Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater: why don't atheists typically reject secular values derived from religion?

[larkin31]

Probably because we are so accustomed to Christian values that their origin is not obvious. The philosophes of the Enlightenment did not start from scratch. The basis of their ideas was their cultural heritage from Christianity, Islam, Greece and Rome.

Indeed! And many of the atheists and theists therein!

There are several sayings of Jesus which have to be taken in conjunction, e.g.

“Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.”

“The Father and I are one”.

These are not very persuasive for your claim about the phrase from France, “liberty, equality, and fraternity.”

The rest of what you write is religious proselytizing.

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed! And many of the atheists and theists therein!

These are not very persuasive for your claim about the phrase from France, “liberty, equality, and fraternity.”

The rest of what you write is religious proselytizing.

Whatever you care to call it you have not refuted a single one of my statements. Let me repeat them for your benefit so that you have the opportunity to demonstrate that they are false:

1. Jesus claimed to be the Son of the Father in heaven, referred to the Holy Spirit and implied that God is not one Person but a Community of Persons.
2. He tells us to be perfect as God is perfect by identifying ourselves with others. That is the only way we can live in peace, joy and harmony.
3. We are all equal in the kingdom of heaven because we are not separated by the vices which cause so much misery and suffering on earth: pride, selfishness, greed, envy, the territorial imperative and lust for power.
4. In the Beatitudes Jesus makes it clear that ultimately we all receive exactly what we deserve. We are forgiven to the exact extent that we forgive.
5. We are all fundamentally equal in the sight of God but that does not mean we are equal in every respect. The first shall be last and the last shall be first!
6. His death - and the deaths of all the martyrs, Christian and non-Christian - has given life and freedom to the world, as have seen recently in eastern Europe and now in the Middle East.
7. In reality the fundamental struggle is between good and evil which has no rational basis in a Godless universe…

NB Since you reject the teaching of Christ as the basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity the onus is on you to give an alternative rational explanation of their origin…

 

[tonyrey]

Perhaps you could cite a non-Christian source prior to Jesus which states that God is our Father - and that women and children are equal to men…

How is this related to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?

Jews may argue that the story of Adam and Eve is the origin of equality since it says we all come from the same parents and so must be equal. Hindus may want the credit since they worship God in both feminine and masculine form. Others may say that the NT is ambiguous about gender equality and quote 1 Tim 2:11-15 , 1 Cor 11:3, 1 Cor 11:7-9, 1 Cor 14:34-35 etc.

The story of Adam and Eve is not the basis of Christ’s teaching about equality nor are your quotations from His words.

How does all that prove that Christ’s teaching proclaimed more than two thousand years ago is not the basis of modern civilisation and of the principles enshrined in the Declaration?

It says the Declaration was drafted by representatives with different cultural backgrounds. These presumably included original member states such as the USSR, the Republic of China, India, the United Arab Republic, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. And, for instance, the representative from the USSR would have gone straight to a gulag if his bosses thought anything in the draft came out of a religion.

They were not concerned with the **origin **of the principles but in drafting a joint declaration based on a consensus of opinion.

Really don’t know where you’re going with this attempt to repaint Christ as a political philosopher who was the single author of modern civilization. Sure His teaching had influences, sure colonization spread those influences, but as well as taking a rather elitist stance (why “civilization” singular instead of plural, is that some kind of Yankee Go Home reaction? ), saying He is the basis of modern civilization would mean He is the basis of modernism, postmodernism, secularism and materialism.

Christ’s teaching is the basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights which are values accepted by all civilised human beings and for which modernism, postmodernism, secularism and materialism do not provide a rational foundation.

Probably because we are so accustomed to Christian values that their origin is not obvious.

Au contraire mon amie:

I haven’t changed sex yet! Je suis ton ami! (masculine)
Can you give an alternative explanation of the origin of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity?

