So, as I said above, either the bible is a philosophical text, in which case it needs to be examined as such (i.e what is meant by the various acts of genocide?), or it is a work of meaningless fiction, in which case the discussion (from a philosophical point of view) would be why so many people in philosophy consider it relevant to refer to it. — Pseudonym

Third option - As many Christians believe, it is the revealed word of God. The fact that you don't even mention that says a lot about where you are coming from.

I was referencing your response to Erik, and the quotes about hunter-gatherers, not the Bible. — Bitter Crank

My apologies, I misunderstood. In that case the answer to your question is, yes, absolutely we should be prepared to believe what these books say, not uncritically, but we're not going to make any progress in understanding the human condition if we just dismiss any evidence we don't like the sound of on the grounds that it 'might' not be true.

If you want to make an argument that the morality of hunter-gatherers does not work with larger numbers, I'd be completely in agreement with you, but that's not what Erik was arguing.

His assertion, initially, was that Christianity was responsible for teaching us things like equality and compassion for the less fortunate. The investigations of anthropologists have clearly shown this assertion to be false.

With regards to the Bible, I agree it has been used to serve many different purposes, but that doesn't prevent a rational investigation as to whether any of them are useful, accurate, philosophically sound or morally good.

His assertion, initially, was that Christianity was responsible for teaching us things like equality and compassion for the less fortunate. The investigations of anthropologists have clearly shown this assertion to be false. — Pseudonym

Anthropologists have shown that Christianity doesn't teach compassion for the less fortunate? Anthropologists have shown that Christian teachings have nothing to with our conceptions of personal worth and equality? News to me.

Are you suggesting that hunter-gatherers taught us these things? How did they do that, considering their isolation for most societies around the world?

As I've asked in two posts so far, what point is the scientific philosopher trying to make? What are the implications of the terrible things he says the church has done? Why can't he, or you, answer my question. — T Clark

I have answered your question. I wrote "If we're going to do the latter (as it seems we are here), then the first thing we look for is consistency, that's pretty much philosophy's number one tool to interrogate any theory. The fact that the bible/Christians advocate a system which simultaneously preaches both love and genocide then becomes extremely relevant to any philosophical interrogation of its ideas." That is the point. The Bible is inconsistent, ironing out inconsistency is a purpose of philosophy, this is a philosophical forum.

So, you've gone back and checked my posts since I joined in April? — T Clark

No, the comment I made was generic, aimed at the site in general, not you personally. It was intended to illustrate my point that the Bible is taken as a philosophical text and so deserves to be interrogated as one. One task in that interrogation is to explain it's inconsistencies.

With regards to the suggestion that your comment was directly aimed at the fact that the OP had not specified what his point was, rather than an assertion that there could be no point (which is how I read it), then I can only apologise profusely for missing the point. You are entirely correct hat the OP's failure to specify what exactly he wanted to discuss is remiss, as is his failure to engage further. None of this changes the fact that an interesting discussion can nonetheless be had on this topic.

Christianity cannot be responsible for teaching us something we already knew. If I tell you now that 1+1=2 am I rightly to be described as having taught you arithmetic?

The evidence from anthropologists indicates that we already knew these virtues, Christianity may have extolled them, but it didn't teach them.

Third option - As many Christians believe, it is the revealed word of God. The fact that you don't even mention that says a lot about where you are coming from. — T Clark

That Christians might believe this is irrelevant philosophically and this is a philosophy forum. On a forum about politics, or theology, that option might be relevant, but I don't see how if figures here. I am intrigued though as to what it would have 'said' about where I'm coming from.

I have answered your question. I wrote "If we're going to do the latter (as it seems we are here), then the first thing we look for is consistency, that's pretty much philosophy's number one tool to interrogate any theory. The fact that the bible/Christians advocate a system which simultaneously preaches both love and genocide then becomes extremely relevant to any philosophical interrogation of its ideas." That is the point. The Bible is inconsistent, ironing out inconsistency is a purpose of philosophy, this is a philosophical forum. — Pseudonym

I think that answers my question. Your intent is to discredit Christianity. The specific question I asked was what the consequences or implications of TSP's OP statements are. It appears that your answer to that question is that since the Bible says to do what we all can agree are bad things, therefore, Christianity is not a valid way to understand the world. Is that correct?

With regards to the suggestion that your comment was directly aimed at the fact that the OP had not specified what his point was, rather than an assertion that there could be no point (which is how I read it), then I can only apologise profusely for missing the point. You are entirely correct hat the OP's failure to specify what exactly he wanted to discuss is remiss, as is his failure to engage further. None of this changes the fact that an interesting discussion can nonetheless be had on this topic. — Pseudonym

I think we are on the same page.

