Christianity Has Had No Effect Whatsoever On Human Morality

[Sha'irullah]

When I speak of the Christians, I mean the people who regard their Bible as a product of divine inspiration and try to live by it.

What do you think I am speaking of? You mean there are Christians who like the Bible as great literature? Only people struck with a mixture of Autism, Down's and Angel syndrome would believe the Bible is great literature without divine inspiration.

 

[Augustus]

This is what I think: Humanity has been making moral progress. Logically, that means that older cultures were morally immature when compared to the best we have today. Slavery was a commonly accepted practice, for example.
But something changed, though. What drove humanity to abolish slavery? I think it was that set of moral instincts that we call "conscience" that finally, through nagging guilt, wore us down.

That humanity has been making moral progress is somewhat debatable given the industrialised genocide, totalitarianism and mass targeting of civilians for incineration (and that last was by the 'good guys' in Tokyo, Dresden, etc.) in the most murderous century of them all, the last one.

It also seems to be wishful thinking that in the space of 100-200 years after 300,000+ years of human history that 'instinct' magically kicked in (but only in parts of the West) and told us slavery was wrong.

Environmental, technological and ideological changes, combined with the ability of the British to project power on a global scale to enforce a ban on the trade seem far more relevant.

When you say "The idea that their conscience was anything remotely similar to that of a modern 21st century humanist is laughable," I can tell that your definition of conscience is not close to mine. Yours sounds like what I would describe as "the current level of public moral opinion." Your idea of conscience doesn't have the power to change anything.

You seem to have a somewhat religious notion of our species of great apes where we know right from wrong instinctively without conditioning and that right and wrong relate mostly to your current worldview.

The idea that humanity teleologically 'evolves' towards (conveniently) your own ideological viewpoints is again reminiscent of religious faith.

It's not something we are likely to agree on.

 

[joe1776]

That humanity has been making moral progress is somewhat debatable given the industrialised genocide, totalitarianism and mass targeting of civilians for incineration (and that last was by the 'good guys' in Tokyo, Dresden, etc.) in the most murderous century of them all, the last one.

It also seems to be wishful thinking that in the space of 100-200 years after 300,000+ years of human history that 'instinct' magically kicked in (but only in parts of the West) and told us slavery was wrong.

Environmental, technological and ideological changes, combined with the ability of the British to project power on a global scale to enforce a ban on the trade seem far more relevant.



You seem to have a somewhat religious notion of our species of great apes where we know right from wrong instinctively without conditioning and that right and wrong relate mostly to your current worldview.

The idea that humanity teleologically 'evolves' towards (conveniently) your own ideological viewpoints is again reminiscent of religious faith.

It's not something we are likely to agree on.

From Harvard's Moral Sense Test: Over the past twenty years, there has been growing evidence for a universally shared moral faculty based on findings in evolutionary biology, cognitive psychology, anthropology, economics, linguistics, and neurobiology. This evidence has created a powerful movement directed at the core aspects of human nature. It is a movement that has the power to reshape our lives by uncovering the deep structure of our moral intuitions and showing how they can either support or conflict with our conscious, often legally supported decisions.

From the New York Times: "According to Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, humans are born with a hard-wired morality. A deep sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. His research shows that babies and toddlers can judge the goodness and badness of others' actions; they want to reward the good and punish the bad; they act to help those in distress; they feel guilt, shame, pride, and righteous anger."

Two researchers on the decline of violence:

Oxford sociologist Manuel Eisner's study persuasively demonstrated a long-term pattern of declining homicide rates across Europe over 800 years.

Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker makes a well-documented case for moral progress in his book History and the Decline of Human Violence. A brief summary of his argument can also be heard on his TED Talks video: The Surprising Decline of Violence.

The five reasons why you are most likely missing humanity's moral progress.
1. Population growth causes the total number of criminal acts to increase even when the crime rate goes down.

2. Advances in weapons technology makes it possible for each disturbed person, or terrorist cell, to do far more harm today than in the past. We should bear in mind that one angry teenager armed with a switchblade knife is not a better human being than one angry teenager armed with an assault rifle.

3. Advances in communications technology makes it possible for us to see video footage of violent events the day they happen from halfway around the world. In the USA of the 1950s the switch-blade knife wielding act of the disturbed teenager would have made page three of the local paper. Today, his far more harmful act using an assault rifle would be seen around the world.