“Which has no bearing on Christ’s teaching that we are all free to choose good or evil”

• Because the Lord gives wisdom: and out of his mouth comes prudence and knowledge. He will keep the salvation of the righteous, and protect them that walk in simplicity, keeping the paths of justice, and guarding the ways of saints. Then shall you understand justice, and judgment, and equity, and every good path. - Proverbs 2:6-13 NAB

The “righteous” in a Jewish context!

“all equal in the sight of the Father and all members of His family” - Have we not all one father? Has not one God created us? Why then does every one of us despise his brother, violating the covenant of our fathers? - Malachi 2.10

Malachi was referring to the Chosen People not the entire human race.

(I look upon all creatures equally; none are less dear to me and none more dear. - Bhagavad Gita 9.29)

The contrast between the remote “look upon” and the active involvement of Christ in human affairs speaks for itself…

So what of all these titles, names, and races? They are mere worldly conventions. - Sutta Nipata 648)

Such an abstract statement does not provide an incentive to action comparable to Christ’s life, teaching and death on the Cross.

“i.e. the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.” - Behold how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity - Psalm 133:1

“brethren” in a Jewish context!

 

[larkin31]

Whatever you care to call it you have not refuted a single one of my statements. Let me repeat them for your benefit so that you have the opportunity to demonstrate that they are false:

1. Jesus claimed to be the Son of the Father in heaven, referred to the Holy Spirit and implied that God is not one Person but a Community of Persons.

This is about heaven, not particularly relevant.

1. He tells us to be perfect as God is perfect by identifying ourselves with others. That is the only way we can live in peace, joy and harmony.

Community, yes.

1. We are all equal in the kingdom of heaven because we are not separated by the vices which cause so much misery and suffering on earth: pride, selfishness, greed, envy, the territorial imperative and lust for power.

This is about heaven, not particularly relevant to the French Revolution.

1. In the Beatitudes Jesus makes it clear that ultimately we all receive exactly what we deserve. We are forgiven to the exact extent that we forgive.

Not relevant to the French Revolution.

1. We are all fundamentally equal in the sight of God but that does not mean we are equal in every respect. The first shall be last and the last shall be first!

Perhaps. This is about heaven, not particularly relevant.

1. His death - and the deaths of all the martyrs, Christian and non-Christian - has given life and freedom to the world, as have seen recently in eastern Europe and now in the Middle East.

This is not a passage citation, nor is your claim supported with anything. Eastern Euriope is free because of Christ’s death? I don’t see how or why. Is this also why the Inuits are free?

1. In reality the fundamental struggle is between good and evil which has no rational basis in a Godless universe…

Unsupported claim, religious proselytizing.

NB Since you reject the teaching of Christ as the basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity the onus is on you to give an alternative rational explanation of their origin…

I would expand to include the teachings of several lines of philosophical thought, including Godless rationalism. All creatures are equal because in a godless world there is no privileged species nor privileged group of religious believers.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

(RE: Tonyrey) Unsupported claim, religious proselytizing.

I would expand to include the teachings of several lines of philosophical thought, including Godless rationalism. All creatures are equal because in a godless world there is no privileged species nor privileged group of religious believers.

Well put. The Golden rule in its four forms existed before and independently of Christianity, as did many other concepts collected as the Bible. Moreover, various civil codes and cultural milieus incorporated such ideas, as I gave you much evidence of which you didn’t examine. My sense is that you are being defensive about a paradigm that won’t allow you to emotionally accept that it is one of many that are and have been practically functional throughout the some 100,000 years of human history, despite relatively recent advances in analytical tools enabling us to parse the human experience more finely. That is not a fault, Tonyrey, it is an opportunity, one which I doubt you will take due to the nature of your hypnotism.

 

[Joan1969]

Hello Innocente,

But surely it would be unreasonable to say only Christians have access to a “real” morality and other religions get it wrong.

This whole way of framing the argument shows a secular mentality. We do not need to believe that other religions “get it wrong” in order to recognize that God has gifted the human race with a reliable revelation. I submit that this revelation is Christianity, more specifically Catholic Christianity.

