Yes, because such secular humanistic ideas were one of the ideas that grew up in the vacuum of Christian dogma, the others being Communism, Social Darwinism, Liberal Capitalism, etc.

 

Liberal Capitalism is neither 20th century or non-Christian. Have you read Tawney?

 

That apart, so what? The point is that Christian influence has diminshed in the 20th century, and at the end of the century the mass (not of course all) of mankind worldwide enjoyed freer, fuller, more comfortable and longer lives than they had at the beginning, a great many of them in states that only achieved independence during the century.

 

It's arguable that this is no coincidence.

 

 

I would say that many of the evils of the 20th century were caused by an absence of "Christian" values, you know compassion for your fellow man, etc, etc.

 

 

Originally posted by Sparten If you are going to go by a "decline of christianity thesis", then I suspect future historians will date that as beginning around the time of the reformation.   I would say that many of the evils of the 20th century were caused by an absence of "Christian" values, you know compassion for your fellow man, etc, etc.

-------------

 

 

Fascism, communism, and other forms of totalitarianism are not caused by industrialization or the loss of religion or any of those things.  The upswing in violence this and the last century have seen has been inspected and attributed to any number of things, but one thing it has not been attributed to is the most likley source...popular government and democracy. 

Fascism, Communism and others are systems of government that thrive on popular support and an establishment of power by charismatic people on the shoulders of the masses.  Democracy, if you will, is a prelude to fascism, or maybe it is just a form of it.  Democracies are easy prey for such movements, and democracies often spring up after such movements are toppled.  They are all forms of mass sanctioned rule, a product one could say, of urbanization.

It is a tool used not by the elites of the blood (bad), or the elites of ability (good), but by the elites of the popularity contest, the people with a pretty smile.  That pretty smile is a way to get the people behind you.  The people, like the animal they are, need nourishment, and that is usually found in the neighbors those brutish people deign to hate because they are different.  To sustain their rule the charismatic people in charge feed their charges with witch hunts.

 You see people at the intellectual bottom are so low that the only way they can feel good about themselves is by making someone lower. In Germany this was the Jews, in America it once was Blacks and now is atheists, migrant workers and homosexuals, and in Soviet Russia it was the wealthy and sucessful Ukranian kulaks and self sufficient Cossacks who had to pay for being a human being who was not a part of the biggest mob.

Fascism and communism, you see, are natural, less moderate versions of popular democratic movements.

I agree with you. Thats why I placed the words Chritisan in inverted commas.

 

 

 

As you seem to have detected an absence of "Christian" values in the 20th century, you might want to enlighten us, in which centuries they were actually present.

 

On the other hand, there are aspects of the Christian/traditional mindset which were so far overlooked, aspects like "love your neighbour as you love yourself" (one of the Commandments) or "do to others as you would have others do to you" (if I'm not mistaken it's some verse from Matthew), aspects which crystalized in the morality of some communities (the rural ones being good examples). These "duties to God" seemingly are also concerning our neighbours. While not necessarily intending to discuss theodicees or apparent or real contradictions in the Christian philosophy/doctrines, it seems that there's a Christian moral imperative to care (and act accordingly) about our neighbours. Hence, Christianity vs Humanism appears to be a forced dichotomy if we look at the whole perspective.

 

What indeed could be a good example of opposition to Christianity would be the Individualism.

 

Originally posted by Chilbudios Among the philosophical stances characterising an increasingly larger percentage from the modern individuals of the so-called "Civilized world" would be also: hedonism, egoism, capitalism and similar ideologies.

Hedonism and egoism - which are not really ideologies anyway - are scarcely new, and certainly did not increase in the 20th century.

 

Capitalism is an offshoot of Christian puritanism, and moreover it can hardly be said to have spread during the 20th century, which in fact saw the spread of political movements opposed to capitalism, whether it be Communism of various types, secular Socialism, Christian Socialism, Ba'athist socialism or whatever.

 

The virtually unchallenged heyday of capitalism was the mid to late 19th century - a period in which Christianity was also dominant. The movements that opposed capitalism, whether Fabian or Marxist, menshevik or Bolshevik, tended also to oppose  organised religion.

 

(I realise there were some Christian groups also opposed to free capitalism; that's why I mentioned Christian socialists above.)

These ideologies reclaim the priority of the self-interest over the others. On the other hand, there are aspects of the Christian/traditional mindset which were so far overlooked, aspects like "love your neighbour as you love yourself" (one of the Commandments) or "do to others as you would have others do to you" (if I'm not mistaken it's some verse from Matthew), aspects which crystalized in the morality of some communities (the rural ones being good examples).

Neither of those are specifically Christian commandments. You find them in pretty well all religions - and non-religious philosophies like Kant's - including the pre-Christian ones.