4. We will read about far more rape, child molestation, and about men abusing their wives and children today than the public did in the 1920s. That is not because the rate of those crimes is increasing. It is because those crimes were seldom reported in those days. They were seldom reported because, if reported, they were seldom punished.

5. The belief that our primitive ancestors once lived in harmony with nature is most likely a popular myth accepted uncritically only by stubborn pessimists who, despite all the evidence to the contrary, remain convinced that humanity is going straight to hell.

 

[Augustus]

From Harvard's Moral Sense Test: Over the past twenty years, there has been growing evidence for a universally shared moral faculty

I agree human nature contains the propensity towards good acts, we are coalition animals so it is absolutely necessary.

What I don't agree with is how this translates to people in ancient societies secretly knowing that behaviours their society deemed noble, were in fact wrong because they were mean to people from other social groups.

Before you used the term 'innocent', as in we know it's wrong to harm innocents. My issue with this is that innocent is a purely subjective concept, and people deemed 'not innocent' are fair game for violence. For much of human history, all it took to be 'not innocent' was being anyone other than a member of the in group.

This reflects the behaviour of our close relatives the chimps, who can be stunningly cruel to outsiders or to those cast out of the troop.

The five reasons why you are missing humanity's moral progress.

Well, none of those actually apply to my reasoning, I accept that certain metrics do show a decrease in violent behaviour at the civil level.

First of all, I'd like to see a case made for the reasons why these relate to moral progress, rather than environmental/technological changes in society though.

Look at Syria, Bosnia, Chechnya, Ambon, Rwanda, CAR, etc. for what can happen when the safety net surrounding societies breaks down.

When the atrocities of the 20th C are only just behind us, moral progress seems a bit hollow.

I'd say the modern environment makes it easier for more people to display the better side of human nature, but our 'progress' is severely tested when we feel threatened, and likely disappears when our environment no longer (near) guarantees our safety.

Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker makes a well-documented case for moral progress in his book History and the Decline of Human Violence.

The problem with Pinker's book is that the statistics he uses for violence are wrong, and he seems to be cheery picking the highest death value for ancient conflicts. 36 million for An Lushan or 17 million for Tumur are simply false, and all casualty figures for ancient conflicts are basically made up, often for propaganda reasons. If you want to see how accurate people were at estimating numbers back then, look at the claims regarding size of armies, the do a little research on its plausibility (Herodotus claimed the Persians brought 2.5 million troops + 2.5 million support personnel perhaps 15-20+ times more than the likely figure)

He also, conveniently, bases his arguments on trends after WW2 which is not exactly scientific.

They also invariably include deaths from disease/famine too, yet he doesn't include deaths from Spanish Flu after WW1 which is inconsistent.

Also his assumption that violence should scale in direct proportion to human population is highly debatable. If violence grew 1% more slowly than population, should we still assume that this indicates 'moral progress'?

A WW3 could also pretty easily make these figures a hell of a lot different, and create a trend showing how we have got 'more violent'.

 

[joe1776]

What I don't agree with is how this translates to people in ancient societies secretly knowing that behaviours their society deemed noble, were in fact wrong because they were mean to people from other social groups.

You misunderstood. They didn't secretly know anything but they were more biased in their beliefs which allowed them to ignore the protests of their conscience.

Before you used the term 'innocent', as in we know it's wrong to harm innocents. My issue with this is that innocent is a purely subjective concept, and people deemed 'not innocent' are fair game for violence. For much of human history, all it took to be 'not innocent' was being anyone other than a member of the in group.

I used the word innocent in the same sense that a victim of a crime would be seen as innocent by an unbiased jury.

Well, none of those actually apply to my reasoning, I accept that certain metrics do show a decrease in violent behaviour at the civil level.

You made a huge miscalculation by using the death toll in war. Each combatant carried more efficient weapons in WW2 than in the Crusades. That didn't make them morally worse. This was No.2 of my five reasons for miscalculations:

2. Advances in weapons technology makes it possible for each disturbed person, or terrorist cell, to do far more harm today than in the past. We should bear in mind that one angry teenager armed with a switchblade knife is not a better human being than one angry teenager armed with an assault rifle.