That Christians might believe this is irrelevant philosophically and this is a philosophy forum. On a forum about politics, or theology, that option might be relevant, but I don't see how if figures here. I am intrigued though as to what it would have 'said' about where I'm coming from. — Pseudonym

The Bible is not philosophy. It's not fiction. It's not a cookbook. There is no way it can be legitimately discussed without including the fact it is the primary document founding and guiding the Christian religion. The fact you don't recognize or aren't willing to acknowledge that undermines the credibility of your argument and, in my opinion, shows you aren't willing to address the issues we're discussing directly with an open mind.

Your intent is to discredit Christianity. — T Clark

I've tentatively concluded that Christianity has discredited itself by having such massive inconsistencies in it's guiding book. I'm not sure it's fair to conclude that must therefore be what I set out to do. If everyone had their conclusions seen as prejudiced simply because they are negative we would be quite restricted in our judgments would we not?

There is no way it can be legitimately discussed without including the fact it is the primary document founding and guiding the Christian religion. The fact you don't recognize or aren't willing to acknowledge that undermines the credibility of your argument and, in my opinion, shows you aren't willing to address the issues we're discussing directly with an open mind. — T Clark

I'm not sure I understand what any of this means. What would it mean to include "the fact it is the primary document founding and guiding the Christian religion."?

A good portion of the discussions on this site are either about, or mention, some religion. If someone claims, as they did in this thread, that Christianity is or has done some thing or other, I think it's reasonable to counter that argument, otherwise we are held mute on any topic involving religion, which hardly seems fair.

So, if we, as non-religious people are to counter an argument from religion, how may we do so objectively? We cannot simply defer to whatever the proponent says their religion is. That would deny us any right to present our own subjective view of the world. So if someone brings religion into an argument that involves people who are not religious, it is unfair to expect that we only examine their claims on their terms.

As far as I believe, the bible is just a book, and it's one that influences a lot of people. As a person with a vested interest in the state of the world, I think I have as much right as anyone else to raise my concerns about the content of such a book. I would do so with any influential book that I felt might contain a harmful message, I don't see why a religious book should be any exception.

no one should believe in the Christian God.
no one should believe in any God.
religion should be outlawed.
Christians should be put in jail.
people shouldn't give their money to religious institutions.
the Christian church is evil.
the clergy should be put in jail.
we should stop giving tax breaks to religious institutions. — T Clark

These are all good ideas, but not very practical as they stand.

Your intent is to discredit Christianity.
— T Clark — Pseudonym

It makes a good job of that itself. It needs very little help.

https://www.facebook.com/anonews.co/videos/1881403061871244/

I once knew that 1+1=2, but I forgot. Therefore you have taught me a fact in arithmetic. Similarly, people have learned things at various times, and then forgotten them. Or a few people learned them, but not everybody. Some ancient Greeks learned a thing or two about democratic government, but what they knew didn't get passed around and remembered by everybody -- like the Romans, for example, or later Greeks.

Similarly, what our hunting and gathering forebears knew didn't get passed down along with their genes.

I've tentatively concluded that Christianity has discredited itself by having such massive inconsistencies in it's guiding book. I'm not sure it's fair to conclude that must therefore be what I set out to do. If everyone had their conclusions seen as prejudiced simply because they are negative we would be quite restricted in our judgments would we not? — Pseudonym

I have no problem with saying negative things about religion in general, Christianity, or the Bible. As you've said, a lot of the threads on this forum deal with that sort of issue. I also don't have any problems describing and discussing Christianity's failures, inconsistencies, and genocides. We had that discussion in a recent thread and I participated. As for what you set out to do, keep in mind that my first post, which lead to this chain, was back in the very beginning of the thread. A lot has been said since then.

So, if we, as non-religious people are to counter an argument from religion, how may we do so objectively? We cannot simply defer to whatever the proponent says their religion is. That would deny us any right to present our own subjective view of the world. So if someone brings religion into an argument that involves people who are not religious, it is unfair to expect that we only examine their claims on their terms. — Pseudonym

You made the following statement in a previous post:

So, as I said above, either the bible is a philosophical text, in which case it needs to be examined as such (i.e what is meant by the various acts of genocide?), or it is a work of meaningless fiction, in which case the discussion (from a philosophical point of view) would be why so many people in philosophy consider it relevant to refer to it. — Pseudonym

No, the Bible isn't either a philosophical text or a work of meaningless fiction. It is also the founding document of the Christian faith and is considered the word of God by some. Just because you don't agree with that, doesn't mean it can reasonably be left out of the discussion.

.