 

What is important in this context is that to Jesus the command 'love thy neighbour as thyself' is second behind the prime duty to love God.

 

Mark 12:30-31

 

"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength;' this is the first commandment.

And the second is like, namely this: `Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

These "duties to God" seemingly are also concerning our neighbours. While not necessarily intending to discuss theodicees or apparent or real contradictions in the Christian philosophy/doctrines, it seems that there's a Christian moral imperative to care (and act accordingly) about our neighbours. Hence, Christianity vs Humanism appears to be a forced dichotomy if we look at the whole perspective.

The very phrase 'moral imperative' reeks of Kant.

 

Anyway what Christians should do isn't the point. It's what on the whole they did do. And that record isn't particularly good when it comes to dealing with people who don't agree with them.

 

Moreover, it is undoubtedly true that the prime Christian imperative is to do God's will, irrespective of its effect on people. The humanist says 'look after people - God, if any, can take care of himself.'

What indeed could be a good example of opposition to Christianity would be the Individualism.

-------------

AFAIK an ideology is a set of ideas reflecting the beliefs of an individual or a group of individuals, ideas which somehow illustrate a social/cultural integration of this individual or group of individuals.

Egoism may be also rational (to think that acting for your own self is the best thing to do) and also ethical (to think that is morale to act for your own self). Hedonism is a similar position which replaces the own interest with the own pleasure.

Both are not new, being known to an extent to Ancient Graeco-Roman world (see Epicureanism, for instance).

I'm not sure if the beginning of 20th century is a relevant starting point, but it seems quite obvious that their spreadout is reversely proportional with the influence of Christian values, which are somehow opposite.

 

Capitalism is an offshoot of Christian puritanism,

I'm not sure I follow that.

 

and moreover it can hardly be said to have spread during the 20th century, which in fact saw the spread of political movements opposed to capitalism, whether it be Communism of various types, secular Socialism, Christian Socialism, Ba'athist socialism or whatever.

True enough (though 20th century saw also the developments of many other movements - why political movements? - supporting capitalism), but I was talking under a larger perspective of the "modern individuals of the so-called 'Civillized world'. Modernity, AFAIK, stretches few centuries behind us

 

The virtually unchallenged heyday of capitalism was the mid to late 19th century - a period in which Christianity was also dominant.

Such correlations remind me of the decreasing number of pirates and the increasing global average temperature.  Coexistence is not necessarily causation.

 

Neither of those are specifically Christian commandments.

I'm not sure what's your point here. It was insinuated above in the thread that Christianity is a "duty to God" and therefore it's not "Humanistic". I merely argued against that, I'm not revealing its specifics or attempting to provide it as "Teh Way".

 

What is important in this context is that to Jesus the command 'love thy neighbour as thyself' is second behind the prime duty to love God.   Mark 12:30-31   "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength;' this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this: `Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

 

Please try to explain us how you measure the egoism in the history! 

 

 

 

Maybe because they were too often just theoretically claimed, but (almost) never applied . . .

 

 

Well, I really have some problems putting in connection what you describe as a rurally practiced moralitym with what I know from history the rural morality looked like!

 

 

 

The dichotomy is absolute in terms of historical experience and theoretically false because what YOU describe as "christian ethics" is just a fraction from what was christian ethics manifested through ages and just a fraction of what one can extact as ethics from the religious text of this cult  . . .

 

 

Not exactly! You can find some elements that makes christianism an individualism generating ideology, specially when you look at him as an outgrowth of the so tribal (= collectivist) judaism  . . . The accent put on personal responsability and individual saving is such an example, but you can find probably others.

 

 

Antichristian =/= humanist. So?

(I appreciate a lot you stressing that we have to deal here with "a more recent interpretation", but we all wolud have been infinitely more happy if christianism didn't manifest this "esprit d'escalier" in matters of ethics . . .

Hedonism and egoism are both essentially individualistic - denials of a community spirit. An ideology necessarily implies a shared set of values and shared goals, just as a religion does.

Egoism may be also rational (to think that acting for your own self is the best thing to do) and also ethical (to think that is morale to act for your own self). Hedonism is a similar position which replaces the own interest with the own pleasure. Both are not new, being known to an extent to Ancient Graeco-Roman world (see Epicureanism, for instance).

I'm not sure that Epicurus is really relevant here: this view of Epicureanism, while proverbial, is unjustified.

I'm not sure if the beginning of 20th century is a relevant starting point, but it seems quite obvious that their spreadout is reversely proportional with the influence of Christian values, which are somehow opposite.