Here are some other things for you to consider:

The hateful way the world's religions sometimes treat each other is still a problem today but the problem has diminished considerably since the time of the Crusades;

Christians aren't burning heretics at the stake anymore;

The sacred texts of Judaism, Christianity and Islam condone slavery and treat women as subservient to men in addition to giving other very bad moral advice. This is evidence that the men who wrote those texts two thousand years ago lived in societies that were morally immature by today's best standards;

Racial and national prejudices have been weakening; among the nations, many once-traditional enemies are now trade partners;

Children of the poor are still used as cheap labor in a few cultures, but compared to the past, much progress has been made with Child Labor laws;

In morally advanced cultures, men are learning to treat women as equals and they are not getting away with abusing women as they once did;

Caste systems, like India's, which have resulted in unfairness for many over centuries, are gradually crumbling;

Not very long ago, violent strikes were common during Management and Labor negotiations; it happens far less often today;

Employers have learned that it is profitable to give both employees and consumers more respect and better treatment than they once did;

Government corruption and oppression are still a problem but much progress has been made since governments for the people have been replacing governments for the privileged;

During past wars in human history, civilian populations were ravaged; today, attempts are being made to limit the targeting to combatants;

Because of the Geneva Convention and other similar efforts, prisoners of war are treated better now than at any time in our history;

We still hear about prisoners being tortured but, in the Middle Ages, torture was a thriving industry. Clever devices were designed and made to maximize pain.

NFL Football provides mild violence as entertainment, but it is nothing compared to the spectacle of slaughter seen in Rome's Colosseum.

The nations of the world have abolished slavery; it's still a problem but not nearly to the extent that it was just a few centuries back.

 

[joe1776]

I keep coming across this statement whilst browsing the forum as though I am being prodded by it, so I have to ask you for some clarification.

1. Are you saying that the text condones slavery or the interpretation of the text, which is oft time inaccurate, condones it.

2. As the Bible is considered, by all Christianity, to be the literal word of God is your statement suggesting that a God, loved, respected and revered by those who chose to follow him, is the promoter of slavery of His children on earth? Somewhat uncharacteristic of a caring loving Father in Heaven

3. Where, within the pages of the Holy Text, may I find the condoning of slavery by Christians? I have read the Bible and studied its pages many times yet I have not found any Christians condoning slavery yet.

4. How are you defining slavery. As a form of voluntary servitude to the benefit of the slave and his family, which a good many were, or do you mean the enforced enslavement of individuals, contrary to their wishes, that was not so common place.

I know it is but a short, and seemingly innocent sentence, however, the reader may be misled into thinking that God, a person of absolutely perfection and, therefore, incapable of any kind of immorality, would encourage the immoral act of forced slavery. I would suggest that you may not be completely aware of the type of slavery that existed in the Bible, or, you are intentionally depicting God in a bad light. I hope that the former is true as the latter is unkind and deceiving.

Your post was probably meant for me, but it quoted another poster so I wasn't alerted.

If a Loving Creator exists (and I do concede that possibility) we can agree that the idea of such a being condoning slavery is absurd. The notion of Hell, an afterlife of eternal punishment for not accepting the Christian doctrine, also seems absurdly unjust to me. Consequently, I cannot believe that the Bible is anything but the work of well-meaning men who falsely claimed to be divinely-inspired.

Many animals can be trained using the reward and punishment method; humans can be as well. The offer of Heaven (reward) and Hell (punishment) has been effective in coercing compliance from naive minds. It does double-duty by making Christians an elite group favored by God. That makes a strong appeal to the arrogant side of human nature.

If a Loving Creator exists, its love is unconditional because conditional love (I will love you if you please me) is not love at all. And, if its love is unconditional then we are loved regardless of what we believe theists, atheists or agnostics.

 

[Augustus]

You misunderstood. They didn't secretly know anything but they were more biased in their beliefs which allowed them to ignore the protests of their conscience.. I used the word innocent in the same sense that a victim of a crime would be seen as innocent by an unbiased jury.

The way the human mind works though is to divide the world into in/out groups as reflects our evolutionary heritage.

A concept such as 'innocent' is far rife with complexity and ambiguity and thus doesn't seem instinctive considering how humans evolved. When every outsider is a potential threat, instinctively giving them the benefit of the doubt would be dangerous to our own survival.

You made a huge miscalculation by using the death toll in war. Each combatant carried more efficient weapons in WW2 than in the Crusades. That didn't make them morally worse. This was No.2 of my five reasons for miscalculations:

It doesn't make them morally better either.

