Brain, Mind & Neuroscience

[tonyrey]

The only problem here is that in order to embrace any supposed “higher” moral authority, one has to trust one’s own moral intuition to determine if such an authority is actually worth embracing.

The problem with rejecting all other moral authorities and trusting entirely to one’s own moral intuition as the ultimate authority is equivalent to donning the mantle of infallibility…

 

[Sair]

The problem with rejecting all other moral authorities and trusting entirely to one’s own moral intuition as the ultimate authority is equivalent to donning the mantle of infallibility…

Actually, it isn’t. People who rely upon their own moral intuitions are constantly questioning and evaluating and re-evaluating their judgements in the light of evidence and consequences. Only religious leaders - especially Catholic ones - ever claim infallibility.

 

[tonyrey]

The problem with rejecting all other moral authorities and trusting entirely to one’s own moral intuition as the ultimate authority is equivalent to donning the mantle of infallibility…

If the evidence and consequences are amoral then we are left entirely to our own moral devices which are obviously fallible.

The Pope doesn’t claim to be infallible. He - like all orthodox Catholics - believes he is successor of St Peter who is** prevented **by his Master from teaching false doctrine. What would be the point of establishing a community which could spread a pack of lies?!

 

[Sair]

If the evidence and consequences are amoral then we are left entirely to our own moral devices which are obviously fallible.

Yet unbelievers are demonstrably able to act in a moral fashion by following their own intuitions; just as believers can act in an immoral fashion, all the while believing they are conforming to their chosen “authority”.

The Pope doesn’t claim to be infallible. He - like all orthodox Catholics - believes he is successor of St Peter who is** prevented **by his Master from teaching false doctrine. What would be the point of establishing a community which could spread a pack of lies?!

What indeed?

 

[tonyrey]

If the evidence and consequences are amoral then we are left entirely to our own moral devices which are obviously fallible.

Unbelievers do not grow up in a moral vacuum…

… just as believers can act in an immoral fashion, all the while believing they are conforming to their chosen “authority”.

The way people live has no bearing on the truth of what they believe.

The Pope doesn’t claim to be infallible. He - like all orthodox Catholics - believes he is successor of St Peter who is** prevented **

by his Master from teaching false doctrine. What would be the point of establishing a community which could spread a pack of lies?!
What indeed?

The belief remains unrefuted.

 

[Sair]

Unbelievers do not grow up in a moral vacuum…

No-one ever said they did. Morality would be meaningless and quite unnecessary without relationships.

The way people live has no bearing on the truth of what they believe.

But it does have a direct bearing upon the efficacy of their beliefs - if a belief has either no effect or a negative effect upon a person’s behaviour, whether it happens to be true or not, what good is it?

The belief remains unrefuted.

I think you mean unsubstantiated…

 

[tonyrey]

             *Unbelievers do not grow up in a moral vacuum...*

Morality doesn’t appear in relationships out of the blue. The teaching of Jesus is the source of the moral values of modern civilisation based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

The way people live has no bearing on the truth of what they believe.

But it does have a direct bearing upon the efficacy of their beliefs - if a belief has either no effect or a negative effect upon a person’s behaviour, whether it happens to be true or not, what good is it?

Christian beliefs and values have had a profound effect on the vast majority of people.

The belief remains unrefuted.

I think you mean unsubstantiated…

I mean precisely what I wrote:

What would be the point of establishing a community which could spread a pack of lies? Unless of course one is a psychopath or a criminal who foresees a golden opportunity for his descendants to profit from most people’s gullibility by teaching them to love and forgive those who trespass against them… The credibility of Christianity is neatly disposed of by the argument from incredulity - although unfortunately it does cast doubt on the moral rectitude of those who use it.