Similarly, what our hunting and gathering forebears knew didn't get passed down along with their genes. — Bitter Crank

Firstly, I think it's a little disingenuous to call my restatement that 1+1=2 teaching, maybe I've lead a sheltered life and am unaware of the nuances of meaning, but most of the people I speak to would call that a reminder, not teaching.

More importantly though, that's not the claim that was made. The claim was that Christianity taught us compassion. Christianity didn't teach compassion, Christianity taught that we should be compassionate in some cases, but where God wills it we may freely slaughter all men, women and children of our enemies. Furthermore, even (for some reason) just taking one aspect of Christianity and ignoring the rest, it certainly didn't teach us anything it didn't speak to everyone. At the very most some people who formed part of the works which collectively we call Christian texts reminded some people about compassion 2000 years ago, the rest of the world either knew it already or picked it up via the many other philosophies advocating compassion. A far cry from the claim that was made, in context.

Just because you don't agree with that, doesn't mean it can reasonably be left out of the discussion. — T Clark

You still haven't answered my question regarding this. What exactly does allowing that some people think it's the word of God look like? Apart from the fact that I didn't specifically mention that option in my list (which I considered to be included in 'philosophical texts'), what else have I not done to take account of this?

You still haven't answered my question regarding this. What exactly does allowing that some people think it's the word of God look like? Apart from the fact that I didn't specifically mention that option in my list (which I considered to be included in 'philosophical texts'), what else have I not done to take account of this? — Pseudonym

You've just addressed my comment. You put religion in with philosophy. To me, that doesn't make sense and I don't think it would to many philosophers and religionists. On the other hand, I'm satisfied with where we are.

Of course Christianity did not invent compassion. Compassion is a most worthy thing, honored all over the world since time immemorial, more in the breach than in the observance. So every reminder helps.

We will pass over in silence the fact that sometimes "feet" were a euphemism for "penis" — Bitter Crank

That's cos they were feet long in those days. >:O

Compassion is a most worthy thing, honored all over the world since time immemorial, more in the breach than in the observance. — Bitter Crank

Agreed, which means that Christianity isn't necessary as there are so many other sources of compassion.

So every reminder helps. — Bitter Crank

No, not when there are so many reminders which don't also justify genocide, misogyny, murder, homophobia, racism and child abuse. Why not just teach people to be compassionate without all the associated obedience to God? Lets leave the, at best, ambiguous types of reminder, ones in the first century where they belong.

obedience to God? — Pseudonym

God is actually quite useful. ALL children develop morals through the gentle fear of punishment that parents the world over, and throughout the ages, have instilled. Children fear the loss of love, and the learn to behave well to keep the love vibes happening to them (to quote the Beach Boys). God takes the place of the parents in the religions that have a sky-god father figure who sees all, hears all, knows all, and says very little.

People who worry about the sky god behave because this god knows all their secrets, their comings, goings, and various wicked acts if they had performed any.

The good behavior of believers is a small price for non-believers to pay.

All very interesting pop-psychology, but I'd be interested to see any actual evidence you have for any of those assertions. I'm happy to list the titles of the several psychology textbooks I have here in the office, all of which pretty clearly state that modifying behaviour using fear of retribution is damaging to children and leading by example is a much more effective way to teach, but as I say, I'd be really interested to hear where you've got your data from.

Intermittent positive reinforcement is the most effective method to encourage learning.

Bear in mind that when "discipling the child" we are not talking about beatings or harsh punishments.

using fear of retribution is damaging to children — Pseudonym

You were saying about pop psychology???

The child's brain is wired to make a connection between the limbic system, where fear is felt, and the pre-frontal cortex where we make decisions about right and wrong. "Fear" doesn't require harsh discipline, but enough punishment (which may be nothing more than disapproving expressions and gestures, or being sat in the corner for 5 minutes) for the child to feel that he has something to lose by behaving badly.

Haven't we been through all this several times already?

I would think (e.g.) that loving your enemy, even as s/he is in the process of torturing and killing you, is quite likely a significant point of departure from anything that predated Christianity. This strange sentiment seems completely unnatural.

I'd also imagine that advocating universal equality and compassion - beyond the narrow confines of the tribe, race, or nation - is something uniquely Christian. Well, perhaps Buddhism shares this advocacy of universal compassion, at least in theory if not always in practice. It clearly hasn't been practiced much by Christians throughout history.

Furthermore, inverting the relative value of human "types" within a particular community away from privileging the warrior, the ruler, the wealthy, etc. (i.e., those with power and influence) in favor of the meek, the humble, the marginalized and oppressed may be yet another contribution specific to Christianity.

One can even point these things out while acknowledging that the religion, especially in its later metaphysical garb (belief in an eternal soul, its otherworldliness, etc.), is likely total BS. This was Nietzsche's take, and he was a hardened atheist who had a deep understanding of the religion and the role it's played in the trajectory of Western civilization as a whole. I find his notion that Christianity supplanted the aristocratic and militaristic values of the Greco-Roman world of antiquity to be compelling. It clearly wasn't competing with the hunter-gatherer alternative.

