Scripture gives bad behaviors credibility

[Augustus]

I'm not ignoring anything. And I'm also not primarily doing an historical analysis. Let's take "The Ten Commandments" as they apply to 2015: First off, would you content that these are - in any stretch of the imagination - the ten most important moral guidelines we should pursue today?

Assuming you wouldn't claim that, then look at the enormous effort that goes into the cherry-picking and interpreting and arguing over these outdated ideas. Couldn't we easily come up with a cleaner, better, far less controversial set of guidelines? How about the UNDHR?

(Sorry I'm going to start mixing religion and scripture as it's hard to make my point without doing so)

I imagine that I am a somewhat atypical atheist in that just because I don't see religious scripture as being divine, I do think that it contains real value.

If it is a product of humans, then it is a product of their collective wisdom. As it has survived so long, then much of this must contain real value as time is great evidence for merit. As such, we should apply great caution when rejecting ideas that have been part of longstanding religious norms.

Of course human knowledge is fallible, and some ideas do indeed merit rejecting, we should just be careful when doing so though. The best part of religion is that it stops humans from thinking that they are god (am paraphrasing someone who I can't remember to acknowledge here)

I would say that religious values as expressed in scripture are a good start point for discussions. I would say that in these modern times, the idea that humans should not 'play god' is one of the most important. Things like genetic engineering and AI have some of the greatest potential to wipe out humanity and require great precaution.

As such, I don't see the enormous effort that goes into discussing scripture based norms as being futile. There are countless examples of how we destroyed things that were seen as 'outdated' only to find that they had more worth than we initially imagined.

The problem though comes from the people who are literalists who see scripture as inerrant and perfect, rather than those who see it as guiding and malleable.

There are 2 kinds of hubris that are dangerous, the scriptural hubris based on literal perfection, and the secular hubris that thinks human rationality is sufficient to sever our links with the past. A balance between the 2 extremes is favourable.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

Could I loosely summarize you as saying that scripture has some value taken with a grain of salt, and taken along with other teachings?

If so, I'd say that that approach is less problematic. I still think that ultimately there's not a lot of "there there", but it concerns me less. The problem is that there is a certain vocal, disruptive and sometimes violent subset of believers who take a much more "inerrant and perfect" stance, and that those folks - "the tail" - often end up wagging the dog.

One example of the fundamentalist tail wagging the much bigger dog is the theatrics we all have to go through to make it through airport security. So I'm not at all convinced that the limited utility scripture adds to your moderate approach is worth all the costs society pays.

 

[Yerda]

There are many examples of this. Here's ISIS (horrifically), taking sex slaves based on Islamic scripture:

Based on what? Are there verses that say God likes rape?

 

[Augustus]

One example of the fundamentalist tail wagging the much bigger dog is the theatrics we all have to go through to make it through airport security. So I'm not at all convinced that the limited utility scripture adds to your moderate approach is worth all the costs society pays.

This goes back to my original point - costs society pays = Costs experienced - costs avoided.

You can't only look at tangible costs.

An example, lots of money was spent on protecting computers against the 'millennium bug'. Many people might say that this was money wasted because 'nothing happened', however nothing may have happened due to the precautions taken.

If people had followed scripture, then we wouldn't have had the Nazis, Fascists and Communists, which would have saved a lot of money and lives. That scripture would have prevented these gives it a lot of credit in how it should be evaluated in terms of 'costs society pays'.

 

[icehorse]

Based on what? Are there verses that say God likes rape?

Haven't you read it? There are verses that condone sex slaves as spoils of war.

 

[icehorse]

This goes back to my original point - costs society pays = Costs experienced - costs avoided.

You can't only look at tangible costs.

An example, lots of money was spent on protecting computers against the 'millennium bug'. Many people might say that this was money wasted because 'nothing happened', however nothing may have happened due to the precautions taken.

If people had followed scripture, then we wouldn't have had the Nazis, Fascists and Communists, which would have saved a lot of money and lives. That scripture would have prevented these gives it a lot of credit in how it should be evaluated in terms of 'costs society pays'.

That's an interesting perspective but...

