Philosophy Now Forum

surreptitious57 wrote:What is also interesting is how Christian feasts such as Christmas and Easter had their origins elsewhere. Appropriated from Paganism

Everything from Christianity is appropriated from paganism. Ancient societies nearly always had a patron god, just as today there is a patron saint for everything you can shake a stick at. Yahweh was the tribal god of Israel, and as the old testament makes clear, he was just the biggest, baddest of many. Nothing unusual about that; the Babylonians had Marduk, Athens had the virginal Athena while Rome had Juno, one third of the Capitoline Triad of Rome. Rome and a Trinity. Whatever next?
Anyway, as Exodus 12.12 says:

For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the LORD.

So god goes round murdering innocent children, slaughtering animals and putting other gods in their place. There are references to other gods throughout the OT. https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusi ... -many-gods

Plato, according to legend, was the son of a god. His mother, Perictione, was a virgin and when her husband tried to get his rocks off, Apollo appeared, impregnated Perictione and told Ariston to leave her alone. Much of the western intellectual effort during the millennium between the fall of Rome and the renaissance was spent trying to shoehorn Christianity into Plato's philosophy and even cosmology. The dread of bodily functions, particularly sex, is a hysterical interpretation of the contempt that Plato had for the physical world. To him the world we should concern ourselves with was the perfect and unchanging realm of 'forms', and our interest in other people should be Platonic.
During the early middle ages, the only Platonic dialogue available to western scholars was the Timaeus. It describes his cosmology, which is to all intents and purposes, the geocentric model that Galileo was punished for challenging. It also contains the myth of Atlantis, which Plato thought would make a good piece of Athenian, pro-Sparta propaganda. Plato, as a member of the ruling elite, was acutely aware of the power of fiction. His most famous book, the Republic, was his model for an ideal society; in other words, it's about control. In it, he introduces us to the 'Noble Lie', one that would make believers accepting of the status quo. The last chapter of the Republic contains the Myth of Er. Long story short, Er comes back from the dead to to warn us about impending judgement. The goodies go up to heaven and the baddies are dragged down to hell by fiery demons. Full details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Er or here for the actual text: https://www.eurosis.org/cms/files/proje ... lic_HB.pdf
Christianity in its origin is a Platonic Noble Lie.

Interjectivist wrote:
Lets just say the correlation between theism and the obsession with objective moral values has been extremely strong in my experience.

Not in mine. Surely the 20th century provided multiple examples of non-theistic ideologies that were so confident in their moral stance that they were ready to kill millions who disagreed with them.

Me: And no, I'm fine with the notion that not everything in human affairs can be decided through the intellect or science. Are you? OK, then if we take that view, then we can't criticise theists because their beliefs cannot be justified through intellect or science.

No I don't think you can get to that conclusion from anything I said. But I have no problem with theists or anyone else realizing their moral beliefs are not entirely rational constructs .. because they're not. Just like everyone else theists still deserve to be criticized when they make statements of empirical fact which cannot be confirmed by observation. I have no problem allowing that God whispers your moral values to you when you are in the warm embrace of prayer. Fine. But if you tell me God actually designed molecules and space and time and all the other 'stuff' of the empirical then expect to be criticized. Likewise with all that afterlife nonsense.

But here we are discussing morality. Theists do not claim that morality is an empirical fact, something that can be confirmed by observation. And nor do atheists. So you can either say that both claims are nonsense, but you can't say that just one is.

And I'm not aware of having made any such claims myself. Nor can I think of any reason why I should be contained to make such claims on the basis of my non participation in the cultural rituals and relics of Christianity.

I didn't say you did. I'm addressing the argument; I've no idea what you personally believe.

Me: When you ask 'So I take it you believe you are in possession of the actual/factual right, objective moral values? my point is that to make moral judgements is to claim 'you are in possession of the actual/factual right, objective moral values'. If that's not right, what do we mean when we say 'Child abuse is wrong'?

