belligerent and trying to ruin someone else's legitimate discussion just because you're not interested in it).

So why no similar interjection on the many threads discussing other aspects of the bible? Either we take the bible to be a load of irrelevant nonsense (my preferred choice), or we examine it as a philosophical text. If we're going to do the latter (as it seems we are here), then the first thing we look for is consistency, that's pretty much philosophy's number one tool to interrogate any theory. The fact that the bible/Christians advocate a system which simultaneously preaches both love and genocide then becomes extremely relevant to any philosophical interrogation of its ideas.

We either take the bible as a whole or we pick each idea we like from it and ignore the ones we don't. If we do the latter then the bible need not be mentioned aside from a brief credit as to the origin of the idea, if we do the former then the atrocities it condones need to be accounted for by normal moral standards.

In either case I can't see any situation in which they are irrelevant to philosophical discussion.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Are we supposed to believe that all the stories you read in these books are true?

Have you not heard of Religion? That is pretty much the deal. There are literalists and there are those who think the bible is just metaphor, but you're really clutching at straws to suggest that the several genocides, beatings and abuse are some kind of metaphor, for what exactly?

So, as I said above, either the bible is a philosophical text, in which case it needs to be examined as such (i.e what is meant by the various acts of genocide?), or it is a work of meaningless fiction, in which case the discussion (from a philosophical point of view) would be why so many people in philosophy consider it relevant to refer to it.

In neither case are the points made the the OP irrelevant.

Quoting Pseudonym

Have you not heard of Religion?

I was referencing your response to Erik, and the quotes about hunter-gatherers, not the Bible. I don't totally disbelieve what the authors said about hunter-gatherers, but I am suspicious of anthropologists' observations and conclusions. For one thing, HG groups are small, and whatever it is about them doesn't translate very well to societies with even 10,000 members, let alone 320 million to over a billion members. The other thing is the idea that these groups are the same now as they were 12000 to 15000 years ago, and earlier. Doubtful. Some anthropologists seem to suggest that civilization killed the hunter gatherer star. If so, tough bounce.

As far as the Bible is concerned,

Quoting Pseudonym

Either we take the bible to be a load of irrelevant nonsense (my preferred choice), or we examine it as a philosophical text.

The Bible is neither a load of irrelevant nonsense nor is it a philosophical text. There may be "irrelevant nonsense" in the Bible, and there is some philosophical material. But the Bible is mostly a multi-purpose text that was accumulated, revised, and edited to suit various purposes at various times.

In other words, its a problematic book, OT and NT both.

Quoting Pseudonym

We either take the bible as a whole or we pick each idea we like from it and ignore the ones we don't. If we do the latter then the bible need not be mentioned aside from a brief credit as to the origin of the idea, if we do the former then the atrocities it condones need to be accounted for by normal moral standards.

I recommend that you keep the ideas I like, and skip the rest.

Certainly the behaviors described in the OT, especially during the conquest of the "promised land" by the Hebrews was brutal, which conquest generally was, in those days--and more recently, too. Yes, the approach was genocidal in intent, even if it wasn't genocidal in fact. And certainly, we shouldn't take the behavior of Israel in it's formative years (all BCE) as exceptional. Warfare and conquest was brutal pretty much across the board. I don't like it, but that's the way it was. Of course, we civilized moderns NEVER do anything wantonly brutal, ghastly, genocidal, cruel, murderous, etc. as we carry out 20th/21st century policy.

Humans are a bad lot, I tell you.

Quoting Pseudonym

This is a philosophical forum; the implication of your dismissal is that there is no philosophical discussion that results from the immorality of the bible (either that or you were just being belligerent and trying to ruin someone else's legitimate discussion just because you're not interested in it).

As I've asked in two posts so far, what point is the scientific philosopher trying to make? What are the implications of the terrible things he says the church has done? Why can't he, or you, answer my question. And if you don't want to, fine, but don't pretend I'm being belligerent. Have you noticed that he has not commented since his original post? Here's what the Site Guidelines say about people who start threads:

Don't start a new discussion unless you are genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you.

Quoting Pseudonym

So why no similar interjection on the many threads discussing other aspects of the bible? Either we take the bible to be a load of irrelevant nonsense (my preferred choice), or we examine it as a philosophical text.

