5 ms·

The ultimate source of consequence is your own conscience, though sadly some people don't have one. But some people who otherwise lack a conscience might still

The ultimate source of consequence is your own conscience, though sadly some people don't have one. But some people who otherwise lack a conscience might still be fearful of God, and so that's why the Bible was seen as a great document to make people swear upon, once upon a time. Though, while the fear of punishment might trump your inclination to do evil, it does not really make you a fundamentally better person. So, while this old ritual might soothe someone's need to feel trust in the person sworn in, it's really not such a great guarantee. The ritual does several things: - It's an attempt at manipulating the person being sworn in to uphold his oath, whether he's actually good or not, or whether he's planning on upholding his oaths or not - It's a way to soothe the population's trust in the person, again a form of manipulation - It's a way for higher officials too soothe their own trust in the person, and perhaps it thus serves as a form of self-delusion - It's a nice ceremony to make people come together to witness some institution of power, though, and as such it is indeed a nice and good tradition, which I think is worthwhile to uphold in one way or another While I have conflicting thoughts about how people are sworn in today, I can understand that the Bible does not hold as much power over most modern human beings as it used to, and especially those who simply aren't Christian at all. So, what should they swear upon? I, for one, would rather make it a book on moral philosophy that you can stand by, which you have read, and that you agree with. With that said, I think if you really meditate on the moral philosophy of Jesus, then I'm sure that even if you're an atheist, you'll still come to the conclusion that it's not so bad after all. He was of course a complicated human being, but I think his fundamental ideas about The Golden Rule (i.e. that you should treat others as you would like to be treated yourself), and his ideas about how all people are created equal (see the rituals surrounding Maundy Thursday where he washed the feet of his disciples and told them that they should do the same to their underlings as a symbol for how everyone are created equal), as universally good principles that you don't strictly need to be religious to get behind.

Jedd 3y ago
> ... his fundamental ideas about The Golden Rule (i.e. that you should treat others as you would like to be treated yourself), Would you clarify the fundamental phrasing please? The Golden Rule existed long before the Jesus mythology was created - I gather Buddha and Confucius (ostensibly original attribution lands to him) were describing this fairly self-evident social policy several centuries BCE.
- jackothy 3y ago
  I think the main point is that the Bible can have some good messages. Whether or not the Christians were the inventors of those messages does not change that fact.
  - Jedd 3y ago
    Well, sure, but my mostly abandoned personal blog has some good messages, similarly due to me pinching the wisdom from other people. Attributing it all to me would be a tad disingenuous, though. Like many others before me (here's a prime example) I believe that if a book has earnest instructions on how to manage your slaves, then you really do have to question the legitimacy of the work as a whole.
- drummojg 3y ago
  I have an old sampler religious text and inside the cover is The Golden Rule in every major religion--I want to say there are ten or a dozen of them, from Zoroaster to the Bhagavad Gita.
- Technotroll 3y ago
  The context is how the teachings of Jesus could make it bearable also for atheists to "get behind" swearing on the the Bible. As such, perhaps it's better to swear on the New Testament. But as you say, The Golden Rule isn't a unique philosophical stance to Jesus. So, sure, perhaps some people should rather swear upon the Pabca-sila, or something equivalent. As for "self-evident social policy" I respectfully disagree. With so much corruption, evil and suffering going on in the world, I think both we and our leaders need some specific reminders from time to time, so we can learn about higher moral ideals, whether that is from Jesus, The Buddha or from Immanuel Kant.
  - Jedd 3y ago
    Weeellll ... the context is an evidently quite rational / science-driven human seemingly being obliged by regulation or tradition to swear on a physical object, subsequently choosing a piece of non-fiction written by one of the more well known astrophysicists, and then you suggested the golden rule was coined (according to third hand sources, I think?) by someone several centuries after we have prior art to the contrary. In HN parlance that'd be like an Apple apologist claiming Steve.J invented Unix. ; | Anyway, it was the 'fundamental' bit I was asking about -- I wasn't sure if by that you meant originating there, or just an in passing teaching (which the NT pinched from existing religions / philosophies). If I were an atheist on the fence, so to speak, I expect that I'd want something a bit better than 'not so bad after all' - but from my readings, the moral philosophy does feel like it falls short of godly, more's the pity. I'll stand by self-evident, given the sentiment has originated in several places / cultures over the millennia. Happily deferring to Hitch on the wording (from god is not great) "The so-called Golden Rule, sometimes needlessly identified with a folktale about the Babylonian Rabbi Hillel, simply enjoins us to treat others as one would wish to be treated by them. This sober and rational precept, which one can teach to any child with its innate sense of fairness (and which predates all Jesus’s “beatitudes” and parables), is well within the compass of any atheist and does not require masochism and hysteria, or sadism and hysteria, when it is breached. It is gradually learned, as part of the painfully slow evolution of the species, and once grasped is never forgotten. Ordinary conscience will do, without any heavenly wrath behind it." As you observe, known thinkers - eg Kant - can provide some guiding insights: "Kant’s principle enjoins us to “act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law.” In this summary of mutual interest and solidarity, there is no requirement for any enforcing or supernatural authority. And why should there be? Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."