I mean it is a practice I cannot condone even between consenting persons so long as one of them is a minor. It means I am willing to ally with others in support of a justice system to impose our view on any who might disagree. I don't need to think "and our way is the eternally right way" in order to take this stand. I and my like-thinking neighbors agree and that is enough. I'll leave the finger waving at monsters like Charles Manson to those who think it makes any difference.

You write above: But I have no problem with theists or anyone else realizing their moral beliefs are not entirely rational constructs .. because they're not. I cannot tell from that paragraph above whether that also goes for your system, or not.

What do you mean by the word 'condone'? To condone is to make a moral judgement, which means you must be applying some standard, presumably rationally. But how does that square with this concern for how your neighbours feel? If you have made a judgement, then it doesn't become wrong just because the crowd thinks differently. Or, if you form your opinion by just agreeing with the crowd, then you have not made any rational judgement.

As I say, we can certainly have the view that no moral judgement is a rational construct. That we are all really following the mob. But we can't then single out theists as being irrational for doing something atheists do too.

Me: It (saying 'Child abuse is wrong') certainly looks like a factual assertion. If you would never say such a thing, then fine, but I do not think all atheists would agree with you, so I was curious how they come to believe they are in possession of the actual/factual right, objective moral values.

This is a curious thing about the theist mindset. Why must theists always feel that they are in alignment with a higher authority to feel justified in taking a stand. I don't need a note from a celestial parent in order to recognize or act on moral matters. In this, while I don't think all theists deserve the criticism, it does appear that religion infantilizes its practitioners.

Again, you say you do not 'need a note from a celestial parent in order to recognize or act on moral matters', but in that case, where do you get your authority to say what others should or shouldn't do?

Either we think there is no such thing as morality, in which case you can't 'recognize or act on moral matters'

Or we think there is such a thing as morality, in which case we must refer to some sort of 'note' which we consider should be binding on other people. It doesn't have to be God, we could decide to commit yourself to the truth of any ideology, but is going to be a 'celestial' belief in the sense that it is non-empirical.

uwot wrote:
Plato according to legend was the son of a god. His mother Perictione was a virgin and when her husband tried to get his rocks off Apollo appeared impregnated Perictione and told Ariston to leave her alone. Much of the western intellectual effort during the millennium between the fall of Rome and the renaissance was spent trying to shoehorn Christianity into Platos philosophy and even cosmology. The dread of bodily functions particularly sex is a hysterical interpretation of the contempt that Plato had for the physical world. To him the world we should concern ourselves with was the perfect and unchanging realm of forms and our interest in other people should be Platonic

During the early middle ages the only Platonic dialogue available to western scholars was the Timaeus. It describes his cosmology which is
to all intents and purposes the geocentric model that Galileo was punished for challenging. It also contains the myth of Atlantis which Plato thought would make a good piece of Athenian pro Sparta propaganda. Plato as a member of the ruling elite was acutely aware of the power
of fiction. His most famous book the Republic was his model for an ideal society : in other words it is about control. In it he introduces us to
the Noble Lie one that would make believers accepting of the status quo. The last chapter of the Republic contains the Myth of Er. Long story
short : Er comes back from the dead to warn us about impending judgement. The goodies go up to heaven and the baddies are dragged down to
hell by fiery demons. Christianity in its origin is a Platonic Noble Lie

What do you think of all this Mr Can? Did you know that Christianity borrowed so heavily from Greek culture and mythology?

surreptitious57 wrote:You quoted Jesus not God. ...

Not quite, he quoted Matthew saying what he thought Jesus said(if he existed that is).

Immanuel Can wrote:...

Neither. Nor am I denying His justice. Everyone will get no less, no more, and no other than justice requires. Benevolence will say exactly what that is. Justice will require it. Omnipotence will put it into effect. Of all that, you can be absolutely assured.

