Religions have succeeded

[Spud]

Well, he also wrote: "It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman" (well that may be a quote from some of his followers, but since quotation marks are missing in manuscripts, we can't know.) and "I wish that all were as I myself am" i.e. unmarried.

As for the slaves and masters relationship, by your interpretation you are making yourself complicit with those "Christians" down the centuries who have thought it within the morality of their beliefs to hold and trade in slaves. I, at least, was giving St Paul the benefit of the doubt by saying he was only suggesting that they did not come out in open rebellion, but hold on for a bit longer, since the world would soon come to an end and the whole system would be overthrown with the establishment of Christ's Kingdom. One could hardly claim that St Paul's doomsday thoughts were at the back of his mind, since he first expressed them in 1Thessalonians, his earliest epistle, and was still expressing them in Romans, his last.

Back to Jeremy's point, and I know it's a bit contentious but would like to have a go at it: on the one hand we have the command not to kidnap and enslave (Ex 21:16, 1 Tim 1:10). On the other hand we have Leviticus 25:44 where they were allowed to buy foreign slaves. So how do we reconcile these?

[Sriram]

Why are ancient texts so important to us that we have to keep justifying them and trying to understand them? Someone wrote something that was relevant at that time (perhaps not to everyone even then).  Why can't we just take what is relevant today, if at all, and disconnect from them?   

[Dicky Underpants]

Why are ancient texts so important to us that we have to keep justifying them and trying to understand them? Someone wrote something that was relevant at that time (perhaps not to everyone even then).  Why can't we just take what is relevant today, if at all, and disconnect from them?   

Hi Sriram
In the context of slavery, the Christian context still has repercussions. Here in Bristol, there was quite recently much controversy over the toppling of the statue of Edward Colston, who became famous as a benefactor to the city. Unfortunately, his wealth derived from the fact that he was a slave trader.
Now you might say that Christianity has moved on from that dark past once and for all. However, it is quite likely that there are those of the Christian right in America at least who would like to see those days return, and would use biblical texts to justify this. In Britain such a situation is unlikely, but individual instances of slavery are still around, and may be increasing (the reasons for this are various) .
However, I don't think it would be wise to be blasé about religious fundamentalism. Margaret Attwood's books serve as a warning.

[Sriram]

Hi Dicky,

I understand what you are saying...but I feel there is too much of dragging in the past, which polarizes communities. If Britain were to pay back every penny it benefited from its colonies....it would become bankrupt.

Lot of wrong things have happened in the past. The people who did it are not there now. Let it pass. Correct whatever we can and start afresh.

Maybe we are doing things today that future generations might want to correct. There is no end to this. Values change and there is never going to be a perfect society.

[Dicky Underpants]

Why are ancient texts so important to us that we have to keep justifying them and trying to understand them? Someone wrote something that was relevant at that time (perhaps not to everyone even then).  Why can't we just take what is relevant today, if at all, and disconnect from them?   

With specific reference to Spud's attitude to ancient texts: I've certainly no sympathy with his attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable.

[Enki]

Hi Enki - yes IMO the belief comes first based on some kind of interpretation of a personal experience, rather than people reasoning themselves into belief based on explanations of morality. Similar to you, my lack of belief was not due to the evil in the world. I think my lack of belief was because the concept had no appeal or coherence. Now I don't mind that it doesn't have coherence.

I am not sure what you mean by a person's morality not depending on bad things. How would we establish that? The world has always contained bad things so people cannot be free of being aware of the problems in the world that they or other individuals have to deal with and that would presumably have an influence on their morality?

Regarding the fear of judgement, I don't think it should be weaponised and used to beat people with but I think fear as an emotion can be healthy and quite a useful motivator in many areas of life, including religion, if it's not excessive and becomes crippling anxiety or prevents independent thought or questioning authority.

It seems the only real bone of contention here is my suggestion that a person's morality doesn't necessarily depend on bad things. For instance, I see no reason why a person cannot be caring towards others quite naturally even if no bad things were affecting any judgements made. I would also suggest that a caring attitude towards others is often regarded as a moral attitude. I do think however that bad things can bring such a moral attitude into sharp relief.  So my position is that while a person's moral attitudes can be influenced by bad things happening, I see no reason to think that they are necessarily dependent on such things.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

It seems the only real bone of contention here is my suggestion that a person's morality doesn't necessarily depend on bad things. For instance, I see no reason why a person cannot be caring towards others quite naturally even if no bad things were affecting any judgements made. I would also suggest that a caring attitude towards others is often regarded as a moral attitude. I do think however that bad things can bring such a moral attitude into sharp relief.  So my position is that while a person's moral attitudes can be influenced by bad things happening, I see no reason to think that they are necessarily dependent on such things.

Hi Enki

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/adolescent/chapter/influences-on-moral-development/
This article about moral development suggests that "Research on socioemotional development and prosocial development has identified several “moral emotions,” which are believed to motivate moral behavior and influence moral development (Eisenberg, 2000, for a review). The primary emotions consistently linked with moral development are guilt, shame, empathy, and sympathy."