Jedd 3y ago

> ... his fundamental ideas about The Golden Rule (i.e. that you should treat others as you would like to be treated yourself), Would you clarify the fundamental phrasing please? The Golden Rule existed long before the Jesus mythology was created - I gather Buddha and Confucius (ostensibly original attribution lands to him) were describing this fairly self-evident social policy several centuries BCE.

jackothy 3y ago
I think the main point is that the Bible can have some good messages. Whether or not the Christians were the inventors of those messages does not change that fact.
- Jedd 3y ago
  Well, sure, but my mostly abandoned personal blog has some good messages, similarly due to me pinching the wisdom from other people. Attributing it all to me would be a tad disingenuous, though. Like many others before me (here's a prime example) I believe that if a book has earnest instructions on how to manage your slaves, then you really do have to question the legitimacy of the work as a whole.
drummojg 3y ago
I have an old sampler religious text and inside the cover is The Golden Rule in every major religion--I want to say there are ten or a dozen of them, from Zoroaster to the Bhagavad Gita.
Technotroll 3y ago
The context is how the teachings of Jesus could make it bearable also for atheists to "get behind" swearing on the the Bible. As such, perhaps it's better to swear on the New Testament. But as you say, The Golden Rule isn't a unique philosophical stance to Jesus. So, sure, perhaps some people should rather swear upon the Pabca-sila, or something equivalent. As for "self-evident social policy" I respectfully disagree. With so much corruption, evil and suffering going on in the world, I think both we and our leaders need some specific reminders from time to time, so we can learn about higher moral ideals, whether that is from Jesus, The Buddha or from Immanuel Kant.
- Jedd 3y ago
  Weeellll ... the context is an evidently quite rational / science-driven human seemingly being obliged by regulation or tradition to swear on a physical object, subsequently choosing a piece of non-fiction written by one of the more well known astrophysicists, and then you suggested the golden rule was coined (according to third hand sources, I think?) by someone several centuries after we have prior art to the contrary. In HN parlance that'd be like an Apple apologist claiming Steve.J invented Unix. ; | Anyway, it was the 'fundamental' bit I was asking about -- I wasn't sure if by that you meant originating there, or just an in passing teaching (which the NT pinched from existing religions / philosophies). If I were an atheist on the fence, so to speak, I expect that I'd want something a bit better than 'not so bad after all' - but from my readings, the moral philosophy does feel like it falls short of godly, more's the pity. I'll stand by self-evident, given the sentiment has originated in several places / cultures over the millennia. Happily deferring to Hitch on the wording (from god is not great) "The so-called Golden Rule, sometimes needlessly identified with a folktale about the Babylonian Rabbi Hillel, simply enjoins us to treat others as one would wish to be treated by them. This sober and rational precept, which one can teach to any child with its innate sense of fairness (and which predates all Jesus’s “beatitudes” and parables), is well within the compass of any atheist and does not require masochism and hysteria, or sadism and hysteria, when it is breached. It is gradually learned, as part of the painfully slow evolution of the species, and once grasped is never forgotten. Ordinary conscience will do, without any heavenly wrath behind it." As you observe, known thinkers - eg Kant - can provide some guiding insights: "Kant’s principle enjoins us to “act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law.” In this summary of mutual interest and solidarity, there is no requirement for any enforcing or supernatural authority. And why should there be? Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."