Of course given 'it's' supposed Omniscience 'it' already knows what you are going to do and the end result, so in effect one has no free-will nor even choice in the matter of moral behaviour as one's judgement and punishment is set. Of course one could say that this 'God' is not Omniscient but then 'it' would not be Omnipotent, no?

surreptitious57 wrote:[What is also interesting is how Christian feasts such as Christmas and Easter had their origins elsewhere. Appropriated from Paganism

Old hat. Everybody knows about Christmas and the Saturnalia. But Easter is more related to the Jewish Passover than anything. The Romans did a lot of such crazy stuff: after all, they were syncretists.

Anyway it has to do with...what? Was there some value to Atheism in that observation? If there was, I'm missing it.

Immanuel Can wrote: Everyone will get no less, no more, and no other than justice requires. Benevolence will say exactly what that is. Justice will require it. Omnipotence will put it into effect. Of all that, you can be absolutely assured.

So all the Egyptian first born were 'justly' murdered. And everyone bar Noah and his nearest and dearest were 'justly' drowned before god had sent his son to save them. And you think the Romans were crazy.

uwot wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: Everyone will get no less, no more, and no other than justice requires. Benevolence will say exactly what that is. Justice will require it. Omnipotence will put it into effect. Of all that, you can be absolutely assured.

So all the Egyptian first born were 'justly' murdered. And everyone bar Noah and his nearest and dearest were 'justly' drowned before god had sent his son to save them. And you think the Romans were crazy.

There isn't any human group that has not justified killing others for some reason.

Atheists first condemn the Bible as false and full of contradictions, and then quote from it to prove how bad Christians and Jews are. So is the Bible a valid source, or is it a worthless collection of stories, you can't have it both ways.

thedoc wrote:There isn't any human group that has not justified killing others for some reason.

In the first place, that simply isn't true. Secondly, this is about groups of people justifying their god's behaviour. No atheist does this.

thedoc wrote:Atheists first condemn the Bible as false and full of contradictions, and then quote from it to prove how bad Christians and Jews are. So is the Bible a valid source, or is it a worthless collection of stories, you can't have it both ways.

Well, if you twist my arm, I'll go for the latter. It is precisely by quoting the bible that it is shown to be full of contradictions.

uwot wrote:

thedoc wrote:Atheists first condemn the Bible as false and full of contradictions, and then quote from it to prove how bad Christians and Jews are. So is the Bible a valid source, or is it a worthless collection of stories, you can't have it both ways.

Well, if you twist my arm, I'll go for the latter. It is precisely by quoting the bible that it is shown to be full of contradictions.

If the Bible is deemed to be worthless, then the contradictions and criticism is also.

uwot wrote:

thedoc wrote:There isn't any human group that has not justified killing others for some reason.

In the first place, that simply isn't true. Secondly, this is about groups of people justifying their god's behavior. No atheist does this.

So Atheists use some justification, other than God, for killing other people.

The thread is about the challenge for Atheists to provide some justification for their morality.

There's a fundamental difference in a religious person howling the ethical codes to the black box of an Atheist! I'm just saying it! A claim... unfounded... no! So if the Atheists are so good (professing their infallible ethics) then why aren't they simply declaring themselves (Secular) Humanists who are indeed (more) trustworthy in actually having and caring for ethics? Hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!

(Oh no. The explanation is such that the Atheist simply doesn't want to disclose too much or take on prejudging people... That sounds obvious... Or not!)

I think we have this thread squared down!

thedoc wrote:The thread is about the challenge for Atheists to provide some justification for their morality.

Why, surely just acting morally is all that's needed? And given that atheists appear to be underrepresented in the prison population should our concern not be about the theists and their bad behaviour.

thedoc wrote:So Atheists use some justification, other than God, for killing other people.

Then ask an atheist who thinks killing people is justified.

thedoc wrote:The thread is about the challenge for Atheists to provide some justification for their morality.

Some version of the golden rule, such as causing unnecessary harm is the definition of immoral. It is not scouring some ancient creation myth for clues as to what a god wants is to do.

Immanuel Can wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:But did you know that Hitler was a Christian?

He was an occultist, actually,

What, like a Catholic, or something?