The common standard should be what we all agree on rather than every religion or group trying to impose its own morals on others, no matter how heartfelt.

The problem being that human beings are disposed to just about every moral abberation that can be imagined by the mind, and to rationalize those acts as well. How to avoid a total breakdown of all morals and common justice?

I’m rather hoping to support the Catholic worldview, not overturn it.

There’s a difference between doctrine and indoctrination, and the RCC isn’t a cult which brainwashes folk. If a Catholic doesn’t agree with a policy in conscience then the CCC appears to say clearly that she must act in that conscience. I’d assume the rest is between her, her priest and God.

To quote CCC, 1791-1792:

This ignorance [of the conscience] can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslalvement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy and conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgement in moral conduct.

I have heard from you an effort to justify totally secularized and irreligious thinking by those who profess to be Catholic, all in the name of “conscience.” I think that quote from the CCC demonstrates fairly plainly that you are at odds with Church teaching here. The Church is about as public with her teaching as any institution on earth, so there isn’t much reason to debate about what the basics of the Catholic Faith really are.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[tonyrey]

1. Jesus claimed to be the Son of the Father in heaven, referred to the Holy Spirit and implied that God is not one Person but a Community of Persons.

It is directly relevant because if we exist for no reason or purpose there is no reason to believe that liberty, equality or fraternity are categorical imperatives. We can take them or leave them. Many people reject them if we are to judge by all the injustice in the world.

1. He tells us to be perfect as God is perfect by identifying ourselves with others. That is the only way we can live in peace, joy and harmony.

Community, yes.

There are no categorical imperatives in a secular community, only conventions.

1. We are all equal in the kingdom of heaven because we are not separated by the vices which cause so much misery and suffering on earth: pride, selfishness, greed, envy, the territorial imperative and lust for power.

This is about heaven, not particularly relevant to the French Revolution.

The subject is **not **the French Revolution but the rational basis of the principles of liberty, equality or fraternity.

1. In the Beatitudes Jesus makes it clear that ultimately we all receive exactly what we deserve. We are forgiven to the exact extent that we forgive.

Not relevant to the French Revolution.

The subject is not the French Revolution but the rational basis of the principles of liberty, equality or fraternity.

1. We are all fundamentally equal in the sight of God but that does not mean we are equal in every respect. The first shall be last and the last shall be first!

Perhaps. This is about heaven, not particularly relevant.

If that is the case where **on earth **do you find a rational basis for the principle of equality?

1. His death - and the deaths of all the martyrs, Christian and non-Christian - has given life and freedom to the world, as have seen recently in eastern Europe and now in the Middle East.

This is not a passage citation…

It is not intended to be a citation.

Eastern Europe is free because of Christ’s death? I don’t see how or why. Is this also why the Inuits are free?

Please reread my statement. The example of Christ has inspired many people to sacrifice their lives to obtain freedom from oppression. The murder of a Polish priest galvanised the people to rebel against the Communist regime and other Eastern European countries followed their example. In Tunisia the suicide of a young man protesting against corruption and the murder of another by two policemen in Egypt sparked off revolutions in both countries.

1. In reality the fundamental struggle is between good and evil which has no rational basis in a Godless universe…

Unsupported claim, religious proselytizing.

Do you deny the reality of the struggle between good and evil? If not what is the basis for the distinction in an amoral universe?

Since you reject the teaching of Christ as the basis of the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity the onus is on you to give an alternative rational explanation of their origin…

I would expand to include the teachings of several lines of philosophical thought, including Godless rationalism. All creatures are equal because in a godless world there is no privileged species nor privileged group of religious believers.

Tell that to all those who live for themselves at the expense of others! In a Godless world there are certainly no privileges but neither are there any rights. All creatures are equally valueless if they just happen to exist by chance…

 

[tonyrey]

The Golden rule in its four forms existed before and independently of Christianity, as did many other concepts collected as the Bible. Moreover, various civil codes and cultural milieus incorporated such ideas, as I gave you much evidence of which you didn’t examine.