 

[WillP]

Morality doesn’t appear in relationships out of the blue. The teaching of Jesus is the source of the moral values of modern civilisation based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Sometime in the fourth century when Theodosius mandated Christianity as the religion within the Emire, there had already been a very long tradition of pagan precepts which defined morality. To name a few:

Gravitas (a sense of responsibility and earnestness) Honestas (a quality of respectablility) Humanitas (refinement) Industria (the quality of commitment to hard work) Pietas( a respect for the natural order socially, politically, and religiously including patriotism and devotion to the gods): Prudentia foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion) Veritas (truthfulness and honesty in dealing with others).

Western civilization is a product of a whole range of cultural influences from the Greco-Roman traditions. Religion is only one of them. Christianity is actually a mediteranean belief system arising in the first and second century. It bowored heavily from Judeo beliefs primarily to give it the antiquiety necessary for survival in the Roman world. Its core beliefs of god/man, redemption and sacrafice all have antecedents in pagan mystery cult systems.

Who we have to thank for our standards of moral values is the same Greco Roman tradition which has given us Western civilization. Christianity is only a religion that came to be accepted in the third century under Constantine and later was sponsored by the both the eastern and western halves of the empire. The tribes that invaded and ultimately subsumed western europe adopted much of the culture they found. This included its mores, religion ,law and customs.

 

[tonyrey]

Morality doesn’t appear in relationships out of the blue. The teaching of Jesus is the source of the moral values of modern civilisation based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Christianity is the only religion based on the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father in heaven and the only rational basis for the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity - which apply to every man, woman and child regardless of age, race, colour, class, creed, occupation or any other factor…

In the Roman empire only citizens had full rights and their barbaric entertainment in the amphitheatre is well documented. Nor were Greek values **universal **like those taught by Jesus whose precept that we should love our enemies is certainly not swallowed by modern “progressive” secularists…

 

[WillP]

Christianity is the only religion based on the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father in heaven and the only rational basis for the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity - which apply to every man, woman and child regardless of age, race, colour, class, creed, occupation or any other factor…

This again may be one of those points on which we will have to agree to disagree. Sorry.

 

[tonyrey]

Christianity is the only religion based on the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father in heaven

The onus is on you to refute my statement. Otherwise your objection lacks a rational foundation. You can disagree until you’re blue in the face but you’re not convincing anyone except yourself!

 

[WillP]

The onus is on you to refute my statement. Otherwise your objection lacks a rational foundation. You can disagree until you’re blue in the face but you’re not convincing anyone except yourself!

I actually believed that I already provided a fairly good historical rebuttal. Did you not read it? You are the one who should develop a counter thesis otherwise some might say that you are the one making statements without foundational support.

 

[tonyrey]

I actually believed that I already provided a fairly good historical rebuttal. Did you not read it? You are the one who should develop a counter thesis otherwise some might say that you are the one making statements without foundational support.

Your version of history doesn’t correspond to the fact that the teaching of Jesus has survived for two thousand years and there is nothing comparable before that event - unless you can produce documented evidence to the contrary…

 

[WillP]

Your version of history doesn’t correspond to the fact that the teaching of Jesus has survived for two thousand years and there is nothing comparable before that event - unless you can produce documented evidence to the contrary…

I disagree. Here is how I see the formative influences making up Christianity and where they came from.

1. As for the egalitarian and brotherly love aspects (i.e." turn the other cheek" type) of teachings, I believe they were introduced from eastern influenences although there is some debate as to their exact etiology and evolution. Certainly, however, they predate Christ. Christ himself may indeed have taught these principles, but, I am suggesting that his ideas wereborrowed from these other more ancient influences.Christ’s overarching message, however, was apocolyptical.
2. As Christianity grew into the Roman Greco world, however, Judeo influences were necessary, as I explained earlier to give an antiquated cast to the new religion. Christ himself was a jew so it all fit and was in sync with the needs of the new religion for acceptability. Indeed, that is why Europe, over the decades and centuries after Christ, became Christians rather than followers of some other cult figure. Anyway, as the Christian sect seperated from Judism to form a distinct religion, a good deal of hostility arose resulting in Jews persecuting Christians at first and then Christians gaining favor in the Empire and then persecuting the Jews.
3. The Romans had a phiosophical tradition of stoicism and had inherited classical teachings of Plato from the Greeks. Both systematic philosophical sets were relied upon to give intellectual backing to Christianity because it was competing with pagan cults and beliefs well into the third century. So, I would say that Christ’s teachings as they were introduced into ritualistic practices of the early church, the liturgical and philosophical aspects of christianity, thus, were derived from those sources. As you know, of course, both the Greek and the Roman traditions pre-date Christianity by centuries.