'Quite obvious'? How? Throughout the 20th century (I'd agree that's not a good start date, but we're stuck with it) egoism has been in retreat. Hedonism has been on the upswing, and I'll concur that hedonism conflicts with Puritanism: I don't dispute that hedonism has increased with the decline of puritamism; I'm just rather pleased that it has.

 

(Arguably the best statement of hedonistic doctrine comes from a well-known source - "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal - all Men are created equal , that they are endowed, by their http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity - Creator , with certain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inalienable_rights - unalienable Rights , that among these are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life%2C_liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_happiness - Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness .")

Capitalism is an offshoot of Christian puritanism, I'm not sure I follow that.

 

The correlation between the growth of liberal capitalism and the growth of puritanism, both over time, and by country, is undeniable. There is some dispute over whether the Puritanism led to the liberal capitalism, or vice versa, but they were certainly closely linked.

 

and moreover it can hardly be said to have spread during the 20th century, which in fact saw the spread of political movements opposed to capitalism, whether it be Communism of various types, secular Socialism, Christian Socialism, Ba'athist socialism or whatever. True enough (though 20th century saw also the developments of many other movements - why political movements? - supporting capitalism), but I was talking under a larger perspective of the "modern individuals of the so-called 'Civillized world'. Modernity, AFAIK, stretches few centuries behind us   The virtually unchallenged heyday of capitalism was the mid to late 19th century - a period in which Christianity was also dominant. Such correlations remind me of the decreasing number of pirates and the increasing global average temperature.  Coexistence is not necessarily causation.   Neither of those are specifically Christian commandments. I'm not sure what's your point here. It was insinuated above in the thread that Christianity is a "duty to God" and therefore it's not "Humanistic". I merely argued against that, I'm not revealing its specifics or attempting to provide it as "Teh Way".   What is important in this context is that to Jesus the command 'love thy neighbour as thyself' is second behind the prime duty to love God.   Mark 12:30-31   "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength;' this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this: `Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.' There is no other commandment greater than these." On what theological basis you argue that the order of issuing is the order of importance?

It's not the order of issuance, its the definite indication that one's FIRST duty is to God. Which is of course also the situation with the ten commandments.

 

It's also not a theological basis but a linguistic one. 'First' means 'primary'.

 

Moreover it is certainly established doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church, at least according to the Jesuits with whom I have argued in the past. For instance, whether allowing divorce increases human misery or diminishes it is held to be irrelevant, since allowing it is contrary to the will of God.

 

Also you're starting with the premise that these commandements would eventually contradict therefore one would have sometime to choose between them,

 

No I'm not. I'm starting from the premise that such a contradiction MIGHT occur. Which it may, and indeed has. Such a contradiction exists right now over divorce and over homosexual marriage, for instance.

 

Of course, the contradictions vary according to how you define 'God's will' and as a matter of practical politics the Christian churches (some of them) have been watering down their definitions for some time now. Faced with the requirements of an old interpretation of God's will, many teachers simply say that the old interpretation was mistaken, and that, for instance, yes, it's perfectly OK to have homsexual bishops.

 

a premise which is not given. You're assuming that could be such a case for one to love God he should not love (hate) his neighbour, therefore attempting to be Christian (according to your interpretation) would annihilate the Humanist dimension. I recommend you to read also from Matthew the "Blessings" and all the following verses.

I have of course done that many many times. Have you ever heard a fundamentalist Baptist preach on the passage, and come up with the argument that, for instance, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" doesn't mean that those who are pure in heart will be blessed: it means that you (his congregation) are pure in heart because you are blessed (chosen by the Lord).

 

 

- "civilized" townsman: house goods/luxury/wealth (mistrust), relatively busy life (lack of time and energy)

- "uncivilized" country side man: his wealth is his land and his familiy (trust, he has little to be stolen anyway), slow-paced life (plenty of time and energy)

 

If you're willing to participate we can add some more factors and some more educated opinions and attempt a true analysis on how egoism does or would grow/fall as the man is taken under various factors.

 

Hedonism has been on the upswing, and I'll concur that hedonism conflicts with Puritanism: I don't dispute that hedonism has increased with the decline of puritamism; I'm just rather pleased that it has.

I don't think they are true opposites. An "ethic Puritanism" was a rather localized manifestation (the spreadout of the term is that many Protestant branches were later classified as "Puritan"). And it sounds rather weird to claim that the South-European or East-European (or from any other Christian cultural background) flavours of hedonism oppose Puritanism or that they raised as Puritanism declined. Also hedonism does not mean only the allowance of pleasure (which I suspect you targeted when you refered to Puritanism), but the priority of pleasure.

However, there's also a fallacy in equivocating "love" with "not giving someone what he wants", which is not true in the Christian worldview (or should I say "most worldviews" as you already started to discuss on particular cases).
However, even when applying "medieval measures", some claim they do it for the love of God and his creatures. Not long ago, in my country, some fanatics exorcized an epileptic woman for her own's sake (as I remember the responsible priest suggested).