There is a vast difference between respecting your neighbour and loving your enemy - and of sacrificing your life for others you haven’t even met. Can you cite a society in which men, women and children **throughout the world **were considered and treated as equals prior to Christianity?

My sense is that you are being defensive about a paradigm that won’t allow you to emotionally accept that it is one of many that are and have been practically functional throughout the some 100,000 years of human history, despite relatively recent advances in analytical tools enabling us to parse the human experience more finely. That is not a fault, Tonyrey, it is an opportunity, one which I doubt you will take due to the nature of your hypnotism.

I can equally easily say you are being defensive about your secular paradigm that won’t allow you to accept the truth of Christ’s teaching which you implicitly accept in your attitude to others as a result of the cultural heritage you fail to acknowledge. You have the opportunity to recognise the limitations of materialism but whether you take it depends entirely on your God-given power to decide for yourself.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

I can equally easily say you are being defensive about your secular paradigm that won’t allow you to accept the truth of Christ’s teaching which you implicitly accept in your attitude to others as a result of the cultural heritage you fail to acknowledge. You have the opportunity to recognise the limitations of materialism but whether you take it depends entirely on your God-given power to decide for yourself.

Being in agreement with RA Heinlein that materialism is the least likely hypothesis, and having stated in some posts which I’m sure you have read that I am a theist, and that my ideas are not based on secularism though they include it, and being very familiar with the Teachings of the Christ and agreeing with them, and having thoroughly used my acknowledgedly God given power to decide for my self, I’m left to wonder what in heaven’s name you are talking about???

 

[tonyrey]

Being in agreement with RA Heinlein that materialism is the least likely hypothesis, and having stated in some posts which I’m sure you have read that I am a theist, and that my ideas are not based on secularism though they include it, and being very familiar with the Teachings of the Christ and agreeing with them, and having thoroughly used my acknowledgedly God given power to decide for my self, I’m left to wonder what in heaven’s name you are talking about???

I’m left to wonder why in heaven’s name you are disputing the significance of Christ’s teaching…

 

[larkin31]

It is directly relevant because if we exist for no reason or purpose there is no reason to believe that liberty, equality or fraternity are categorical imperatives. We can take them or leave them. Many people reject them if we are to judge by all the injustice in the world.

The phrase we are discussing was a motto printed on money in France.

The subject is **not **the French Revolution but the rational basis of the principles of liberty, equality or fraternity.

The phrase was coined in France for the French revolution. That is the historical context for the meaning of the phrase.

If that is the case where **on earth **do you find a rational basis for the principle of equality?

I just gave it. See above. Without divine privilege or chosenness (“chosen people,” etc.), all is equal.

It is not intended to be a citation.

Please reread my statement. The example of Christ has inspired many people to sacrifice their lives to obtain freedom from oppression. The murder of a Polish priest galvanised the people to rebel against the Communist regime and other Eastern European countries followed their example. In Tunisia the suicide of a young man protesting against corruption and the murder of another by two policemen in Egypt sparked off revolutions in both countries.

Sure, Christians have fought for freedom. And they are not the only ones. So have Jews, atheists, Muslims, and pagans. You have now totally changed your argument.

Do you deny the reality of the struggle between good and evil?

Yes, “good” and “evil” are not actual forces at work in this universe. Maybe in another.

Tell that to all those who live for themselves at the expense of others! In a Godless world there are certainly no privileges but neither are there any rights. All creatures are equally valueless if they just happen to exist by chance…

False. I would refer you to the Existentialists, but I know that you would not read them.

 

[larkin31]

and to just remind us of the thread topic, it is untrue that secularists “throw out” the values expounded in religion. Some? Sure. ALL? Nope. That would be just plain stupid. And false (as a claim).

