Happy 200th birthday, Darwin

[Bored Of Education]

Happy 200th birthday, Darwin

Forgive me if I am wrong (I don't want to be told off again) but surely if you are going to give up on the original ten commendments (or 14 or 633 or whatever) then, surely, you should be saying, you know,

1. Don't have any

or

1. Do anything as long as you don't harm others

or

1. Be wary of those giving forth commendments, who do they think they are?

On balance, I like the "Be Excellent to each other" one as an alternative

[Wyatt Earp]

Happy 200th birthday, Darwin

I like the third (1) a lot, but I'm struggling to find a gentle way of saying what I think about the first (1) and the second (1). "Secular ethics is a richer field than you think" is the best I've come up with so far.

[Bruno]

Happy 200th birthday, Darwin

Wa ayat al Urbi wrote:

The drawback is that those kinds of counsels of perfection aren't all that practical, and lend themselves (as I think history's illustrated) to coercion through the manipulation of excessive guilt. If you find yourself nursing the odd suspicion, it shouldn't make you a "miserable sinner".

I don't see them as counsels of perfection, rather as a reflection of the knowledge that suspicions will always be nursed, judgments constantly made, and that we need something in place to challenge ourselves. You don't get there by saying "Try not to do that too often" (the thinking goes); you do so by pointing out that it is almost never the best course for one's own and others' well-being. So not the odd suspicion, a tide of them. Well, and Christians are supposed to believe that 'miserable sinner' is pretty much anyone's default status.

On the mindset of excessive guilt, the fact that such a doctrine is open to manipulation isn't really the point I don't think. But of course it's not practical. However I will say that one only has to get a glimpse of what actually living in that way would be like for one's 'moral health' (and a few glimpses is normally all one gets) to perceive that he was onto something. But the realization that it was setting an impossible standard is why they had to come up with divine grace etc.

[Bruno]

Happy 200th birthday, Darwin

And if one isn't the suspicious type (didn't mean to single out that vice), substitute whatever private failings one is prey to.

[Bored Of Education]

Happy 200th birthday, Darwin

I like the third (1) a lot, but I'm struggling to find a gentle way of saying what I think about the first (1) and the second (1). "Secular ethics is a richer field than you think" is the best I've come up with so far.

I wasn't criticising secular ethics per se or the quality thereof. I was more thinking that, surely, any modern secular society would be come up with something more fine-tuned than a basic blunt format from thousands of years ago.

[Bored Of Education]

Happy 200th birthday, Darwin

Christians are supposed to believe that 'miserable sinner' is pretty much anyone's default status.

"Sinner" yes, "miserable" I am not so sure about. I don't know many people, theist or otherwise, who don't think that they could improve themselves. This doesn't neccesarily make them "miserable" but, I don't know, morally aspiring perhaps?

[Bruno]

Happy 200th birthday, Darwin

Right, I take it to be 'miserable' in the sense of pitiable, not desperately unhappy or wretched. A term of effacement I guess.

[Bored Of Education]

Happy 200th birthday, Darwin

Well, no Christian would profess to be without sin so there shouldn't be a lot of pitying of other sinners going on.

Obviously, you will be able to come up with quotes where people have said this but, you know, they're wrong

[Brandenburger Toro]

Happy 200th birthday, Darwin

An utterly, utterly great essay on the Decalogue from The American Prospect.

Seriously, readthisreadthisreadthis.

[Bored Of Education]

Happy 200th birthday, Darwin

Ooh, more excellent stuff for my Judaism research. I will fucking rule the comparitive religions essay.

By the way, who was it and on what thread about the Jews not being into noble suffering or something. I need a reference for that

[Brandenburger Toro]

Happy 200th birthday, Darwin

Wyatt, on the Howard Jacobson thread, quoting Jacobson.

I think.

[Guest]

Happy 200th birthday, Darwin

That isn't the ground on which I charged inconsistency. There are, after all, ten of them. The inconsistency is between the way you treat all ten, not three.

No, no it's not. There are ten commandments, and they are not fundamental to modern law or morality; where there is an overlap it is because of the common background, not because of any particular continuing relevance of the decalogue, or reliance on it by said laws.

It almost caused me to miss one of the most spurious distinctions I have ever seen ("more a facet of the contemporary dominance of religion as the preferred media of discourse, than religion itself") and, as a professional philosopher, I guarantee you I see many.

A sheltered philosopher, certainly. In a society where public atheism is tantamount to treason, public debate must oft be conducted beneath a godly cloak.

But if you wanted to avail yourself of any (non-biographical! non-pop!) historical scholarship on the topic, you might note the extent to which arguments concerning the metaphysical status of persons almost totally dominated the abolitionist discourse before and during... what was it again? Oh yes, the US Civil War, an event of which someone relying on your tergiversations for information might justly plead ignorance.

Which is supposed to prove what? The discourse of religious abolitionists in religious societies was framed in terms of religion? Forgive me if I am less than surprised, or, indeed, moved. If you want to avail yourself of any (non-biographical! non-pop!) scholarship on the topic, you might note the extent to which arguments considering the reasons for the abolition of slavery, which, y'know, is what the point was about, discount the significance of religious metaphysical speculation in itself as a cause of abolition.

Slavery was not made illegal in England because of Quaker meditations; it was held contrary to the (relatively secular) common law in 1772. The slave trade was not abolished because of Wilberforce channelling the Almighty; the 1807 Act was passed as a patriotic, anti-French measure during a time of war, when the power of the English slavocrats had been eroded by changing economic circumstances (both global trade and industrial development) and the secession of the USA, against an intellectual background of the Enlightenment (and consequent decline of religion as moral and intellectual force) and The Rights of Man, that famously religious book.