Much of what you put down to 'moral progress' is really the result of technological progress. Wars are less frequent now because of weapons technology which make war a much more serious proposal.

Wars are less frequent, but more murderous and civilians have become increasingly targeted as total war replaced limited wars. In the past they were sometimes targeted, and slavery often followed conquest, but this was often somewhat of a necessity to weaken a hostile population and to serve as an example to those who would not capitulate willingly.

In recent times, Western leaders purposely incinerated civilians with firebombs as a WW2 tactic This isn't burning a handful of people at the stake, yet the latter is a common trope of medieval brutality and those who ordered the former are national heroes.

We may have improved capabilities to produce stable societies now, but when the going gets tough we revert to type.

Children of the poor are still used as cheap labor in a few cultures, but compared to the past, much progress has been made with Child Labor laws;

That is a product of post-industrialisation prosperity. Children worked because they had to, and now (in some places) they don't because they don't have to.

Many families worldwide still can't afford to subsidise 12 years of education for multiple children though, not because they are immoral, just because they are too poor.

During past wars in human history, civilian populations were ravaged; today, attempts are being made to limit the targeting to combatants;

On average that is not true. More civilians are killed in contemporary wars (see Syria, CAR, Sudan, etc)

A few advanced countries have targeted weaponry, but this is a technological advance, and 'collateral damage' is still fully accepted as a price worth paying for achieving military aims.

We still hear about prisoners being tortured but, in the Middle Ages, torture was a thriving industry. Clever devices were designed and made to maximize pain.

And today millions of people are in prisons for non-violent drug offences.


Today the environment we live in is different, but under the skin we are still the same old fancy apes that we always have been. The self-congratulary logic of 'moral progress' is harmful imo as it makes us complacent against the same old problems that will appear sooner or later.

 

[joe1776]

The way the human mind works though is to divide the world into in/out groups as reflects our evolutionary heritage.

A concept such as 'innocent' is far rife with complexity and ambiguity and thus doesn't seem instinctive considering how humans evolved. When every outsider is a potential threat, instinctively giving them the benefit of the doubt would be dangerous to our own survival.

Evolution is a fact. However, many of the theories proposed based on it are flawed. The in/out group theory you offer is one of them, IMO. However, debating it would take us off on a major tangent.

Much of what you put down to 'moral progress' is really the result of technological progress. Wars are less frequent now because of weapons technology which make war a much more serious proposal.

So, you're saying that the invention of weapons of mass destruction is a good thing but earlier you claimed that the death toll in wars was evidence of moral downgrade rather than the product of technological advances.

Wars are less frequent, but more murderous and civilians have become increasingly targeted as total war replaced limited wars.

In the Second World War, American propaganda portrayed the Japanese people as barbaric enemies. That made dropping the bomb on Hiroshima morally acceptable for most Americans. Today we know better.

We may have improved capabilities to produce stable societies now, but when the going gets tough we revert to type.

When the going gets tough, such as in a recession, charitable donations increase. You have no evidence to support your statement.

That is a product of post-industrialisation prosperity. Children worked because they had to, and now (in some places) they don't because they don't have to.

The problem existed long after the age of the machine. Poor adolescents worked 12 hour days in factories and mills.

Many families worldwide still can't afford to subsidise 12 years of education for multiple children though, not because they are immoral, just because they are too poor.

You deny progress has been made unless the problem has been completely wiped out worldwide?

On average that is not true. More civilians are killed in contemporary wars (see Syria, CAR, Sudan, etc)

What statistics are you using to support that claim?

A few advanced countries have targeted weaponry, but this is a technological advance, and 'collateral damage' is still fully accepted as a price worth paying for achieving military aims.

Why do you consider a government policy to be a technological advance? Why do you not see the acceptance of minimum collateral damage over the bombing of cities as moral progress?

And today millions of people are in prisons for non-violent drug offences.

I agree that's wrong. Are you arguing that since we still do things wrong that we should deduce that moral progress has not been made?

Today the environment we live in is different, but under the skin we are still the same old fancy apes that we always have been. The self-congratulary logic of 'moral progress' is harmful imo as it makes us complacent against the same old problems that will appear sooner or later.

I don't think the evidence supports your pessimism about human nature.