 

[Ranklyfrank]

I’m left to wonder why in heaven’s name you are disputing the significance of Christ’s teaching…

I am not disputing His Teaching; I’m disputing your (the right adjective escapes me) misapplication of it.

 

[Ranklyfrank]

and to just remind us of the thread topic, it is untrue that secularists “throw out” the values expounded in religion. Some? Sure. ALL? Nope. That would be just plain stupid. And false (as a claim).

Taking courage in hand, because it is pertinent to L31’s comment, and because the need for such comments is rampant on these forums, I am going ahead. I hesitate to make this recommendation because while it has been used even in Catholic courses, many “fundamental” Catholics freak at the title and some at its author. Nevertheless, it is unlike her other works and despite a hugely unfortunate and misleading title, it contains a number of mental tools and ideas vastly useful for thinking clearly not only about religion but about anything. The title is (wait for it…) * Insights for the Age of Aquarius: a handbook for religious sanity* by Gina Cerminara.

It is a thorough study, very well annotated, and very well received in a wide circle of scholars and religious authors. And it is and easy read, funny in places, and intelligent. Mostly the latter. I and others highly recommend it.

 

[tonyrey]

I am not disputing His Teaching; I’m disputing your (the right adjective escapes me) misapplication of it.

?

 

[tonyrey]

It is directly relevant because if we exist for no reason or purpose there is no reason to believe that liberty, equality or fraternity are categorical imperatives. We can take them or leave them. Many people reject them if we are to judge by all the injustice in the world.

So what? The use of words is irrelevant to origin of the principles to which they refer.

The subject is **not **

the French Revolution but the rational basis of the principles of liberty, equality or fraternity. The phrase was coined in France for the French revolution. That is the historical context for the meaning of the phrase.

The use of words is irrelevant to the origin of the principles to which they refer.

If that is the case where **on earth **

do you find a rational basis for the principle of equality?I just gave it. See above. Without divine privilege or chosenness (“chosen people,” etc.), all is equal.

Equal in its lack of value!

Please reread my statement. The example of Christ has inspired many people to sacrifice their lives to obtain freedom from oppression. The murder of a Polish priest galvanised the people to rebel against the Communist regime and other Eastern European countries followed their example. In Tunisia the suicide of a young man protesting against corruption and the murder of another by two policemen in Egypt sparked off revolutions in both countries.

Sure, Christians have fought for freedom. And they are not the only ones. So have Jews, atheists, Muslims, and pagans. You have now totally changed your argument.

On the contrary. You have totally evaded evaded my point - that Jesus has inspired many people by His life, sacrificial death and teaching that we are all free, equal and children of one Father which is the basis of modern civilised values and the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Your agreement with His teaching seems purely notional and detached from reality.

Do you deny the reality of the struggle between good and evil?

Yes, “good” and “evil” are not actual forces at work in this universe. Maybe in another.

In other words you regard good and evil as illusions - contrary to the teaching of Christ that they are **realities **to be reckoned with. If you are consistent you must dismiss His prayer “Deliver us from evil” as sheer nonsense!

Tell that to all those who live for themselves at the expense of others! In a Godless world there are certainly no privileges but neither are there any rights. All creatures are equally valueless if they just happen to exist by chance…

False. I would refer you to the Existentialists, but I know that you would not read them.

It is quite likely that I read them before you were born! BTW Sartre’s attribution of free will to introspection is an inadequate explanation because it overlooks the possibility that we could be impotent spectators and does not explain the element of choice. Like Camus he arbitrarily established humanism on a foundation of absurdity!

 

[larkin31]

In other words you regard good and evil as illusions - contrary to the teaching of Christ that they are **realities **to be reckoned with. If you are consistent you must dismiss His prayer “Deliver us from evil” as sheer nonsense!

False. Stop putting words in my mouth. Because I state that good and evil are not forces in contention with each other (they are not “forces” at all in this universe) does NOT mean that they do not exist in the world of human discourse as ideas. Of course they do! I just don’t personifyt them as forces with intent and purpose. That part of religion I reject.

