5 ms·

There is a theory that much of what we think are universal human values such as morality or justice or democracy comes from the book. Indeed many would support

by chippy 6y ago

There is a theory that much of what we think are universal human values such as morality or justice or democracy comes from the book. Indeed many would support the idea that all utopian movements such as the The French Revolution or Communism have their philosophical roots in the book and Christianity. Humanism and the notion of Progress, could be based on the Christian idea that we are morally autonomous beings and completely different from other animals and that the idea that progress is towards something better is fundamentally Christian. Ironically, much of modern atheism has assumptions about human beings which base themselves on Christian philosophy. Many would say that you do take advice from such a book even if you don't know that's where the advice you value originates.

jacquesm 6y ago
I beg to differ. I don't believe in God and see him as a man made concept, but I do believe it is possible to have ethics and morality outside of religion. Proof of this is that there are many cultures, historical and present day that do not share this book or any other and that do possess ethics and morality, besides the obvious counter example of atheists.
- memling 6y ago
  > I beg to differ. I think the point was not that ethics and morality are impossible without religion, at least not exactly. I think the questions were a little different, e.g., where did the ideas come from?
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    If the question is did morality and ethics come from religion or preceded it then I would bet on morality and ethics coming first and religion growing out of those a precursor to a legal system. Note that a lot of religious morality and ethics is framed as 'law'.
    - memling 6y ago
      > If the question is did morality and ethics come from religion or preceded it then I would bet on morality and ethics coming first and religion growing out of those a precursor to a legal system. Note that a lot of religious morality and ethics is framed as 'law'. I guess there's also something about this connection that's bugging me, and I don't know exactly what; sorry for the response that's indulging my questions and maybe paying less attention to your statements. I'm trying to edit, but I have to go to dinner. If ethics and morality predate religion, it's hard to understand precisely why religion exists, at least if religion were reducible to its practice. (I don't take you to mean this, FWIW.) Functionally, I suppose one might argue that religion is about justification--justifying the ability to execute judgment, for example, by infusing one's authority with divine imprimatur. This doesn't really sit well with me despite straightforward examples, because it doesn't explain why anyone would go along with this. Religion requires some kind of belief, and why would people buy into it? One needn't have religion to solidify political power, although that is the basic pattern prior to the 20th century. If it's mostly about power, how does one explain Christianity before Constantine? (It's an example I'm familiar with, but I don't know that it's unique.) At the same time, religion is not all law, either. Law is about proscription (thou shalt not) and prescription (when thou doest, here's your punishment), an eye for an eye (not an arm and an eye for an eye). On the other hand, when someone says "Do good to those who hate you and bless those who curse you," that is ... not the same. It's not even entirely clear on the face of it that this is a good idea? Why is it better to do this?
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        Well, let's take those stone tablets that Mozes brought down from the mountain. What do you think are the chances they would have made it as far as they did if he said: "look guys, here is some stuff I chiseled into a bunch of tablets while I was up on the mountain" vs "this is the word of god"? It's an appeal to authority if there ever was one and by placing the authority in a spot where it can not be directly queried for verification it can literally develop a life of its own, like any good meme on social media today. Check out how eager people are to follow and propagate anonymous stuff that happens to coincide with their worldview.

by chippy 6y ago

jacquesm 6y ago

I beg to differ. I don't believe in God and see him as a man made concept, but I do believe it is possible to have ethics and morality outside of religion. Proof of this is that there are many cultures, historical and present day that do not share this book or any other and that do possess ethics and morality, besides the obvious counter example of atheists.

memling 6y ago
> I beg to differ. I think the point was not that ethics and morality are impossible without religion, at least not exactly. I think the questions were a little different, e.g., where did the ideas come from?
- jacquesm 6y ago
  If the question is did morality and ethics come from religion or preceded it then I would bet on morality and ethics coming first and religion growing out of those a precursor to a legal system. Note that a lot of religious morality and ethics is framed as 'law'.
  - memling 6y ago
    > If the question is did morality and ethics come from religion or preceded it then I would bet on morality and ethics coming first and religion growing out of those a precursor to a legal system. Note that a lot of religious morality and ethics is framed as 'law'. I guess there's also something about this connection that's bugging me, and I don't know exactly what; sorry for the response that's indulging my questions and maybe paying less attention to your statements. I'm trying to edit, but I have to go to dinner. If ethics and morality predate religion, it's hard to understand precisely why religion exists, at least if religion were reducible to its practice. (I don't take you to mean this, FWIW.) Functionally, I suppose one might argue that religion is about justification--justifying the ability to execute judgment, for example, by infusing one's authority with divine imprimatur. This doesn't really sit well with me despite straightforward examples, because it doesn't explain why anyone would go along with this. Religion requires some kind of belief, and why would people buy into it? One needn't have religion to solidify political power, although that is the basic pattern prior to the 20th century. If it's mostly about power, how does one explain Christianity before Constantine? (It's an example I'm familiar with, but I don't know that it's unique.) At the same time, religion is not all law, either. Law is about proscription (thou shalt not) and prescription (when thou doest, here's your punishment), an eye for an eye (not an arm and an eye for an eye). On the other hand, when someone says "Do good to those who hate you and bless those who curse you," that is ... not the same. It's not even entirely clear on the face of it that this is a good idea? Why is it better to do this?
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      Well, let's take those stone tablets that Mozes brought down from the mountain. What do you think are the chances they would have made it as far as they did if he said: "look guys, here is some stuff I chiseled into a bunch of tablets while I was up on the mountain" vs "this is the word of god"? It's an appeal to authority if there ever was one and by placing the authority in a spot where it can not be directly queried for verification it can literally develop a life of its own, like any good meme on social media today. Check out how eager people are to follow and propagate anonymous stuff that happens to coincide with their worldview.