- The church was totally in league with Hitler.
- Fascism is largely inspired by the same emphasis on dogma that scripture engenders.

As to what I think your main point is - I'm not against moral teachings, I'm advocating for using consistent, clear, unambiguous ones. Again, how about the UNDHR?

 

[Augustus]

The church was totally in league with Hitler.

A very debatable point, but you differentiated scripture from religion anyway and the church is not scripture. [yeah, i know I 'cheated' earlier ]

As to what I think your main point is - I'm not against moral teachings, I'm advocating for using consistent, clear, unambiguous ones. Again, how about the UNDHR?

My main point was that it is hard to make the blanket statement 'scripture is more trouble than it is worth' as it also must take into account an anti-history as well as history. A statement such as 'scripture has frequently caused problems' would be much more tenable as it does not.

All oral teachings are ambiguous anyway as 'morality' is a subjective fiction. That doesn't mean we can't have morals or express what we think they should be, just that we need to admit they are all simply ill-defined subjective preference.

I broadly agree with the UNDHR, but my argument in favour of it are only subjectively 'rational', it does not express a universal truth any more than does Mosaic Law or the Sharia does.

 

[icehorse]

Philosophically, I have to agree that morality is subjective. In practice, we have to be able to say that some moral teachings are "better" than others.

Is your argument that we must treat all moral teachings as equally good?

 

[Yerda]

Haven't you read it? There are verses that condone sex slaves as spoils of war.

There was plenty to disagree with but I can't remember that.

Edit: I found some verses that talk of sex with slaves. I admit It is hard for me to see how having sex with a slave can be anything other than rape. I don't see anything about sex slavery in particular or sex slaves as spoils of war, yet.

 

[Augustus]

Is your argument that we must treat all moral teachings as equally good?

No. We value what we value, although this is mere arbitrary preference. I strongly oppose Wahabbi morality for example, but accept their reasons for their morality are just as valid as mine.

There is no universal morality, but I want to live in a society that reflects my values - as do we all. Accepting the subjectivity of my views does not lead me to a paralysed, wishy-washy relativism. I wouldn't accept that 'Wrecking Ball' by Miley Cyrus is 'equally as good' as Beethoven's 'Moonlight Sonata' just because my preference for the latter is purely subjective, so why should I do so with morality?

 

[icehorse]

Augustus - I can't quite parse your last post... Are you saying that it's inevitable that humans won't come up with a universal set of morals?

I think that's a troublesome view. I think we're doomed, if that's the case. Too many people and too powerful weapons to be having disagreements on at least some simple subset of morals.

 

[Augustus]

Augustus - I can't quite parse your last post... Are you saying that it's inevitable that humans won't come up with a universal set of morals?

I think that's a troublesome view. I think we're doomed, if that's the case. Too many people and too powerful weapons to be having disagreements on at least some simple subset of morals.

Given that after how ever many hundreds of thousands of years of human existence we have failed to come up with a universal set of morals, I can't imagine many things less rational than expecting it to happen in the future.

It wasn't but 70 years since 'enlightened' Europeans were industrialising genocide and deliberately starving tens of millions of people to death. Even less since the venerable civilisation of China was killing people by the millions. The Mesopotamian cradle of civilisation is overrun by people who are beheading academics for preserving sights of World historical value and reinstituting slavery.

Not sure why anybody could think that a universal morality could possibly ever emerge unless it involves divine intervention.

 

[icehorse]

Given that after how ever many hundreds of thousands of years of human existence we have failed to come up with a universal set of morals, I can't imagine many things less rational than expecting it to happen in the future.

It wasn't but 70 years since 'enlightened' Europeans were industrialising genocide and deliberately starving tens of millions of people to death. Even less since the venerable civilisation of China was killing people by the millions. The Mesopotamian cradle of civilisation is overrun by people who are beheading academics for preserving sights of World historical value and reinstituting slavery.

Not sure why anybody could think that a universal morality could possibly ever emerge unless it involves divine intervention.

Yikes, seems like a bleak picture! First of all, I have to disagree with the idea that 20th century genocides were examples of the enlightenment. The enlightenment was about critical thinking and skepticism - the genocides were driven by the opposite. The genocides were all driven by various flavors of indoctrination and dogma.