It is quite likely that I read them before you were born! BTW Sartre’s attribution of free will to introspection is an inadequate explanation because it overlooks the possibility that we could be impotent spectators and does not explain the element of choice. Like Camus he arbitrarily established humanism on a foundation of absurdity!

“Absurd” for them is quite other than how you are using it here.

I was born before 1960. Were you reading them before that?

 

[tonyrey]

*In other words you regard good and evil as illusions - contrary to the teaching of Christ that they are **realities ***

If they exist merely as ideas in the world of human discourse they **are **illusions! In your view they have no reference to objective reality. “Deliver us from evil” becomes nothing more than a pious aspiration because there is nothing to be liberated from!

Of course they do! I just don’t personify them as forces with intent and purpose. That part of religion I reject.

What part of religion do you accept?

Sartre’s attribution of free will to introspection is an inadequate explanation because it overlooks the possibility that we could be impotent spectators and does not explain the element of choice. Like Camus he arbitrarily established humanism on a foundation of absurdity!

“Absurd” for them is quite other than how you are using it here.

              Please explain what sense you think they were using it in...

I was born before 1960. Were you reading them before that?

By then I had my first degree!

 

[inocente]

I haven’t changed sex yet! Je suis ton ami! (masculine)

As it’s part of your theme I thought you’d like the implied gender equality. Apparently not.

*The “righteous” in a Jewish context!

Malachi was referring to the Chosen People not the entire human race.

“brethren” in a Jewish context!*

Surreal dude. This is how I interpret your thesis, repeated a number of times, that the teaching of Jesus is the basis of modern civilization.

We can safely dispense with all other religions and systems of thought since they are not the basis of modern civilization and obviously befuddled. Your comments about my quotes from Hinduism and Buddhism confirm this.

Then from your comments above we can also dispense with the OT since its Liberty, Equality and Fraternity® were only for a chosen people.

This means Matt 5:17 is completely wrong - Jesus came to abolish the Law and the Prophets, not to fulfill them. The fulfillment comes in modern civilization itself, since the teaching of Jesus is its basis, to be exact I’d guess circa mid-twentieth century when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was written.

And since both modern civilization and the Declaration are secular, we can now also dispose of the NT and turn cathedrals into theme parks. QED :whacky:

This is the bijou problemette with attempts to turn Jesus into a philosopher teacher, first tried I believe by some Gnostics.

I understand your motives but Christians don’t need to try to claim ownership of everything, God doesn’t need our defense. The reason why we trust in Christ isn’t because of philosophy, it’s because He died for us.

 

[inocente]

This whole way of framing the argument shows a secular mentality. We do not need to believe that other religions “get it wrong” in order to recognize that God has gifted the human race with a reliable revelation. I submit that this revelation is Christianity, more specifically Catholic Christianity.

There’s no framing, I only pointed out that religions differ in their morality and disagree about who got it right. You sincerely believe in conscience that your religion is right but others sincerely believe in conscience their religion is right, and there’s no unbiased rational means to choose between.

The problem being that human beings are disposed to just about every moral abberation that can be imagined by the mind, and to rationalize those acts as well. How to avoid a total breakdown of all morals and common justice?

You lost me - I was talking about religions not moral aberrations.

*To quote CCC, 1791-1792:

This ignorance [of the conscience] can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.*

But I covered that. The person has formed and informed her conscience, she may have wrestled long and hard, discussed it with her priest, and then if she still can’t agree CCC 1790 says A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.

I have heard from you an effort to justify totally secularized and irreligious thinking by those who profess to be Catholic, all in the name of “conscience.” I think that quote from the CCC demonstrates fairly plainly that you are at odds with Church teaching here. The Church is about as public with her teaching as any institution on earth, so there isn’t much reason to debate about what the basics of the Catholic Faith really are.

You’re right, it’s your Church and if Catholics want to call fellow Catholics secularized and irreligious it’s not for others to judge.