Are Morals Relevant?

[redleghunter]

It's good that Ehrman is taking on skeptics. That sort of skepticism is pernicious in its effect on rational appreciation of history in general.

I agree. If there ever was a 'neutral' source on the historical Jesus it is Bart Ehrman. I say that because in video #2 he makes it clear as an agnostic he believes Jesus was just a man. Which infuriates many Christians (understandably so). In the end, what you have is an apostate claim Jesus the man was a real man of history, but just not the same Jesus Christians preach as Son of God and Son of man.

I know this pops the "Jesus myth" bubble and the angry comments Ehrman gets from this camp you would expect from cultic religious groups.

 

[JoeP222w]

Secular morality can actually explain WHY it's wrong.

So why is it wrong according to the secular worldview, that is, if this world is nothing more than a product of astronomical random chance?

There is no wrong or right in the Atheistic worldview, because wrong and right demand a moral absolute. If you say there is moral absolutes, then who or what defines them? If you say it is for the good of society or does no harm, you are back to the original point. Moreover society has defined things in the past that are evil by God's definition as good things (e.g. late 1930's Germany and the genocide of the Jewish people), so society is no absolute standard of morality.

Whereas the "divine morality" proponent can only say "because god says so".

Since is God is the perfect, holy and righteous Creator of all things, and since mankind is created in the image of God, life is sacred, all life is sacred, and violation of one's life either through murder, lying, theft, adultery and anything else God has defined as unlawful, that is the absolute moral standard.

You may choose to reject God's word, but that has no effect on His truth or that He is the Creator of all things and that He is the Just Judge of the universe, before whom you will one day stand and give account for how you violated His perfect law.

The "morality" you refer to isn't morality at all. That's just obedience to a perceived authority.

Not merely perceived, but actual, no matter how much you reject it.

"god says so", is not a grounding nore a reasonable justification.
It is, again, just mere obedience.

Same point again.

So, slavery is okay, genocide is fine, infanticide is fine, public stoning is a-okay, killing gays is okay, burning witches is okay,...………...

Context matters. We are not ancient Israelites, in that place, for that people for that time.

The Bible never calls slavery a righteous act for all people of all time.
The Bible never calls for genocide. God executed divine justice against a wicked, idolatrous and immoral people, and God uses means to carry out His justice.
The Bible never calls for infanticide. Again, God executed justice. Moreover, God, being the sovereign and holy Creator, has the right to do with His creation as He chooses. You don't get the right to hold God on trial in your blasphemous courtroom.

 

[JoeP222w]

Perhaps it depends on how one defines morality. I define morality as the ability to understand the consequences of actions, and how they affect me and my neighbor. And it starts from the position that what is helpful to me and my neighbor is “good” and what is harmful to me and my neighbor is “bad”.

What or who defines what is helpful or harmful? If we are just the product of random chance, there is no way to define that which is helpful or harmful. We are just random bodies bumping into each other, just a bundle of sensations and feelings.

If you are unable to under the consequences of actions but instead must resort to an authority to understand how to react to such actions, you aren’t being moral, your authority/God is; you’re just being obedient. IOW you are nothing but an immoral person who is good at following directions. I’m better than that, and I suspect you are as well even if you don’t realize it right now.

This is not the message of Christianity. No one has the ability, in and of themselves, to do that which is good (or obedient). The message of Christianity is that we have violated God's perfect standard (which is sin), we are dead in our sins and have no ability to be obedient and we are under the wrath of God. However, by the work of regeneration of the heart of the believer in Jesus Christ, by His grace alone (called salvation), those who are in Christ are now able to be obedient to God as a product of their salvation. Christians are not good and moral people, not better than anyone else. I, myself, am the greatest sinner there is (I have nothing good in my, in and of myself), but I have been redeemed from my bondage to sin, by Christ alone, by His grace alone, by faith alone, through the gift of repentance by which God has granted me.

 

[Inkfingers]

Yes, you bore false witness. I did not “simply” state that it was “in service of myself”. I mentioned an advantage to BOTH the society as a whole and the individual within it...

Do try to be honest. I realise that you are on the losing end of an argument, but integrity still counts for something...

You stated that it is in your benefit because it helps society.

Do try to keep your story straight.