So, you've gone back and checked my posts since I joined in April? I comment on religious topics sometime, but it's not my main topic of interest. I generally take the side opposite those who are being rigid and ideological. It's funny - sometimes it's the pro-religion side and sometimes the anti-religion side. How was TSG's OP philosophical.

Quoting Pseudonym

In either case I can't see any situation in which they are irrelevant to philosophical discussion.

I agree, but TSP's OP was not a philosophical discussion. It was a statement of what he sees as the facts with no discussion of what the significance of those facts are.

Quoting Pseudonym

So, as I said above, either the bible is a philosophical text, in which case it needs to be examined as such (i.e what is meant by the various acts of genocide?), or it is a work of meaningless fiction, in which case the discussion (from a philosophical point of view) would be why so many people in philosophy consider it relevant to refer to it.

Third option - As many Christians believe, it is the revealed word of God. The fact that you don't even mention that says a lot about where you are coming from.

Quoting Bitter Crank

I was referencing your response to Erik, and the quotes about hunter-gatherers, not the Bible.

My apologies, I misunderstood. In that case the answer to your question is, yes, absolutely we should be prepared to believe what these books say, not uncritically, but we're not going to make any progress in understanding the human condition if we just dismiss any evidence we don't like the sound of on the grounds that it 'might' not be true.

If you want to make an argument that the morality of hunter-gatherers does not work with larger numbers, I'd be completely in agreement with you, but that's not what Erik was arguing.

His assertion, initially, was that Christianity was responsible for teaching us things like equality and compassion for the less fortunate. The investigations of anthropologists have clearly shown this assertion to be false.

With regards to the Bible, I agree it has been used to serve many different purposes, but that doesn't prevent a rational investigation as to whether any of them are useful, accurate, philosophically sound or morally good.

Quoting Pseudonym

His assertion, initially, was that Christianity was responsible for teaching us things like equality and compassion for the less fortunate. The investigations of anthropologists have clearly shown this assertion to be false.

Anthropologists have shown that Christianity doesn't teach compassion for the less fortunate? Anthropologists have shown that Christian teachings have nothing to with our conceptions of personal worth and equality? News to me.

Are you suggesting that hunter-gatherers taught us these things? How did they do that, considering their isolation for most societies around the world?

Quoting T Clark

As I've asked in two posts so far, what point is the scientific philosopher trying to make? What are the implications of the terrible things he says the church has done? Why can't he, or you, answer my question.

I have answered your question. I wrote "If we're going to do the latter (as it seems we are here), then the first thing we look for is consistency, that's pretty much philosophy's number one tool to interrogate any theory. The fact that the bible/Christians advocate a system which simultaneously preaches both love and genocide then becomes extremely relevant to any philosophical interrogation of its ideas." That is the point. The Bible is inconsistent, ironing out inconsistency is a purpose of philosophy, this is a philosophical forum.

Quoting T Clark

So, you've gone back and checked my posts since I joined in April?

No, the comment I made was generic, aimed at the site in general, not you personally. It was intended to illustrate my point that the Bible is taken as a philosophical text and so deserves to be interrogated as one. One task in that interrogation is to explain it's inconsistencies.

With regards to the suggestion that your comment was directly aimed at the fact that the OP had not specified what his point was, rather than an assertion that there could be no point (which is how I read it), then I can only apologise profusely for missing the point. You are entirely correct hat the OP's failure to specify what exactly he wanted to discuss is remiss, as is his failure to engage further. None of this changes the fact that an interesting discussion can nonetheless be had on this topic.

Reply to Bitter Crank

Christianity cannot be responsible for teaching us something we already knew. If I tell you now that 1+1=2 am I rightly to be described as having taught you arithmetic?

The evidence from anthropologists indicates that we already knew these virtues, Christianity may have extolled them, but it didn't teach them.

Quoting T Clark

Third option - As many Christians believe, it is the revealed word of God. The fact that you don't even mention that says a lot about where you are coming from.

That Christians might believe this is irrelevant philosophically and this is a philosophy forum. On a forum about politics, or theology, that option might be relevant, but I don't see how if figures here. I am intrigued though as to what it would have 'said' about where I'm coming from.