I submit that you are simply incorrect in your perception that there was nothing comparable before the advent of Christianity. Christianity arose from influences with roots reaching far back into history.

 

[tonyrey]

I disagree. Here is how I see the formative influences making up Christianity and where they came from.

1. As for the egalitarian and brotherly love aspects (i.e." turn the other cheek" type) of teachings, I believe they were introduced from eastern influenences although there is some debate as to their exact etiology and evolution. Certainly, however, they predate Christ. Christ himself may indeed have taught these principles, but, I am suggesting that his ideas wereborrowed from these other more ancient influences.Christ’s overarching message, however, was apocolyptical.

Please cite your sources.

1. As Christianity grew into the Roman Greco world, however, Judeo influences were necessary, as I explained earlier to give an antiquated cast to the new religion. Christ himself was a jew so it all fit and was in sync with the needs of the new religion for acceptability. Indeed, that is why Europe, over the decades and centuries after Christ, became Christians rather than followers of some other cult figure. Anyway, as the Christian sect seperated from Judism to form a distinct religion, a good deal of hostility arose resulting in Jews persecuting Christians at first and then Christians gaining favor in the Empire and then persecuting the Jews.

Your hypothesis needs to be supported by facts explaining why and how the teaching of Christ diverged from that of the Jews.

1. The Romans had a phiosophical tradition of stoicism and had inherited classical teachings of Plato from the Greeks. Both systematic philosophical sets were relied upon to give intellectual backing to Christianity because it was competing with pagan cults and beliefs well into the third century. So, I would say that Christ’s teachings as they were introduced into ritualistic practices of the early church, the liturgical and philosophical aspects of christianity, thus, were derived from those sources. As you know, of course, both the Greek and the Roman traditions pre-date Christianity by centuries

The fact that Greek and Roman ideas were incorporated into Christian teaching does not explain the origin of Christian teaching.

I submit that you are simply incorrect in your perception that there was nothing comparable before the advent of Christianity. Christianity arose from influences with roots reaching far back into history.

You have failed to explain the origin of the universal principles enunciated in the teaching of Christ.

 

[WillP]

Please cite your sources.

Your hypothesis needs to be supported by facts explaining why and how the teaching of Christ diverged from that of the Jews.
The fact that Greek and Roman ideas were incorporated into Christian teaching does not explain the origin of Christian teaching.

You have failed to explain the origin of the universal principles enunciated in the teaching of Christ.

You have failed to explain the origin of the universal principles enunciated in the teaching of Christ.

This really isn’t a hypothesis. Rather it is what I would regard as well researched history.

I certainly don’t object to responding to your requests for citations and sources, but, it is a lot of work considering our status, namely posting and re-posting in running dialog foremat.

However, if you are serious about what the background history is and not simply looking to see who can out-do or outlast the other in a “post it debate”, I have read a couple of books by Bart Ehrman from University of N.C. at Chapel Hill. If you are lucky enough to find something by Professor Harl who taught at Tulane for several decades, that too is worthwhile as well. There are others too, but, both of these men have bibliographies in their works which can take you as far as you want to go.