As far as universal morality being unattainable... well it's not a black and white situation. Let's say that in 2015, 60% of the world's population agrees with the UNDHR. If we can get that number to 70% in the next decade, we'd be headed in the right direction.

 

[morphesium]

If there were no scriptures, men would find other justification or excuse for their actions.
It would not change a thing.

Of course there were nazis and communists and others who had their own justification of their actions (I personally think it is just a mere propaganda for them suppress their opponents and to get more powerful). Over time (may be after 50 or 100 years), people realize this and they will revolt against these and such things fade from main line politics.
However, if you add "divine" scripture, a holiness for their propaganda, then people will resist revolting against these as they think that they are revolting against the will of God and they will take all measures in order to pacify themselves which only make their condition worse. Here, things wont change even after a 1000 years, only get worse.

Morality is always relative. we wan't better education for our children (and others) than what we had, we wan't better living conditions for our children, better laws,more technologically advanced and more peaceful and more entertaining future for our kids. As they grow up, they will refine our society even more. I do believe, if there was no religion, our world would have been a much better place as our morality would refine itself in much faster pace - for it is not tied back to a set false propagandas and immoral divine acts.

"The greatest tragedy in mankind’s entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion".—Arthur C. Clarke​

 

[morphesium]

Peace be on you.
Please allow to answer this question and associated promised solution.

1- The evolution of religion started at Hadhrat Adam (peace be on him).

That's false. Life originated through biological evolution process. There are much older religions out there that are not Abrahamic religions. For them, religion would have started with a different story, no stranger than this. I request you to spent some time on learning biological evolution - it will be a time well spent, God will love it. These quotes from Quran should give you the mental support for this.

"The best form of worship is the pursuit of knowledge."

"Seek knowledge and wisdom, or whatever the vessel from which it flows, you will never be the loser."

"Contemplating deeply for one hour (with sincerity) is better than 70 years of (mechanical) worship."

So why not worship in the best possible way?Think, think and think. Those free thinkers and scientist are much more "holy" than any of your priests. Those research organisations are much more valuable than any place of worship.

2- The divine message continued to increase in scope till it was perfected with the advent of the Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him).

What divine message? Considering the amount of cruelty, immoral activities (because of scriptures supporting them) taking place because of religion, I believe that religion is not God sent -but evil sent and it works. Believers are making Satan win over God. Evil to win over good.
Our morality is responsible for the development of our society. Religion has only made it to stagnate. Even if people have progressed to keep higher morale levels, it is the religion that is holding them back to keep their barbaric laws. Satan scores through religion.

4- He (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) prophesied in detail that in latter days, his believers would become weak........This decline has become much visible in current time when clergies in Muslim societies have failed to play their role and instead they are taking more interest in power seeking with arm conflicts. There are plenty of people out there to seek the opportunity. The result is killing of innocent Muslims and non Muslims at various places.

Even prophet Mohammed killed a lot of non-muslims. Things went wrong from the beginning. isn't it?

5- There were two aspects:
i) Message was yet to reach to the whole world.
ii)- Those who were to take the message to the world themselves became weak. A renowned muslim poet Hali griefly said in this era:

Neither their power remained, nor respect
Left them, the company of their prestige and wealth.


Knowledge and skill, one by one, from them, departed
Their excellences, stage by stage, erased.


Neither the Deen (the Way), nor Islam is left
Only the name of Islam is left

So, Islam as such is a failure.

6- The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) had told the remedy for this problem in latter days. He prophesied that an ardent devotee of his (s.a.w.) would bring back the faith from al-Thuraiyyah (Pleiades). It is a parable; it meant, faith would become weak and that man would revive it. The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him) called that man Esa-nabiullah and also Mahdi.