Quoting Pseudonym

I have answered your question. I wrote "If we're going to do the latter (as it seems we are here), then the first thing we look for is consistency, that's pretty much philosophy's number one tool to interrogate any theory. The fact that the bible/Christians advocate a system which simultaneously preaches both love and genocide then becomes extremely relevant to any philosophical interrogation of its ideas." That is the point. The Bible is inconsistent, ironing out inconsistency is a purpose of philosophy, this is a philosophical forum.

I think that answers my question. Your intent is to discredit Christianity. The specific question I asked was what the consequences or implications of TSP's OP statements are. It appears that your answer to that question is that since the Bible says to do what we all can agree are bad things, therefore, Christianity is not a valid way to understand the world. Is that correct?

Quoting Pseudonym

With regards to the suggestion that your comment was directly aimed at the fact that the OP had not specified what his point was, rather than an assertion that there could be no point (which is how I read it), then I can only apologise profusely for missing the point. You are entirely correct hat the OP's failure to specify what exactly he wanted to discuss is remiss, as is his failure to engage further. None of this changes the fact that an interesting discussion can nonetheless be had on this topic.

I think we are on the same page.

Quoting Pseudonym

That Christians might believe this is irrelevant philosophically and this is a philosophy forum. On a forum about politics, or theology, that option might be relevant, but I don't see how if figures here. I am intrigued though as to what it would have 'said' about where I'm coming from.

The Bible is not philosophy. It's not fiction. It's not a cookbook. There is no way it can be legitimately discussed without including the fact it is the primary document founding and guiding the Christian religion. The fact you don't recognize or aren't willing to acknowledge that undermines the credibility of your argument and, in my opinion, shows you aren't willing to address the issues we're discussing directly with an open mind.

Quoting T Clark

Your intent is to discredit Christianity.

I've tentatively concluded that Christianity has discredited itself by having such massive inconsistencies in it's guiding book. I'm not sure it's fair to conclude that must therefore be what I set out to do. If everyone had their conclusions seen as prejudiced simply because they are negative we would be quite restricted in our judgments would we not?

Quoting T Clark

There is no way it can be legitimately discussed without including the fact it is the primary document founding and guiding the Christian religion. The fact you don't recognize or aren't willing to acknowledge that undermines the credibility of your argument and, in my opinion, shows you aren't willing to address the issues we're discussing directly with an open mind.

I'm not sure I understand what any of this means. What would it mean to include "the fact it is the primary document founding and guiding the Christian religion."?

A good portion of the discussions on this site are either about, or mention, some religion. If someone claims, as they did in this thread, that Christianity is or has done some thing or other, I think it's reasonable to counter that argument, otherwise we are held mute on any topic involving religion, which hardly seems fair.

So, if we, as non-religious people are to counter an argument from religion, how may we do so objectively? We cannot simply defer to whatever the proponent [I]says[/I] their religion is. That would deny us any right to present our own subjective view of the world. So if someone brings religion into an argument that involves people who are not religious, it is unfair to expect that we only examine their claims on their terms.

As far as I believe, the bible is just a book, and it's one that influences a lot of people. As a person with a vested interest in the state of the world, I think I have as much right as anyone else to raise my concerns about the content of such a book. I would do so with any influential book that I felt might contain a harmful message, I don't see why a religious book should be any exception.

Quoting T Clark

no one should believe in the Christian God.
no one should believe in any God.
religion should be outlawed.
Christians should be put in jail.
people shouldn't give their money to religious institutions.
the Christian church is evil.
the clergy should be put in jail.
we should stop giving tax breaks to religious institutions.

These are all good ideas, but not very practical as they stand.

Quoting Pseudonym

Your intent is to discredit Christianity.
— T Clark

It makes a good job of that itself. It needs very little help.

https://www.facebook.com/anonews.co/videos/1881403061871244/

Reply to Pseudonym I once knew that 1+1=2, but I forgot. Therefore you have taught me a fact in arithmetic. Similarly, people have learned things at various times, and then forgotten them. Or a few people learned them, but not everybody. Some ancient Greeks learned a thing or two about democratic government, but what they knew didn't get passed around and remembered by everybody -- like the Romans, for example, or later Greeks.

Similarly, what our hunting and gathering forebears knew didn't get passed down along with their genes.