Basically, my impression from all of my reading and the educational souces I have been exposed to is that Christianity came into being initially as a very small sect of Judism when a group of people came to believe that Jesus was resurrected following his death on the cross. The stories and beliefs about him spread into the Greco-Roman world through the prostlytising of Paul.The central message at that time was that we were at the end of times. Paul’s church grew and was tolerated within the Empire although the concept of worshipping one god (pagans were polytheists) became a problem when Christians didn’t offer sacrafices to traditional gods. So when crops failed, it didn’t rain or calamities struck, Christians were convenient to blame.

Christianity seperated from Judism fairly early maybe by the end of the first century,and, Christianity remained a minority faith for decades (from time to time being on the wrong end of the blame game) but nonetheless generally tolerated.

Sometime in the fourth century, Constantine converted and came to believe that the Christian god was more powerful than other gods. Success in the famous battle at Mirvian bridge convinced him and christianity began broader acceptance still not achieving a majority but certainly making progress. Finally, in the fifth century (I am unsure about dates. I am doing this from memory) Theodoseous made Christianity “the” religion and sacraice to the gods was outlawed.

Throughout all of these decades there was a fairly decent osmosis and mixing of pagan practices, rationales and beliefs interminging within the Christian faith.

After Constantine, pagan apologists had the upper hand in intellectually justifying their beliefs and from and after Constantine, Christianity developed intellectual backing and formulated its own apologetics borrowing on principles of Platonism and stoicism. Doctrines such as the Trinity, for example were born. Gospel texts were copied with appropriate and added annotations to square up.

That, in highly summarized form, is what I believe an unbiased historian cna cull out of a well researched study of the subject matter.

 

[tonyrey]

You have failed to explain the origin of the universal

You have still failed to explain the origin of the universal principles enunciated in the teaching of Christ. One simple quotation offering an alternative source would be sufficient but it is not forthcoming even though it should be simple enough to find on a search engine.

1. The fact that the Catholic Church has used philosophical ideas and pagan customs to appeal to men and women of different cultures throughout the world has not affected its fundamental belief that God is **a loving Father **who cares for every living being on this planet - and wherever else living beings may exist.
2. Nor had Christ’s precept to love and forgive our enemies appeared anywhere else in the world prior to His birth.
3. Nor has anyone else gone to the extreme of dying for His enemies as well as His friends prior to the example of Christ.
4. Nor had anyone else advocated that all women and children should be regarded as having equal rights to men prior to the teaching and example of Christ.
5. Nor has anyone else founded an institution which is truly international and has lasted for over two thousand years.
6. Nor has anyone else in an obscure province of the Roman empire - or anywhere else - advocated revolutionary ideas about the subordination of secular to divine authority, renounced the patriarchal mentality that dominated humanity and condemned the power of the rich at the expense of the poor.
7. It is significant that even those who reject the claim of Christ to be the Son of God still respect His teaching which is the basis of the values of every civilised person and commands the allegiance of one third of the world’s population.

 

[WillP]

You have still failed to explain the origin of the universal principles enunciated in the teaching of Christ. One simple quotation offering an alternative source would be sufficient but it is not forthcoming even though it should be simple enough to find on a search engine.

1. The fact that the Catholic Church has used philosophical ideas and pagan customs to appeal to men and women of different cultures throughout the world has not affected its fundamental belief that God is **a loving Father **who cares for every living being on this planet - and wherever else living beings may exist.
2. Nor had Christ’s precept to love and forgive our enemies appeared anywhere else in the world prior to His birth.
3. Nor has anyone else gone to the extreme of dying for His enemies as well as His friends prior to the example of Christ.
4. Nor had anyone else advocated that all women and children should be regarded as having equal rights to men prior to the teaching and example of Christ.
5. Nor has anyone else founded an institution which is truly international and has lasted for over two thousand years.
6. Nor has anyone else in an obscure province of the Roman empire - or anywhere else - advocated revolutionary ideas about the subordination of secular to divine authority, renounced the patriarchal mentality that dominated humanity and condemned the power of the rich at the expense of the poor.
7. It is significant that even those who reject the claim of Christ to be the Son of God still respect His teaching which is the basis of the values of every civilised person and commands the allegiance of one third of the world’s population.