 

So, as far as the responsible ones, believe they act for the good of others (it ultimately breaks down at what each one sees as "good"), I think there's no ethical contradiction.

 

 

I have of course done that many many times. Have you ever heard a fundamentalist Baptist preach on the passage, and come up with the argument that, for instance, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" doesn't mean that those who are pure in heart will be blessed: it means that you (his congregation) are pure in heart because you are blessed (chosen by the Lord).   Such contrivances apart I have no problem with the Beatitudes. I just wish the Christian churches followed them a little more devotedly.

No, but I've listened some other preachings on the same topic emphasizing no particular points about the priest or the church. Anyway, the point was that adding these, it becomes rather clear than the love for man is not secondary in importance.

 

Actually instead of the 20th century effect of the decline of Christianity, a more interesting topic might be the decline of the influence of Jesus on Christianity over the years.

Of course, but you brought this point when you disagreed that Christianity values the love for others at the highest degree.

As a - enlightening, hopefully - paranthesis, the Communist regime (a secular one) in Romania promoted similar politics (banning abortions, homosexuality, etc.) to force a demographic growth. 

 

It is true that humanistic doctrines have been creeping into Christianity over the last hundred years or so, in self-defence, since otherwise the flight from Christianity would have been even more intense. However, what that represents is a triumph of humanism and a weakening of the basic Christian teachings.

I've not seen any strong argument that Christianity as a - let's say - millenium long Graeco-Latin synthesis spiced up with local colors was a non-Humanist philosophy based on non-Humanist ethics. So as long as we're debating on these points, let's not repeat our conclusions until we can make some arguments.

 

I appreciate a lot you stressing that we have to deal here with "a more recent interpretation",

"More recent" in that context meant from 2nd century AD onward

Oh yes, my friend, I already told you that this obsessive technique of introducing as argument your "gumthrowing theory" has nothing to do in our discussion . . . YES, one can determine that a lot of crimes done by Christians ar connected and provoked by the Christian Bible and other sacred texts, and not their (never proved) chewinggumthrowism, there are many exemples in history, and by putting that question you show you never read a book of history at all! The many wars with the heresy has a lot to do with the intolerance found in Bible, the witch hunting looong "season" has to do with textual exortings in Bible to kill them and so on . . .  With such a "religious" book that resemble so much a war diary,  one cannot be surprised that killings and aggression, a war "morality" full of violence appear sometimes . . . 
 
 

What arguments do you have to support your "the dichotomy is absolute" claim. Whose historical experience? How is the large body outside this "fraction" endangering my point?

 

Your analogy has nothing to do with this sad reality, but I accept that in lack of arguments you have to throw here in discussion some useless ideas . . .

If some would use their minds some ideas would magically lose their uselessness .

Btw, don't you bother the ad hominem style? I can handle it but from my own experience the other sometimes either starts to whine or lose control and drop an "idiot" or some abrupt insult which will call for moderator's intervention, the closing of the thread, the warning/banning of the participants and so on. So be wise and pick the right choices  Or should I be wise and ignore you? We'll see about that ...

 

I'm eastern european. Our history shows the harshness of the life of peasants and their limited morality, due to this harsh conditions, but by lack of education too. Don't take the literature about peasants for historical evidence about theire morality. In fact, our literature has some small realistic style segment that support the historical view.

You may not know what ethnography is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnography - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnography

 

Oh yes, my friend, I already told you that this obsessive technique of introducing as argument your "gumthrowing theory" has nothing to do in our discussion . . .

It had with my points. If you fail to grasp them you could have at least the decency to ask what my point is before ranting

 

YES, one can determine that a lot of crimes done by Christians ar connected and provoked by the Christian Bible and other sacred texts [...] The many wars with the heresy has a lot to do with the intolerance found in Bible, the witch hunting looong "season" has to do with textual exortings in Bible to kill them and so on . . .  With such a "religious" book that resemble so much a war diary,  one cannot be surprised that killings and aggression, a war "morality" full of violence appear sometimes . . .

Many participants at these conflicts were illiterate. Many participants at these conflicts didn't care about the Bible more than they cared about their daily meal. No one needs a "Biblical war diary" when the popular traditions of Europe celebrate their own warriors and their deeds.

The intolerance always existed, no Bible story fed it. The witch myth is older and perhaps more widespread than Christianity (and the accusations also).

However, none of these is related to my questions. None of these is related to ethics. Whatever ...

 

There was very limited exemples of the morality you try to credit christianism with, and much more exemples that prove the contrary. I make a bet with you: for any historical exemple you have in supporting your stance, I give you 3 disproving it. I’m pretty much sure that you’ll finish soon, or in any case, sooner than me . . .