Or better yet I think I shall feed the scurriers on the outskirts less, as their stories change with the wind.

 

[redleghunter]

Yes. And 'Josephus' was provided, as a source for 'eyewitness' attestation, when asked. So my advice... 'Josephus' may not warrant mentioning, when one asks for actual eyewitness testimony, outside the Bible.

Let's apply your impossible, and anachronistic, standard to other historical figures. What are the independent historical sources for Alexander the Great outside of Greek culture?

 

[ananda]

In northern India in the late ancient period, the Buddha's existence and trustworthiness was part of the typical religious epistemology.

To be a be a Buddhist and to not believe in the historical existence of the Buddha sounds more than a bit like self-indulgent solipsism, honestly.

I meant that our "salvation" is not based on faith in the historical existence or life of the Buddha, but on the truthfulness & veracity of the Dhamma.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree. If there ever was a 'neutral' source on the historical Jesus it is Bart Ehrman. I say that because in video #2 he makes it clear as an agnostic he believes Jesus was just a man. Which infuriates many Christians (understandably so). In the end, what you have is an apostate claim Jesus the man was a real man of history, but just not the same Jesus Christians preach as Son of God and Son of man.

I know this pops the "Jesus myth" bubble and the angry comments Ehrman gets from this camp you would expect from cultic religious groups.

It is sort of cultic stuff. He's right when he points out its something you typically only found in the far left, like in Marxist critiques of religion.

But its an outdated view of the whole issues no longer taken seriously by academics in general. On the other hand, Ehrman's interpretation of Jesus is within the bounds of rationality, even if its hardly mainstream. It owes too much to Albert Schweitzer's outdated viewpoint which made Jesus merely an apocalyptic prophet, something many modern scholars would not agree with (I believe the tendency is to focus on Jesus as a teacher of unconventional wisdom, viz a viz Marcus Borg, and that Jesus did not in fact see "the Kingdom of God" as some kind of immanent overthrow of the political order).

 

[FireDragon76]

I meant that our "salvation" is not based on faith in the historical existence or life of the Buddha, but on the truthfulness & veracity of the Dhamma.

There's Dharma and then there's Buddhadharma, though. If we are talking about the Eightfold Path, that involves faith in the credibility of the Buddha and his character. That's why in Buddhist religion, so much is made of the virtues of the Buddha . If the Buddha were an unvirtuous person, he would not be reliable.

 

[redleghunter]

For example, there's this diary of Julius Ceasar concerning his conquest of Gaul and the battles that took place there.

Which we only have a few manuscripts of from the 10th century AD scribed by Catholic monks. This goes for most of antiquity...except for the New Testament which has an abundance of earlier manuscripts going back to the 2nd century AD. There's absolutely no comparison.

You can cross reference those claims with other independend sources. Independend, in the sense that the same battles etc are mentioned in sources that didn't derive their information from Ceasar's diary or from those that believe that diary (on faith, of all things).

Name these sources and their manuscript records.

You can find such sources among the locals where the battles took place.

Show me.

You can actually go to these places, dig down and find remains and evidence of Roman soldiers and battle fields.

Indeed as if there is no archaeological evidence for the New Testament.

It's called corroborating evidence.

Yes that is true.

Person A simply repeating the claims of person B, doesn't constitute evidence that the claims of person B are accurate. At all.

This is true as well. Which leads me to conclude you ascribe to the "Jesus Myth" theory which is untenable to say the least.

 

[redleghunter]

Tell that to the author of 1 Corinthians 15:6 One of the most 'beloved' 'examples' of 'eyewitness testimony' from Christians.

Then compare the definitions of 'eyewitness' vs 'hearsay' honestly.

It's not hearsay. Consider the historical setting. People who saw the risen Christ were still alive and Paul is telling his Corinthian audience that if they wanted to speak with these eyewitnesses they could still do so. As a matter of fact, Paul's frequent ministry partner, Dr. Luke seems to have taken Paul's advice as he opens his gospel account with the following:

Luke 1: NASB
1Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Looks like Luke was setting out to write a historical account and not a fairy tale.

