I think we have to see the Bible as part of the literature that shaped our society and formed our societal values. It is part of our cultural history whether we like it or not. It is not possible to understand the formation of Western civilization without a knowledge of the Bible. It is certainly not possible to understand the history of art without a familiarity with its stories. This has nothing to do with believing - it is just a part of our heritage with which we should be acquainted.

we're in one of those weird eras where non-christians obviously don't want a bible or christian based laws, but christians need the bible and government by laity/ clergy.

2017, and we're still finding it difficult to separate the myths and miracles of the old books from their underlying - and often unintended - ethical foundations.

Of course, when these books were put together, the 'lessons' had to be gilded with miracles and wonders. It's no coincidence that the withering away of Christian dogma occurred as western science gained strength, through sheer hard work, the accumulation of evidence, the sharing of ideas and room for the proposal of ever-new theories.

All religious books, the bible, the Koran, the Hindu books etc., had the misfortune to have been written and set in stone before people knew bugger-all about the world, the universe and everything. But if we set burning bushes and crows feeding blokes in the desert and virgin births aside, and focus on their human bases, their ethical bases, we can all learn something.

[Although, as a child, I knew that it's so much easier to go on and on and on about (a) the idiocy of believing in miracles, and (b) how evil believers have been towards non-believers.]

Put that aside: what were the human values of different religions (if they have any: Islam, I'm not so sure about, except for its parochial and tribalist prejudices), that we can all learn from, including us atheists ?

Is it, or is it not, worthy and honorable to help our fellow man, regardless if whether or not he is 'one of us' ? [i.e. the Good Samaritan Story, which may or may not be true but that really doesn't matter]. Are all people basically entitled to the dame respect, the same rights and the same - to use a sooky Christian word - love ? I think so.

Conversely, should everybody be protected from evil done by others ? i.e., random murder (gosh, who am I getting at ?), starvation, stunted lives, total lack of opportunity (including that of women)? I think so.

Yes, we can build on those pre-modern systems of ethical behaviour and hopefully move far beyond them, but we shouldn't forget where they are derived from.

Joe

Yuyutsu

"Perhaps because there ARE no ethics in the natural?"

Perhaps there aren't, and perhaps there are. But whether there are, should at least be investigated with an open and inquiring mind, before we conclude that there aren't.

If we say that no rational ethics is possible, then I don't see how we can be in any better position for recourse to theism: magical superbeings and all that.

However I believe a rational ethics is possible, and follows from
a) the fact of natural scarcity,
b) the fact that an ethic is a rule of just conduct.

The fact of natural scarcity means that there is always the possibility of conflict between human beings over the use of resources. So if this is not to be resolved by mere brute force, and aggression, and the stronger taking from the weaker - then we need rules of just conduct: we need ethics.

This must be so, because even in a Garden of Eden, there would still be the radical scarcity of the stuff of one's physical body, and one's standing room. So there would still be a need for ethics even in Paradise.

How about that for a first step?

Hi Joe Loudmouth

Yes, very interesting post.

I used to think, I reject the Christian view of the origin of the universe, the world, the origin of species, and the origin of languages; but I do believe in the Christian ethic.

But then later on, I thought, hang on: if the factual basis of the ethic is wrong, or so highly likely to be wrong that it's unreasonable to believe otherwise, then the ethic is likely to prove wrong too.

Christianity seems one of the most sex-negative belief systems in the world. Trying to find its source, I started at the book of Genesis. First up, we have, God made everything and behold it was very good. Next up, Adam and Eve become aware of their nakedness and are "ashamed". So all of a sudden, without any explanation, behold it was very bad. From then on, virtually every mention of sex is disapproving: it is sinful, repugnant, obscene, and so on. The Christian view is basically that all sex but married monogamous heterosexuality is a distortion of human sexuality. However, as Kinsey showed, if we look at the 'fieldwork' of human sexuality as it were - if we look at the actual facts - the truth is the opposite. Human sexuality is a very varied landscape. The commonest form of heterosexuality is a series of nearly-monogamous relationships, with 'a bit on the side'. Only a small minority of even the Christian population ever complies with the Christian precepts of marriage as virgins and life-long monogamous fidelity thereafter.

So why should we adopt the Christian ethic in hating and condemning ordinary non-offensive human sexual behaviour?

Therefore why should we adopt the Christian ethic when it's factually wrong?

However, if we are not to have a theistic ethic, then we need a rational ethic, otherwise what is to stop the original ethical problem, that the stronger and more aggressive will simply grab what they want from the weaker?

How about that?

Hi JDJ,

No, I didn't say it was a perfect fit. But I don't believe that the underlying ethic (of probably any religion)is tied totally to its religious-mirabilist-crap exterior. The notion of 'doing to others as you would have them do unto you' is surely a worthy start ? Or, as Martin Buber put it, 'Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.' Surely that's not just a worthy principle, but a possibly secular one as well ?

And of course, those ethical principles have evolved a long way from Hammurabi's 'eye for an eye, etc.' of four thousand years ago. After all, the Good Samaritan principle (more honoured in its breach even now) was probably impossible in tribal societies like those of the ancient Hebrew tribes. A liberal dash of Greek philosophy and Roman practicality added to the evolving Jewish ethic was probably necessary, the notion that 'the other' wasn't that different, and therefore - a huge leap - had as many rights as anybody else.

Those principles of reciprocity and universality have thankfully carried down to many of us, even some of us atheists. But inevitably, their origins, their first battlegrounds, were in the evolving ethics of Judaism and Christianity. I have no problem with acknowledging that.

Cheers,

Joe