You haven't talked about ethics - I can't finish sooner than someone not starting  For some obscure reason (are you an objectivist?) you consider some hyperbolized abomination as something that "disproves what I try to credit Christianity with"

 

We are individuals, and our freedoms are individual before being collectives! No wonder that one asserting and practicing human liberties define them at an individual level. There is NO evil in individualism, that should not be mistaken for egoism. Sociologists and philosophers like Popper showed in their books to which extent this false ideea that individualism is evil, and that cherishing the collectivism is good, wreaked havoc in history, and he’s pointing his finger first exactly to philosophers of the beginning (Plato)!

I'm wondering what connection is between your reply and what you've quoted. After some minutes of thinking I had a revelation: nothing!

 

All the philiosophies you list here are not the humanist liberal ideology, or philiosophy.

I've just said they are anti-Christian from the first time.

Let me make you a brief:

Me: ... ...some anti-Christian philosophers

You: anti-Christian != humanist

Me: I was talking about the criticism coming from anti-Christian ...

You: All you listed are not Humanist

 

Should I laugh or should I weep?

 

Oh, so "more recent" mean the interpretation that appeared with christianism himself. That’s preposterous.

  It was not about Christianity but about Matthew's gospel, which is usually dated at the end of 1st century, the beginning of 2nd.

 

No, because exactly this, and even worse (that is eye for nothing! ), practiced Christians for almost the past 2 millennia . . .  and that’s not something we have to wonder of, because O.T. is still part of Christian Bible . . .

I guess you skipped that part when the Old law was "fulfilled" ...

 

I never expressed such an idea. If was not christianism, other asiatic cult have conquered the minds of people in the roman empire and unfortunetaly enough, we have no guarantee that it would hve been better than  judaism/christianism . .

You said we "would have been infinitely more happy " without Christian ethics, now you say we have no guarantee (better in what way?). Maybe you'll decide to stop on one of these points - so would it be better ("infinitely" even) or not?

 

but that’s in no way diminishing the huge guilty of christianism

 "Huge guilt"  

 

the philosophy in roman empire of the time christianism prevailed, was enough evil in order to have big, big damages

It seems that on any path there is some "evil" out there. A bit pessimistic, don't you think?

 

 

 

 

You are hiding yourself behind words, and I can guess why. OK. Please explain how you measured the increasing percentage of individuals that share an egoist ideological view. 

 

 

Your analogy has nothing to do with this sad reality, but I accept that in lack of arguments you have to throw here in discussion some useless ideas . . .   If some would use their minds some ideas would magically lose their uselessness .

 

Btw, don't you bother the ad hominem style? I can handle it but from my own experience the other sometimes either starts to whine or lose control and drop an "idiot" or some abrupt insult which will call for moderator's intervention, the closing of the thread, the warning/banning of the participants and so on. So be wise and pick the right choices  Or should I be wise and ignore you? We'll see about that ...

can handle it but from my own experience the other sometimes either starts to whine or lose control and drop an "idiot" or some abrupt insult which will call for moderator's intervention

I'm eastern european. Our history shows the harshness of the life of peasants and their limited morality, due to this harsh conditions, but by lack of education too. Don't take the literature about peasants for historical evidence about theire morality. In fact, our literature has some small realistic style segment that support the historical view.   You may not know what ethnography is

 

Straw man.

 

Oh yes, my friend, I already told you that this obsessive technique of introducing as argument your "gumthrowing theory" has nothing to do in our discussion . . .  It had with my points. If you fail to grasp them you could have at least the decency to ask what my point is before ranting

 No, now it is your duty to show the last assertion (that I fail to grasp); good practice I recommend you: anytime you assert something, try to explain or prove it.

 

Please explain how you measured the increasing percentage of individuals that share an egoist ideological view.

With the percentageometer  

Now seriously, read my discussion with gcle2003 and you have most of the answers there. If you want to read them, if not, sorry.

 

Prove that! (PUT MORE WORDS and abandon the excess of emoticons . . . )

 Prove what?

As for my way of replying to you, I can't help it very much.

One humorist said once that the best weapon against ... you know ... is humor.

 

Straw man.

 You certainly don't know what that means.

 

Just try me!

You're flattering yourself ...

 

Straw man.

Let me try again that brief thingie:

Me: ... ethnography ...

You: ... literature ... small realistic style segment ...

Me: you may not know what ethnography is 

You: straw man

 

Tell me you're a clone who trolls this thread!

 

No, now it is your duty to show the last assertion (that I fail to grasp); good practice I recommend you: anytime you assert something, try to explain or prove it.