Which leads me to wonder if a person can care about someone else if they are unable to comprehend or appreciate that the other person may feel bad, because the other person only ever experiences good things.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

"Amazing Grace" indeed! Composed on a slave-ship, I believe.

I thought it was one of the Olney Hymns. Do expand on your belief.

[Nearly Sane]

I thought it was one of the Olney Hymns. Do expand on your belief.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace

[Dicky Underpants]

I thought it was one of the Olney Hymns. Do expand on your belief.

Thanks to NS, I see that my assertion was not exactly correct. Newton was a slave trader when he called on God for mercy, but continued for several years as a slave trader after his conversion. The hymn itself was written several years later, after he had ceased trading, but no doubt alludes to the fact that he believed God's mercy had saved him years before. More about him than the slaves, I'd say. They were more of an afterthought.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thanks to NS, I see that my assertion was not exactly correct. Newton was a slave trader when he called on God for mercy, but continued for several years as a slave trader after his conversion. The hymn itself was written several years later, after he had ceased trading, but no doubt alludes to the fact that he believed God's mercy had saved him years before. More about him than the slaves, I'd say. They were more of an afterthought.

That though is existential experience for you. The great cut off from the world to consider one's actual personal standing, rather than one's standing in culturally handed down social theory. He was obviously not perfected by God in one go and of course he was really foolish to ignore the witness of people two centuries in the future and carry on until doing work in anti-slavery.

[Enki]

Hi Enki

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/adolescent/chapter/influences-on-moral-development/
This article about moral development suggests that "Research on socioemotional development and prosocial development has identified several “moral emotions,” which are believed to motivate moral behavior and influence moral development (Eisenberg, 2000, for a review). The primary emotions consistently linked with moral development are guilt, shame, empathy, and sympathy."

Which leads me to wonder if a person can care about someone else if they are unable to comprehend or appreciate that the other person may feel bad, because the other person only ever experiences good things.

Hi Vg,
A late response to your post:
I have read the article you linked to and, apart from probably emphasising the importance of the natural emotions more than the article does  I find no strong points of disagreement.  For my own part, as I have mentioned in other threads on morality in the past, I see the idea of morality having a strong evolutionary basis. I accept that there is a 'potential' for morality, if it aids survival. For me, this is probably driven by such traits as empathy, sympathy, and natural feelings of co-operation and responsibility towards others. Culture, environment, experience, upbringing, and a rational approach, for me, superimpose upon those feelings. You might be right about not being able to care about the bad things if one is not exposed to them in some way but there again humans have very creative imaginations which could easily invent bad scenarios and empathetically respond to them.

I was originally taking a particular Christian viewpoint(God of the omnis) and trying to show some of the problems which result from that. Didn't God make Eden as a good place without such things as earthquakes, cancer or poverty?  And was it not Aquinas who said, "Good can exist without evil, whereas evil cannot exist without good"? Hence, from such a Christian viewpoint, it was supposed to be human beings who let loose the bad things in the world, whereas I would put the responsibility squarely upon the shoulders of this God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Vg,
A late response to your post:
I have read the article you linked to and, apart from probably emphasising the importance of the natural emotions more than the article does  I find no strong points of disagreement.  For my own part, as I have mentioned in other threads on morality in the past, I see the idea of morality having a strong evolutionary basis. I accept that there is a 'potential' for morality, if it aids survival. For me, this is probably driven by such traits as empathy, sympathy, and natural feelings of co-operation and responsibility towards others. Culture, environment, experience, upbringing, and a rational approach, for me, superimpose upon those feelings. You might be right about not being able to care about the bad things if one is not exposed to them in some way but there again humans have very creative imaginations which could easily invent bad scenarios and empathetically respond to them.

I was originally taking a particular Christian viewpoint(God of the omnis) and trying to show some of the problems which result from that. Didn't God make Eden as a good place without such things as earthquakes, cancer or poverty?  And was it not Aquinas who said, "Good can exist without evil, whereas evil cannot exist without good"? Hence, from such a Christian viewpoint, it was supposed to be human beings who let loose the bad things in the world, whereas I would put the responsibility squarely upon the shoulders of this God.

Do you leave any room for human originated evil?

[Enki]

Do you leave any room for human originated evil?

For ultimate responsibility, no.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

For ultimate responsibility, no.

It seems to me that responsibility is binary. You either are or you aren't. The upshot being my belief that you are in fact relieving people of their responsibility.

I see in your position the chap who crashed his car on a mainline causing a train crash and putting it all down to Kismet and those who blame their parents for having them in the first place.

[Spud]

With specific reference to Spud's attitude to ancient texts: I've certainly no sympathy with his attempts to reconcile the irreconcilable.

I modified my last post, leaving the question open. Exodus 21:16 and Leviticus 25 show that God did ban slavery for Israel. In order for it to be eradicated in the rest of the world, all other countries would have to ban it too. You would end up with indentured servitude only, for the purpose of repaying debt or as punishment for crime. The foreign so-called slaves mentioned in Leviticus 25 were possibly assumed to be indentured, bought and sold by middle-men for practical reasons.