But I'd also concede that if it can be proven that the "natural" state of human beings is one of universal compassion and cooperation which was somehow perverted through the advent of highly specialized and stratified societies, then that would clearly challenge this interpretation of Christianity as having a uniquely ameliorating impact (in a negative way for Nietzsche) upon the state of nature for man in which life, if not necessarily a war of all against all, is not quite as rosy as the picture of it portrayed by Rousseau et al.

And yeah, I may have only intimated it (if I did even that) earlier, but if all memory of those earlier hunter-gatherer tribes had been forgotten, which surely they were at the time when Christianity made its entrance on the world stage, then the latter's contribution to shaping the values of Western society and institutions can be plausibly maintained, even if we acquiesce to the thesis that its guiding values weren't entirely original. In other words it wouldn't need to be an either/or scenario.

But I still need to read through all the links provided by Pseudonym. I found the first one interesting and appreciate the alternate perspective. And this viewpoint does have serious implications in many ways if it's true. It would seem to support a secular humanist ethics as opposed to one grounded in some sense of transcendence, and this in turn could be traced to our early ancestors who were subsequently corrupted rather than "improved" by civilization.

I'm obviously an outsider in this conversation with limited knowledge about either the Bible or the main currents of anthropology.

The child's brain is wired to make a connection between the limbic system, where fear is felt, and the pre-frontal cortex where we make decisions about right and wrong. "Fear" doesn't require harsh discipline, but enough punishment (which may be nothing more than disapproving expressions and gestures, or being sat in the corner for 5 minutes) for the child to feel that he has something to lose by behaving badly. — Bitter Crank

Here's a lay introduction https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/feeling-our-way/201401/punishment-doesnt-work

Here's some of the more in depth work http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0305724840130202

So no, we have not 'been through this already' because you have not cited any evidence to support your argument, you've just stated things you 'reckon' are the case and then responded with an air of exasperation when I don't just agree with you.

I'd also imagine that advocating universal compassion - beyond the narrow confines of the tribe, race, or nation - is something uniquely Christian. — Erik

Christianity does not advocate universal compassion some of the writers in some of the texts which together form Christian scripture advocate universal compassion, others advocate the mass slaughter of every man, woman and child who opposes God's will.

The whole point of this is not to say that there are no positive messages in the Bible, that would be ridiculous, but that the very fact that the messages in the Bible are mixed at best is a problem in its own right. It's the reason why people have been able to justify all kinds of atrocities in the name of religion, because if you look hard enough, the justification is right there in the texts.

We have only one history, it is retrospective determinism to say that because Christianity preached compassion (along with it's justifications for holy wars, inquisitions, witch hunts and child abuse) we could not have arrived at the same point some other way had Christianity not done so.

Furthermore, modern research is finding that deaths from violent conflict simply correlate inversely with population size.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/694568

so there is mounting evidence that the increasingly peaceful conditions society enjoyed as the post agricultural civilisations progressed was simply a result of population size and had absolutely nothing to do with religion of any sort.

Would you make anything of the notion that the ancients by and large practiced a form of esotericism?
The parables of Jesus no less than Plato's dialogues being open to various interpretations, and purposely so.

I know that's not entirely relevant to the topic at hand, and an ostensibly kind and loving God would not practice deception or promote elitism. At least not according to our modern values, which despite my ignorance of specifics I'm arguing have been influenced by Christianity.

Ah forget I asked the question, I'm going to begin a topic soon addressing the very issue.

We have only one history, it is retrospective determinism to say that because Christianity preached compassion (along with it's justifications for holy wars, inquisitions, witch hunts and child abuse) we could not have arrived at the same point some other way had Christianity not done so. — Pseudonym

I wouldn't (and didn't to the best of my knowledge) say it couldn't have happened any other way, which would imply some sort of religious mysticism or dogmatism which I don't adhere to, but only that it did happen that way. That's clearly a disputable point, but nowhere near that much stronger first claim. If I somehow implied such a thing without expressly stating it, then you could maybe bring the quotes to my attention. I may be mistaken.

As for the rest, there's not much I disagree with. I think a lot rests, as you rightly surmise, on what sort of world predated Christianity or what continues to exist outside of its influence. This is admittedly one of those rare debates that I have zero interest in "winning" - I'm much more concerned with gaining some useful and important knowledge.

People who worry about the sky god behave because this god knows all their secrets, their comings, goings, and various wicked acts if they had performed any. — Bitter Crank

Aren't you thinking of Santa Claus?