8- In the prophecy of Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be on him), the reviver of faith is called / titled Esa-nabiullah and Mahdi. It means:
i) The Revivor will heal by spirituality i.e. by prayers attention and will use no force.
ii) His being nabiullah (Prophet of Allah) will not interfere with the Finality of Holy Prophet (s.a.w.), as the reviver has not brought any new teaching, is his subservient and lost in his love. [This spiritual phenomenon is cited is Quran when it said that Bai'at of Holy Prophet is Bai'at of Allah ----Obviously both are NOT equal, otherwise it would amount to Shirk, It is a metaphor that Holy Prophet s.a.w. is being spiritually lost in Beloved Allah]
iii) Mahdi means the person who is guided by God. This means the reviver will get revelation from God to learn real meaning of Holy Quran and the way to guide the followers to take them to success and glory and to take the message of peace and love of Holy Quran to the whole world, to each human.

I believe that our morals are our God sent message. so Mahdi better suits Atheists and it shows.

 

[DawudTalut]

That's false. Life originated through biological evolution process. There are much older religions out there that are not Abrahamic religions. For them, religion would have started with a different story, no stranger than this.

Peace be on you.
Please be informed that:
i-Ahmadiyya-Muslim believe in Creation+Guided Evolution [from Holy Quran: you are welcome to read Revelation, Rationality, Knolwedge and Truth @ https://www.alislam.org/library/books/revelation/index.html ]

ii-We understand Quran that Adam was the most perfect man of his generation to get revelation from God.

I request you to spent some time on learning biological evolution - it will be a time well spent, God will love it.

We already believe creation+guided evolution as mentioned above.
https://www.alislam.org/library/science.html

These quotes from Quran should give you the mental support for this.
"The best form of worship is the pursuit of knowledge."

"Seek knowledge and wisdom, or whatever the vessel from which it flows, you will never be the loser."

"Contemplating deeply for one hour (with sincerity) is better than 70 years of (mechanical) worship."

So why not worship in the best possible way?Think, think and think. Those free thinkers and scientist are much more "holy" than any of your priests. Those research organisations are much more valuable than any place of worship.

Kindly note these are not verses of Holy Quran.

Allah says in Holy Quran:
[ch20:v99]Your God is only Allah, beside Whom there is no God. He embraces all things in his knowledge.

[ch20:v115 partly] "...............O my Lord, increase me in knowledge."

More @
https://www.alislam.org/r.php?q=islam and science

Good wishes.

 

[Augustus]

Yikes, seems like a bleak picture! First of all, I have to disagree with the idea that 20th century genocides were examples of the enlightenment. The enlightenment was about critical thinking and skepticism - the genocides were driven by the opposite. The genocides were all driven by various flavors of indoctrination and dogma.

As far as universal morality being unattainable... well it's not a black and white situation. Let's say that in 2015, 60% of the world's population agrees with the UNDHR. If we can get that number to 70% in the next decade, we'd be headed in the right direction.

Communism was certainly a product of the enlightenment, and the enlightenment was often anti-liberal - see the French revolution for example. But I wasn't actually referring to the enlightenment anyway, just the idea that Europeans consider themselves an advanced civilisation rather than one that relies on 'primitive' superstition.

As for heading in the right direction, history is not progressive but cyclical, sooner or later you get regression. That 70% could just as easily be 30%. Morality changes as societal conditions change, if they regress then you can expect morality to regress too.

 

[icehorse]

Hey Augustus,

I'm not going to disagree that history is often cyclical. But we cannot ignore simple math and clear data. Our weapons are now capable of totally destroying all life on Earth. We also now have 7 billion people gobbling up resources. We cannot afford to repeat our worst moments from history. We have to learn some important lessons and do things differently.

 

[Augustus]

Hey Augustus,

I'm not going to disagree that history is often cyclical. But we cannot ignore simple math and clear data. Our weapons are now capable of totally destroying all life on Earth. We also now have 7 billion people gobbling up resources. We cannot afford to repeat our worst moments from history. We have to learn some important lessons and do things differently.

I'm not saying I don't want it to happen, just that I don't think it will. It is highly improbable to say the least.

How would you suggest we achieve this goal? Is it possible with secular democratic ideologies? Is religion the most likely to succeed? Communism? Enlightened despotism?

 

[icehorse]

Well it strikes me that the "universal" in the UNDHR is a key point in any solution. So #1 is to rule out ideologies that are divisive. Job #2 would be to favor systems that promote a solid quality of life for everyone. I have an intuition that democracies are a better approach than other approaches.