I explained my analogy the first time I introduced it, I have no duty to repeat for those who read few letters from a text before they reply to it.

 

All your assertion doesn’t prove that Bible has nothing to do with all these bad acts of Christians. The fact that people were illiterate is irrelevant:

It's funny how quick an assertion becomes an irrelevant fact. Guess everything can happen in the country of "No"s.

 

they had “the stone Bibles” (hopefully you know the concept) and the disciplinary doctrines that trickled down to them from literate theologians.

 ... and we can enumerate the medieval theatre, the muta predicatio (I assume this covers also what you ment through "stone Bibles"), popular songs and dances, and other such "appropriate" methods to deliver "disciplinary doctrines"

 

but no one could ignore the effects of the faith that a supreme entity order intolerance, indulge himselg in mass killings, etc.

Bla, bla, bla ... ad nauseam

 

And that’s why the monotheisms surpassed in term of distuction and killings any other form of religious faith.

 

 

And to which more recent interpretation was you talking about?

Interpretations. I was talking about quite a wide range as I opened the subject on pity and kindness.

 

Yes!? Oh thanks a lot . . .  But why is O.T. still in Christian Bible? And why the middle age christians followed so scrupulously exactly the morals and disciplinary laws of O.T.?

Fulfill: a: to put into effect : EXECUTE b : to meet the requirements of (a business order) c : to bring to an end d : to measure up to : SATISFY 3 a : to convert into reality b : to develop the full potentialities.

Shouldn't one read the Bible before bashing it?

And why haven't you emphasized c? Why did I put quotes? Oh, you probably haven't observed them since you jumped in a dictionary. Who cares ... it's nothing to discuss here anyway.

 

Pretty childish (not to say more) to laugh of that  . . .

To talk about Christianity (as philosophy)' s guilt is like talking of Nietzsche's philosophy's guilt in provoking the Holocaust. The only alternative to laughter is ignoring. Don't worry you reached that level, too

 

Well, yes, any path has some evil in it, but that should not abolish our sense of degree, my friend . . .

My washing mashine has a superior sense of humor.

 

And as I anticipated few rows above, I think it's time to ignore you, my friend, because my ethics forbids me to discuss with people ... I can make fun of.

 

Adieux!

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social Darwinists share values and goals. So do Ayn Rand's followers. I just don't feel comfortable calling one man concentrating on his own desires an 'ideology'.

 

A couple of definitions taken from the web.

"the unifying system of beliefs, attitudes, and values expressed in the superstructure of a culture"

"A relatively coherent system of values, beliefs, or ideas shared by some social group and often taken for granted as natural or inherently true"

 

One egoist does not a culture make. And if he shares anything with anyone else he's not a true egoist.

I'm sorry, this is getting too preposterous for me to continue it.

You could try learning English.

I'm not sure that Epicurus is really relevant here: this view of Epicureanism, while proverbial, is unjustified. But it's not about Epicurus. Though I include him, I'm rather talking about his followers, about their oppositions (with Stoicism, for instance - it's a relevant antagonism for what Epicurean claims stand for) and the values they emphasized. Basically, the Greek thought has three dimensions: the logic, the physics and the ethics. I focused on the latter when I invoked the ancient heritage of egoism and hedonism.

Epicurean ethics, insofar as there are any, are neither egoist not hedonist (in the modern sense).

 

"For Epicurus, the highest pleasure (tranquility and freedom from fear) was obtained by knowledge, friendship, and living a virtuous and temperate life. He lauded the enjoyment of simple pleasures, by which he meant abstaining from bodily desires, such as sex and appetites, verging on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asceticism - asceticism . He argued that when eating, one should not eat too richly, for it could lead to dissatisfaction later, such as the grim realization that one could not afford such delicacies in the future. Likewise, sex could lead to increased lust and dissatisfaction with the sexual partner. Epicurus did not articulate a broad system of social ethics that has survived."

 

 

'Quite obvious'? How? Throughout the 20th century (I'd agree that's not a good start date, but we're stuck with it) egoism has been in retreat. I see we're on the opposite sides of the fence, but so far none of us provided some good arguments on it. What are the signs of the retreat of egoism?

Increase in social welfare programs, from old age pensions to universal health care and education. Overseas aid programs. Care for unmarried mothers and their children. All sorts of very obvious stuff that spread like wildfire in the 20th century (admittedly having got a start in the 19th).

From my European experience (anecdotic evidence, I know, but let's start it somehow) the most "cold" and cautious people I've met  in the most civilized countries of Western Europe. In a trivial way, I could easier persuade some Balkanic average man from some "unpolluted" (because country sides become more and more affected by the progress) country side to give me - a stranger - a bed for the night than some townsman from the opposite side of the Europe.