Quoting Pseudonym

I've tentatively concluded that Christianity has discredited itself by having such massive inconsistencies in it's guiding book. I'm not sure it's fair to conclude that must therefore be what I set out to do. If everyone had their conclusions seen as prejudiced simply because they are negative we would be quite restricted in our judgments would we not?

I have no problem with saying negative things about religion in general, Christianity, or the Bible. As you've said, a lot of the threads on this forum deal with that sort of issue. I also don't have any problems describing and discussing Christianity's failures, inconsistencies, and genocides. We had that discussion in a recent thread and I participated. As for what you set out to do, keep in mind that my first post, which lead to this chain, was back in the very beginning of the thread. A lot has been said since then.

Quoting Pseudonym

So, if we, as non-religious people are to counter an argument from religion, how may we do so objectively? We cannot simply defer to whatever the proponent says their religion is. That would deny us any right to present our own subjective view of the world. So if someone brings religion into an argument that involves people who are not religious, it is unfair to expect that we only examine their claims on their terms.

You made the following statement in a previous post:

Quoting Pseudonym

So, as I said above, either the bible is a philosophical text, in which case it needs to be examined as such (i.e what is meant by the various acts of genocide?), or it is a work of meaningless fiction, in which case the discussion (from a philosophical point of view) would be why so many people in philosophy consider it relevant to refer to it.

No, the Bible isn't either a philosophical text or a work of meaningless fiction. It is also the founding document of the Christian faith and is considered the word of God by some. Just because you don't agree with that, doesn't mean it can reasonably be left out of the discussion.

.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Similarly, what our hunting and gathering forebears knew didn't get passed down along with their genes.

Firstly, I think it's a little disingenuous to call my restatement that 1+1=2 teaching, maybe I've lead a sheltered life and am unaware of the nuances of meaning, but most of the people I speak to would call that a reminder, not teaching.

More importantly though, that's not the claim that was made. The claim was that Christianity taught us compassion. Christianity didn't teach compassion, Christianity taught that we should be compassionate in some cases, but where God wills it we may freely slaughter all men, women and children of our enemies. Furthermore, even (for some reason) just taking one aspect of Christianity and ignoring the rest, it certainly didn't teach us anything it didn't speak to everyone. At the very most some people who formed part of the works which collectively we call Christian texts reminded some people about compassion 2000 years ago, the rest of the world either knew it already or picked it up via the many other philosophies advocating compassion. A far cry from the claim that was made, in context.

Quoting T Clark

Just because you don't agree with that, doesn't mean it can reasonably be left out of the discussion.

You still haven't answered my question regarding this. What exactly does allowing that some people think it's the word of God look like? Apart from the fact that I didn't specifically mention that option in my list (which I considered to be included in 'philosophical texts'), what else have I not done to take account of this?

Quoting Pseudonym

You still haven't answered my question regarding this. What exactly does allowing that some people think it's the word of God look like? Apart from the fact that I didn't specifically mention that option in my list (which I considered to be included in 'philosophical texts'), what else have I not done to take account of this?

You've just addressed my comment. You put religion in with philosophy. To me, that doesn't make sense and I don't think it would to many philosophers and religionists. On the other hand, I'm satisfied with where we are.

Reply to Pseudonym Of course Christianity did not invent compassion. Compassion is a most worthy thing, honored all over the world since time immemorial, more in the breach than in the observance. So every reminder helps.

Quoting Bitter Crank

We will pass over in silence the fact that sometimes "feet" were a euphemism for "penis"

That's cos they were feet long in those days. >:O

Quoting Bitter Crank

Compassion is a most worthy thing, honored all over the world since time immemorial, more in the breach than in the observance.

Agreed, which means that Christianity isn't necessary as there are so many other sources of compassion.

Quoting Bitter Crank

So every reminder helps.

No, not when there are so many reminders which don't also justify genocide, misogyny, murder, homophobia, racism and child abuse. Why not just teach people to be compassionate without all the associated obedience to God? Lets leave the, at best, ambiguous types of reminder, ones in the first century where they belong.

Reply to Pseudonym Quoting Pseudonym

obedience to God?

God is actually quite useful. ALL children develop morals through the gentle fear of punishment that parents the world over, and throughout the ages, have instilled. Children fear the loss of love, and the learn to behave well to keep the love vibes happening to them (to quote the Beach Boys). God takes the place of the parents in the religions that have a sky-god father figure who sees all, hears all, knows all, and says very little.