Beyond Harl and Ehrman from whom you can trace the overall history and development of christianity, here is a partial reading list which I think will help establish in any reasonable mind that principles similar to the beatitudes ( the sermon on the mount) and other prototypical precepts associated with Christ predate his ministry by perhaps as much as a tousand years:

1. Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage, Part One (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1935), vol. 1, p. 449.
   2 Latourette, Kenneth Scott (1975). A History of Christianity. p. 274
2. Brockman, John (2003-07-17). “The Politics of Christianity: A Talk with Elaine Pagels”. The Third Culture. Edge Foundation, Inc… Retrieved 2009-07-07.
3. Bentley, Jerry H. (1993). Old World Encounters. Cross-cultural contacts and exchanges in pre-modern times. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-507639-7.
4. Iqbal Singh, S. Radhakrishnan, Arvind Sharma, (2004-06-24)). The Buddhism Omnibus: Comprising Gautama Buddha, The Dhammapada, and The Philosophy of Religion. USA: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-566898-7.
5. Michael , Buddhism’s relation to Christainty
6. Charles Eliot (1921, reprint 1990), Hinduism and Buddhism: An Historical Sketch
7. Pagels, Elaine (1979, repr. 1989). The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Random House.

When you’ve read them let me know what you think.

 

[Sair]

Morality doesn’t appear in relationships out of the blue. The teaching of Jesus is the source of the moral values of modern civilisation based on the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Principles which would have no place if we did not depend upon each other for basic survival and pretty much everything we can ever hope to achieve as a species. The ultimate source of the values of modern civilisation is the pragmatic realisation that if we don’t treat each other with a minimal level of respect, bad things have a tendency to happen. Coupled with the realisation, supported by science and grudginly conceded by religious authorities, that we are all the same kind of animal, regardless of race or religious beliefs, with the same capacity to experience happiness and suffering. I think you would be hard-pressed to demonstrate that Christianity is in any way responsible for the evolution of empathy which, as has been pointed out before, is where our moral sense comes from. If anything, religions and other poisonous ideologies only afford people the opportunity to subvert and distort their natural empathy and what’s possibly even worse, to do so with a clear conscience in the belief that they are serving a “higher” good than the well-being of sentient beings.

Christian beliefs and values have had a profound effect on the vast majority of people.

Even granting this, it certainly does not follow that this ‘profound’ effect has been positive.

What would be the point of establishing a community which could spread a pack of lies? Unless of course one is a psychopath or a criminal who foresees a golden opportunity for his descendants to profit from most people’s gullibility by teaching them to love and forgive those who trespass against them… The credibility of Christianity is neatly disposed of by the argument from incredulity - although unfortunately it does cast doubt on the moral rectitude of those who use it.

The credibility of Christianity is disposed of internally by its claims to supernatural entities and to be a repository of “the” truth - even though the “one true church” has changed its mind on both social issues and items of dogma over the course of the development of modern civilisation. And the church has profited immensely from people’s gullibility over the centuries, both in material terms and in the embedded social respect it has built up as an institution, since the time when it could force people to do what it wanted. What could be a more golden opportunity than to hoodwink, fleece and abuse people who are bound on pain of damnation to forgive you for doing so?

 

[Sair]

1. It is significant that even those who reject the claim of Christ to be the Son of God still respect His teaching which is the basis of the values of every civilised person and commands the allegiance of one third of the world’s population.

Which actually only strengthens the claim that our moral intuition is independent of any preaching or teaching. People who are not Hindus can entertain respect for someone like Gandhi, for his nonviolence; non-Buddhists can respect the Dalai Lama for his quiet wisdom - we recognise that certain ideas mesh with human flourishing, and that others don’t. This recognition comes from our evolved empathy, not from the words of someone who is simply able to tap in to this innate human sense.