That's largely because an infrastructure exists to ensure that there aren't people wandering around with no bed for the night. (Accepted that some fall through the net, but that's usually - not always - due to psychological or addictive factors that make them steer clear of 'authority'.)

 

On the other hand, your apparent claim that people were more hospitable in this regard in earlier centuries is completely unfounded - especially if you stick to the Christian world; Sikhs for instance are rather good at hospitality to travellers.

I realize the causes and even the picturing are rather complex but this would be a starting point. Next question would be: is he really believing that - can we talk about an ethic of carelessness regarding such issues? Again, my experience says so. Its in fact a combination between lack of trust and selfishness. On one hand the townsman doesn't trust me, on the other hand why would be bother with me? Also, at the same level of own experience and uneducated inferences, I remark the following - momentarily simple - patterns: - "civilized" townsman: house goods/luxury/wealth (mistrust), relatively busy life (lack of time and energy) - "uncivilized" country side man: his wealth is his land and his familiy (trust, he has little to be stolen anyway), slow-paced life (plenty of time and energy)

This is an idyllic and popular image without a lot going for it in fact. But what on earth has it to do with the topic? Christianity is not a rural religion. If you want to say that the move from country living to city living has worsened human relations, you may well have a point. But it has nothing to do with the decline of Christianity.

 

(In fact it may be the opposite, since pre-Christian attitudes and beliefs lingered longer in the countryside than in the cities.)

 

If you're willing to participate we can add some more factors and some more educated opinions and attempt a true analysis on how egoism does or would grow/fall as the man is taken under various factors.   Hedonism has been on the upswing, and I'll concur that hedonism conflicts with Puritanism: I don't dispute that hedonism has increased with the decline of puritamism; I'm just rather pleased that it has. I don't think they are true opposites. An "ethic Puritanism" was a rather localized manifestation (the spreadout of the term is that many Protestant branches were later classified as "Puritan"). And it sounds rather weird to claim that the South-European or East-European (or from any other Christian cultural background) flavours of hedonism oppose Puritanism or that they raised as Puritanism declined. Also hedonism does not mean only the allowance of pleasure (which I suspect you targeted when you refered to Puritanism), but the priority of pleasure.

I know that hedonism emphasises the priority of pleasure, which is why I picked up on your reference to Epicurus, who in this sense is no hedonist.

 

I didn't claim anything whatsoever about south or east European anythings, or about Christian 'flavours' of hedonism. In the 20th century, the search for a life devoted to pleasure increased substantially. The Puritanical attitude of deploring the search for pleasure as a diversion from one's duty to god decreased substantially.

 

That's all I said, and for the life of me I can't see how anyone who pays the slightest attention to what's going on around the world could fail to agree, whether they welcome the change, regret it, or couldn't care less.

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.") This is not hedonism. Generally I see nothing hedonistic in claiming some type of equality among humans.

 

You miss the point completely. 'The pursuit of happiness' is a pretty good definition of hedonism. Equality has nothing to do with it: I just quoted the entire extract.

 

The correlation between the growth of liberal capitalism and the growth of puritanism, both over time, and by country, is undeniable. There is some dispute over whether the Puritanism led to the liberal capitalism, or vice versa, but they were certainly closely linked. The same pirates and the global average temperature. What arguments are for it, others than the simple coexistence?

 

Go read the books. Start with Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, followed by Tawney's Religion and the Rise of Capitalism.

Googling around I discover you can even buy yourself a term paper on it from:

http://www.thepaperexperts.com/show/sociology/an_analysis_of_religion_and_the_rise_of_capitalism.shtml - http://www.thepaperexperts.com/show/sociology/an_analysis_of_religion_and_the_rise_of_capitalism.shtml  

for $50-odd.

 

It's not the order of issuance, its the definite indication that one's FIRST duty is to God. Which is of course also the situation with the ten commandments.   It's also not a theological basis but a linguistic one. 'First' means 'primary'. It writes nowhere in that text that it's the primary duty to God. For the record, in Latin the terms are "primum mandatum" and "secundum", in Greek the terms are "prote entole" and "deutera", therefore I'd say the English translation hides no hints. I also recommend a dictionary for such linguistic puzzles: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/first - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/first "preceding all others in time, order, or importance" So what about this "hierarchy of duties", or to paraphrase the definition "why importance and not time/order?" Also, as a theological question, how the love for an abstract god - as the Christian God became - can be manifested otherwise than believing in him and loving his creation? Moreover it is certainly established doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church, at least according to the Jesuits with whom I have argued in the past. For instance, whether allowing divorce increases human misery or diminishes it is held to be irrelevant, since allowing it is contrary to the will of God. No I'm not. I'm starting from the premise that such a contradiction MIGHT occur. Which it may, and indeed has. Such a contradiction exists right now over divorce and over homosexual marriage, for instance. Of course, the contradictions vary according to how you define 'God's will' and as a matter of practical politics the Christian churches (some of them) have been watering down their definitions for some time now. Faced with the requirements of an old interpretation of God's will, many teachers simply say that the old interpretation was mistaken, and that, for instance, yes, it's perfectly OK to have homsexual bishops. Like you're suggesting, it's all a matter of interpretation and I am doubtful about the value of these particular cases (for instance, some clerics say that there are other alternatives, that the couple can be saved with counseling, prayer, etc.