And good literary giants can tell the difference:

“All I am in private life is a literary critic and historian, that’s my job. And I am prepared to say on that basis if anyone thinks the Gospels are either legend or novels, then that person is simply showing his incompetence as a literary critic. I’ve read a great many novels and I know a fair amount about the legends that grew up among early people, and I know perfectly well the Gospels are not that kind of stuff.” (C.S Lewis)​

 

[redleghunter]

The fact is that there is NOTING that can't be believe on "faith" (in the religious sense).

What is your definition of faith?

 

[ananda]

There's Dharma and then there's Buddhadharma, though. If we are talking about the Eightfold Path, that involves faith in the credibility of the Buddha and his character. That's why in Buddhist religion, so much is made of the virtues of the Buddha . If the Buddha were an unvirtuous person, he would not be reliable.

As I see it, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, much of Hinduism, etc. relies this line of reasoning: "Since the founder (Jesus, Mohammad, etc.) was surely the Anointed, we therefore conclude that his message must be followed." This is why belief in the authenticity of the founder is paramount in these religions, and must be defended to the nth degree. Their foundation of faith exists in the unverifiable past.

On the other hand, in comparison, early Buddhists tend to reason "in reverse", e.g.: "After systematically, methodically, and personally testing the Eightfold Path in the here-and-now, and after gaining knowledge for one's self that it is effective and leads to Awakening, we therefore conclude that the founder of that Path must be Awakened (Buddha), whoever he/she/it may be." If a map is verifiable, the question of, or belief in, who made the map becomes mostly irrelevant. Our foundation of faith exists in the verifiable present.

 

[redleghunter]

I think you are missing my point as well... Christians claim eyewitness testimony all the time, from the Bible. And yet, when one investigates honestly, comes to find out many of these claims are from hearsay, or from second hand sources, via long told oral tradition.

Inaccurate. Most of the NT books were penned before 70 AD. Revelation and the Gospel of John comes later on as he lived to be very old. And he was an eyewitness to the ministry, death and resurrection of Christ.

 

[redleghunter]

100 people can claim that I was in place X at time Y.
But if objective empirical data places me in place A at time Y instead, then the 100 testimonies will be instantly discarded.

Please tell me the empirical evidence for the emperor Claudius. Or any other historical figure.

 

[redleghunter]

Which is nothing to do with my point, that eye witness testimony does not cease to be such if written down by a scribe.

Indeed. But obviously this can't be the case for Hebrew and Christian historical accounts. They need an independent neutral source. Which they apply this impossible standard only to Hebrew and Christian sources and don't to secular historians.

There is no such neutral or independent 'sources' in antiquity. There were no Sky News or CNN or even Geraldo Rivera. Our posting friends are engaging in anachronistic demagoguery.

 

[redleghunter]

But it's not eye witness testimony.

It's hearsay.

So you shoot me, and three people see it and run away. Then the cops interview the three people who saw you shoot me. He records their experience in deposition and you say that deposition is hearsay? If so where did you to law school?

A deposition is sworn evidence.

And, as said already, eyewitnesses can be wrong.

This is true. But they must be examined to see if their testimony is true or not. Instead you impeach the witness before even taking the stand.

 

[redleghunter]

As far back as I can remember, I have rejected the claims that your (or any other religion’s) god exists...

You rejecting YHWH did not make Him go away, so don't see the point.

And yet, I feel perfectly comfortable in rejecting murder, rape, theft, etc as being acceptable...

Good, but his point is you have no reason to on a moral basis. To save your own 'hide' sure I can see that. But that is a survival instinct and not a moral. Plus whether you believe it or not you probably subscribe subconsciously to the 'we reap what we sow' worldview. So you have a Christian moral worldview and probably don't know it as it is embedded in Western society.

 

[redleghunter]

But on what grounds do you claim to reject them?

I would gather the basis is because they are either Hebrew or Christian in origin.

Another example of impeaching the star witness.

 

[dmmesdale]

Since big-brained apes are the product of nature and nature is amoral then so is big-brained apes, by nature amoral. The moral big-brained ape is subjective/group fiction. Like equality, morality is religious superstition. At best, big-brained apes have a natural right to contract.

 

[redleghunter]

Perhaps it depends on how one defines morality. I define morality as the ability to understand the consequences of actions, and how they affect me and my neighbor. And it starts from the position that what is helpful to me and my neighbor is “good” and what is harmful to me and my neighbor is “bad”.

Basically, we reap what we sow. Sorry but that's been done already.