[Brandenburger Toro]

Happy 200th birthday, Darwin

You can repeat your "economic context, so no religious input AT ALL" point if you like. You can continue pretending the civil discourse surrounding the US civil war over the abolition of slavery has no relevance to the impact of religion on the abolition of slavery. You can even completely ignore the actual point of my "inconsistency" charge and talk about something else entirely.

But you will never, ever have sufficient command of prose to carry off something like

A sheltered philosopher, certainly. In a society where public atheism is tantamount to treason, public debate must oft be conducted beneath a godly cloak.

,
and it just looks silly when you try.

[Guest]

Happy 200th birthday, Darwin

You can even completely ignore the actual point of my "inconsistency" charge and talk about something else entirely.

Really?

This is superficially all very well, but wholly inconsistent. In some places, the result is got by radically reinterpreting what the rule is generally taken to mean ("Kidnapping"? Come off it...), in others the result is simply ignored, in others it's argued irrelevantly that the result would be the same anyway so it doesn't count LOOK! A DOG WITH A FLUFFY TAIL!

No, it's not. Murder, kidnapping, and perjury are all illegal and are the only Commandments that are illegal, and they're not illegal because of the Commandments.

That isn't the ground on which I charged inconsistency. There are, after all, ten of them. The inconsistency is between the way you treat all ten, not three.

Your first charge - radical reinterpretation - if that is what was done - would not equal inconsistency. As it stands, it is not radical reinterpretation; it is what the commandment meant at the time that it was made, i.e. the time it related most closely to legal and moral standards.

Your second charge - ignoring - is, I think, baseless.

Your third charge - which is the one that appears to best approach "inconsistency" - I have dealt with: 'where there is an overlap it is because of the common background, not because of any particular continuing relevance of the decalogue, or reliance on it by said laws.' Each commandment is treated the same. It is not I who am the ignorer.

So, your points have not been 'completely ignored'; goodness, they have not even been 'slightly ignored' - they have been responded to. You may not agree with the response, but it is there, as plain as plain can be.

It's all largely irrelevant, anyway, since nobody I have ever heard who claims that law has a basis in religion means by this that one particular stone age manifestation of one particular religion's laws is now the sole and unchanged legal system of a modern state.

Either religious precepts lead to the formation of moral and legal systems or they don't. Earlier in the thread, it was argued that religious thought shaped almost all legal and moral principles in modern society; I've argued that they don’t. Where there is continuity between moral, legal, and religious axioms, it is because of a common origin, not because the latter shapes the former. Now, you grant religion a rather more prominent role in the shaping of moral and legal systems, and state ‘That they can be formulated in secular terms … is a sine qua non of worthwhile moral or legal principles; but that doesn't mean they are "not based on religion"’ – which is all good and true. Unfortunately, it is equally true that it doesn’t mean they are based on religion.

The only actual reasoning we see to support this religion-is-the-root-of-all-good/morality/law argument are the twin assertions that religious meditation lead to the abolition of slavery (which is ahistorical guff) and, similarly, to a rise in vegetarianism (which is, well, good? bad? pretty damn insignificant?). That’s it. The other points you make are a demonstrably false assertion that I ignore your ‘”inconsistency” charge’; an attempt to smooth the definition of ‘religion’ into a concept so ephemeral that it loses all relevant meaning (as was attempted much further upthread, when attempting to reconcile evolution & gods); and the dismissal of everything you do not wish to respond to with the assertion that it is a non sequitur, or similar. Oh, and comments on formatting and style. Do better?

[Brandenburger Toro]

Happy 200th birthday, Darwin

The inconsistency is between the way you treat all ten

You still seem to think it's adequate to defend your position by pointing out the separate justifiability of your treatment of each one.

Either religious precepts lead to the formation of moral and legal systems or they don't.

Dear me. Or they sometimes do and sometimes don't. Or they do in some senses, and don't in others. Or they are contributory factors among a welter of other causes. Or...

Earlier in the thread, it was argued that religious thought shaped almost all legal and moral principles in modern society; I've argued that they don’t.

So, see, you're relying here on a ludicrously strict definition of "shaped" for which noone has actually argued.

Where there is continuity between moral, legal, and religious axioms, it is because of a common origin, not because the latter shapes the former.

Because, see, you seem only to admit that there can be one cause of anything, which is just silly. Hence your "there's economics there so it can't have been religion" thing.

Now, you grant religion a rather more prominent role in the shaping of moral and legal systems, and state ‘That they can be formulated in secular terms … is a sine qua non of worthwhile moral or legal principles; but that doesn't mean they are "not based on religion"’ – which is all good and true. Unfortunately, it is equally true that it doesn’t mean they are based on religion.

No, that would indeed have been a silly argument, if I had made it.

But again, I see an incredibly coarse-grained and exclusionary understanding of "based on" here.

The only actual reasoning we see to support this religion-is-the-root-of-all-good/morality/law argument are the twin assertions that religious meditation lead to the abolition of slavery (which is ahistorical guff)

It's ahistorical guff if you think there can only be one causal factor leading up to something. But that would be stupid. It's equally ahistorical guff to deny it had any causal role, which is what you're doing.

The other points you make are a demonstrably false assertion that I ignore your ‘”inconsistency” charge’;

See above

an attempt to smooth the meaning of ‘religion’ into a concept so ephemeral that it loses all relevant meaning (as was done much further upthread);

I have no idea what this means, or refers to. I think you have a deeply unsubtle understanding of religion, as of historical causation, if that helps.

and the dismissal of everything you do not wish to respond to with the assertion that it is a non sequitur, or similar.

I don't know how I can respond to a non sequitur, other than point it out.

Oh, and comments on formatting and style. Do better?

Write better.