People who worry about the sky god behave because this god knows all their secrets, their comings, goings, and various wicked acts if they had performed any.

The good behavior of believers is a small price for non-believers to pay.

Reply to Bitter Crank

All very interesting pop-psychology, but I'd be interested to see any actual evidence you have for any of those assertions. I'm happy to list the titles of the several psychology textbooks I have here in the office, all of which pretty clearly state that modifying behaviour using fear of retribution is damaging to children and leading by example is a much more effective way to teach, but as I say, I'd be really interested to hear where you've got your data from.

Reply to Pseudonym Intermittent positive reinforcement is the most effective method to encourage learning.

Bear in mind that when "discipling the child" we are not talking about beatings or harsh punishments.

Quoting Pseudonym

using fear of retribution is damaging to children

You were saying about pop psychology???

The child's brain is wired to make a connection between the limbic system, where fear is felt, and the pre-frontal cortex where we make decisions about right and wrong. "Fear" doesn't require harsh discipline, but enough punishment (which may be nothing more than disapproving expressions and gestures, or being sat in the corner for 5 minutes) for the child to feel that he has something to lose by behaving badly.

Haven't we been through all this several times already?

I would think (e.g.) that loving your enemy, even as s/he is in the process of torturing and killing you, is quite likely a significant point of departure from anything that predated Christianity. This strange sentiment seems completely unnatural.

I'd also imagine that advocating universal equality and compassion - beyond the narrow confines of the tribe, race, or nation - is something uniquely Christian. Well, perhaps Buddhism shares this advocacy of universal compassion, at least in theory if not always in practice. It clearly hasn't been practiced much by Christians throughout history.

Furthermore, inverting the relative value of human "types" within a particular community away from privileging the warrior, the ruler, the wealthy, etc. (i.e., those with power and influence) in favor of the meek, the humble, the marginalized and oppressed may be yet another contribution specific to Christianity.

One can even point these things out while acknowledging that the religion, especially in its later metaphysical garb (belief in an eternal soul, its otherworldliness, etc.), is likely total BS. This was Nietzsche's take, and he was a hardened atheist who had a deep understanding of the religion and the role it's played in the trajectory of Western civilization as a whole. I find his notion that Christianity supplanted the aristocratic and militaristic values of the Greco-Roman world of antiquity to be compelling. It clearly wasn't competing with the hunter-gatherer alternative.

But I'd also concede that if it can be proven that the "natural" state of human beings is one of universal compassion and cooperation which was somehow perverted through the advent of highly specialized and stratified societies, then that would clearly challenge this interpretation of Christianity as having a uniquely ameliorating impact (in a negative way for Nietzsche) upon the state of nature for man in which life, if not necessarily a war of all against all, is not quite as rosy as the picture of it portrayed by Rousseau et al.

And yeah, I may have only intimated it (if I did even that) earlier, but if all memory of those earlier hunter-gatherer tribes had been forgotten, which surely they were at the time when Christianity made its entrance on the world stage, then the latter's contribution to shaping the values of Western society and institutions can be plausibly maintained, even if we acquiesce to the thesis that its guiding values weren't entirely original. In other words it wouldn't need to be an either/or scenario.

But I still need to read through all the links provided by Pseudonym. I found the first one interesting and appreciate the alternate perspective. And this viewpoint does have serious implications in many ways if it's true. It would seem to support a secular humanist ethics as opposed to one grounded in some sense of transcendence, and this in turn could be traced to our early ancestors who were subsequently corrupted rather than "improved" by civilization.

I'm obviously an outsider in this conversation with limited knowledge about either the Bible or the main currents of anthropology.

Quoting Bitter Crank

The child's brain is wired to make a connection between the limbic system, where fear is felt, and the pre-frontal cortex where we make decisions about right and wrong. "Fear" doesn't require harsh discipline, but enough punishment (which may be nothing more than disapproving expressions and gestures, or being sat in the corner for 5 minutes) for the child to feel that he has something to lose by behaving badly.

Here's a lay introduction https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/feeling-our-way/201401/punishment-doesnt-work

Here's some of the more in depth work http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0305724840130202

So no, we have not 'been through this already' because you have not cited any evidence to support your argument, you've just stated things you 'reckon' are the case and then responded with an air of exasperation when I don't just agree with you.