[Enki]

It seems to me that responsibility is binary. You either are or you aren't. The upshot being my belief that you are in fact relieving people of their responsibility.

I see in your position the chap who crashed his car on a mainline causing a train crash and putting it all down to Kismet and those who blame their parents for having them in the first place.

That's up to you. I would rather liken it to the Bhopal disaster where the people of Bhopal accuse  Union Carbide and its offshoot Indian Union Carbide of overall corporate responsibility. This doesn't absolve people from making mistakes (e.g. Warren Anderson and seven former employees  have been punished for their part in this disaster) . Similarly, if I believed in your Christian God, I would have to give him overall responsibility for any adverse happenings in His creation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's up to you. I would rather liken it to the Bhopal disaster where the people of Bhopal accuse  Union Carbide and its offshoot Indian Union Carbide of overall corporate responsibility. This doesn't absolve people from making mistakes (e.g. Warren Anderson and seven former employees  have been punished for their part in this disaster) . Similarly, if I believed in your Christian God, I would have to give him overall responsibility for any adverse happenings in His creation.

But the people of Bhopal were innocent. Now you are dividing Humanity into the innocent and the Guilty. This leads to a moral us and them where some are in need of forgiveness and others are spotless.

There are no born reprobate evil or bad people any more than there are morally spotless people.

There is no sink of depraved humans bothering the morally OK, everyone has the potential for nastiness. That is why the anglican books of prayer and orders of service talk about sins of commission and omission and also sins against our fellow man.

If you were to put God in the dock what could he be charged with?
Creating Gravity?, Allowing entropy? Creating free will? Intervening and circumventing free will? Not intervening and not circumventing free will?

e know that many criminals blame God or Satan for their own deeds.
If none of us are morally spotless, Might we be tempted?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If you were to put God in the dock what could he be charged with?

I'd start with the one most likely to result in a prosecution - genocide probably.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I'd start with the one most likely to result in a prosecution - genocide probably.

Proceed.

[Enki]

But the people of Bhopal were innocent. Now you are dividing Humanity into the innocent and the Guilty. This leads to a moral us and them where some are in need of forgiveness and others are spotless.

There are no born reprobate evil or bad people any more than there are morally spotless people.

There is no sink of depraved humans bothering the morally OK, everyone has the potential for nastiness. That is why the anglican books of prayer and orders of service talk about sins of commission and omission and also sins against our fellow man.

If you were to put God in the dock what could he be charged with?
Creating Gravity?, Allowing entropy? Creating free will? Intervening and circumventing free will? Not intervening and not circumventing free will?

e know that many criminals blame God or Satan for their own deeds.
If none of us are morally spotless, Might we be tempted?

All you are doing is restating the problem. Of course they were innocent, just as the victims of the Moors murders were innocent. So, why did this omnibenevolent God allow such things to happen? Where you put the blame squarely upon the potential for human beings to do bad things to others, I take the view that the ultimate blame lies with the God who created them in the first place.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

All you are doing is restating the problem. Of course they were innocent, just as the victims of the Moors murders were innocent. So, why did this omnibenevolent God allow such things to happen? Where you put the blame squarely upon the potential for human beings to do bad things to others, I take the view that the ultimate blame lies with the God who created them in the first place.

The only problem here as far as I can see is the implied exoneration of people from their responsibility. Does omnibenevolence mean suspending free will, suspending gravity or the laws of chemistry? What makes you think it does?

The chemical industry after all is, as Pinker will gladly tell you part of a post religious enlightenment. What measure of responsibility does scientific advancement hold...or is science just there for the good things?

So the problem is God created us.

[Enki]

The only problem here as far as I can see is the implied exoneration of people from their responsibility. Does omnibenevolence mean suspending free will, suspending gravity or the laws of chemistry? What makes you think it does?

The chemical industry after all is, as Pinker will gladly tell you part of a post religious enlightenment. What measure of responsibility does scientific advancement hold...or is science just there for the good things?

So the problem is God created us.

The only problem that I can see is how one equates omnibenovolence with a God of the omnis when one regards the imperfect world we actually live in.

As an atheist, I don't have that problem at all, which was my original point back in post 540.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Vg,


I was originally taking a particular Christian viewpoint(God of the omnis) and trying to show some of the problems which result from that. Didn't God make Eden as a good place without such things as earthquakes, cancer or poverty?  And was it not Aquinas who said, "Good can exist without evil, whereas evil cannot exist without good"? Hence, from such a Christian viewpoint, it was supposed to be human beings who let loose the bad things in the world, whereas I would put the responsibility squarely upon the shoulders of this God.

That is Geocentric and material
Since we are evoking the bible here the emphasis is on the unbroken relationship between God and Man and the circumstances surrounding it's breakdown rather than the material paradise. Poverty is probably man made and a result of the Fall of Man. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The only problem that I can see is how one equates omnibenovolence with a God of the omnis when one regards the imperfect world we actually live in.

As an atheist, I don't have that problem at all, which was my original point back in post 540.

You seem to have an exoneration problem.