Quoting Erik

I'd also imagine that advocating universal compassion - beyond the narrow confines of the tribe, race, or nation - is something uniquely Christian.

Christianity does not advocate universal compassion some of the writers in some of the texts which together form Christian scripture advocate universal compassion, others advocate the mass slaughter of every man, woman and child who opposes God's will.

The whole point of this is not to say that there are no positive messages in the Bible, that would be ridiculous, but that the very fact that the messages in the Bible are mixed at best is a problem in its own right. It's the reason why people have been able to justify all kinds of atrocities in the name of religion, because if you look hard enough, the justification is right there in the texts.

We have only one history, it is retrospective determinism to say that because Christianity preached compassion (along with it's justifications for holy wars, inquisitions, witch hunts and child abuse) we could not have arrived at the same point some other way had Christianity not done so.

Furthermore, modern research is finding that deaths from violent conflict simply correlate inversely with population size.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/694568

so there is mounting evidence that the increasingly peaceful conditions society enjoyed as the post agricultural civilisations progressed was simply a result of population size and had absolutely nothing to do with religion of any sort.

Would you make anything of the notion that the ancients by and large practiced a form of esotericism?
The parables of Jesus no less than Plato's dialogues being open to various interpretations, and purposely so.

I know that's not entirely relevant to the topic at hand, and an ostensibly kind and loving God would not practice deception or promote elitism. At least not according to our modern values, which despite my ignorance of specifics I'm arguing have been influenced by Christianity.

Ah forget I asked the question, I'm going to begin a topic soon addressing the very issue.

Quoting Pseudonym

We have only one history, it is retrospective determinism to say that because Christianity preached compassion (along with it's justifications for holy wars, inquisitions, witch hunts and child abuse) we could not have arrived at the same point some other way had Christianity not done so.

I wouldn't (and didn't to the best of my knowledge) say it couldn't have happened any other way, which would imply some sort of religious mysticism or dogmatism which I don't adhere to, but only that it did happen that way. That's clearly a disputable point, but nowhere near that much stronger first claim. If I somehow implied such a thing without expressly stating it, then you could maybe bring the quotes to my attention. I may be mistaken.

As for the rest, there's not much I disagree with. I think a lot rests, as you rightly surmise, on what sort of world predated Christianity or what continues to exist outside of its influence. This is admittedly one of those rare debates that I have zero interest in "winning" - I'm much more concerned with gaining some useful and important knowledge.

Quoting Bitter Crank

People who worry about the sky god behave because this god knows all their secrets, their comings, goings, and various wicked acts if they had performed any.

Aren't you thinking of Santa Claus?

Reply to T Clark No. Santa Claus is definitely not omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent.

Santa Claus only knows whether you are sleeping or awake, and whether you have bad or good; he can't tell whether the news if true or fake. His standards of naughty or nice are strictly bourgeois. He creates the impression of omnipresence by being in many places at the same time during one 24 hour period a year, but needs the magical assistance of 8 tiny reindeer who dilate time. His Red Obesity requires 364 days to recharge and he forces Chinese slaves to produce megatons of brightly colored plastic junk. So he can't be counted as omnipotent. He does seem to be fire-resistant, a necessary hold-over from the times when houses used open hearth heating systems, and seems to be coated with Dupont Teflon™, since soot and reindeer shit doesn't seem to stick to him.

So, he is a decidedly lesser and localized sky god. He had a tawdry affair with Mary Poppins and abused Peter Pan and Tiny Tim. He and Joseph Stalin jointly fathered Donald Trump during a drunken KGB orgy in Moscow--hence the Russian connection. Unfortunately for Donald, he didn't get any of the good genes.

Any other questions?

Quoting Bitter Crank

Any other questions?

How did they "jointly" father Donald Trump? This sounds like more of that Lysenkoism to me.

Reply to T Clark Stinko Lysenko.

Quoting T Clark

How did they "jointly" father Donald Trump?

How the hell would I know. I wasn't privy to the details, being only 4 months into my own pre-natal career. I just report the fake news. Somebody else will have to provide background. How did Mary remain virginal after giving birth to Jesus and his three brother James, Jude and Simon?

[Delete] @Baden