Of course they do. They're desperate to modify their Christianity to fit the prevailing Zeitgeist.

- I'm not discussing the valability of their solutions, just the fact they think they take the best solution for the better of the each one; also in some views the divorce is a "great evil", so to put it simply, only a much "greater good" would justify it - I've heard, for instance, that divorce is easier accepted if one loses his faith). However, there's also a fallacy in equivocating "love" with "not giving someone what he wants", which is not true in the Christian worldview (or should I say "most worldviews" as you already started to discuss on particular cases). However, even when applying "medieval measures", some claim they do it for the love of God and his creatures. Not long ago, in my country, some fanatics exorcized an epileptic woman for her own's sake (as I remember the responsible priest suggested).   So, as far as the responsible ones, believe they act for the good of others (it ultimately breaks down at what each one sees as "good"), I think there's no ethical contradiction.

 

Of course there is, despite the sophistry. Ignoring the misery that banning divorce, for instance, causes because 'God' has forbidden it is inhumane no matter how many specious arguments are dreamt up to justify it.

 

I have of course done that many many times. Have you ever heard a fundamentalist Baptist preach on the passage, and come up with the argument that, for instance, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God" doesn't mean that those who are pure in heart will be blessed: it means that you (his congregation) are pure in heart because you are blessed (chosen by the Lord).   Such contrivances apart I have no problem with the Beatitudes. I just wish the Christian churches followed them a little more devotedly. No, but I've listened some other preachings on the same topic emphasizing no particular points about the priest or the church. Anyway, the point was that adding these, it becomes rather clear than the love for man is not secondary in importance.

It obviously is secondary, in every church teaching I have ever come across. In fact it is also secondary in Judaism and Islam: it's a problem with any religion that accepts the need to behave according to God's will.

 

Actually instead of the 20th century effect of the decline of Christianity, a more interesting topic might be the decline of the influence of Jesus on Christianity over the years. Of course, but you brought this point when you disagreed that Christianity values the love for others at the highest degree. What 'anti-Christian' has ever condemned 'pity and kindness'? How much 'pity and kindness' was evinced in burning heretics, or ostracising unmarried mothers, or penalising homosexuals? Did you ever read The Scarlet Letter? To follow my above examples: Randian objectivists, social Darwinists, ethical egoists and other such species.

Randians in my experience are almost all Christians. I don't recall social Darwinists being anti-Christian: in fact again many of them were Christian.

The point about burning and ostracising is rather irrelevant, as we were in the field of ethics. I really wondered how long until Christian-bashing hyperbolas pop up?

As soon as you start bashing other people is usually the point it does.

I've also heard of World Wars, Holocaust and other modern genocides (in Russia, in China, etc.), Jeffrey Dahmer (a notorious homosexual among others, as you kept bringing the homosexuals issue) and other evidences of "Secular Humanism", but it really doesn't bring any weight, as the correlation is irrelevant, their simple presence is a red herring and really point to nowhere.

There might be some point to that if you could suggest someone who thinks that those examples are good things. The point is that Christianity supported the things I mentioned. No-one supprts the ones you mention, except the perpetrators.

As a - enlightening, hopefully - paranthesis, the Communist regime (a secular one) in Romania promoted similar politics (banning abortions, homosexuality, etc.) to force a demographic growth.    It is true that humanistic doctrines have been creeping into Christianity over the last hundred years or so, in self-defence, since otherwise the flight from Christianity would have been even more intense. However, what that represents is a triumph of humanism and a weakening of the basic Christian teachings. I've not seen any strong argument that Christianity as a - let's say - millenium long Graeco-Latin synthesis spiced up with local colors was a non-Humanist philosophy based on non-Humanist ethics.

 

"the system of philosophy based upon human reason, actions, and motives without concern of deity or supernatural phenomena"

 

Christianity fits that definition, does it?

 

So as long as we're debating on these points, let's not repeat our conclusions until we can make some arguments. No, but if most Christians did, and Christian leaders advocated doing it, and even specially blessed the people who did it, then I would call Christians gum-throwers. If the (almost) entire Europe was Christian, how would you make the difference if it's Christianity the cause or any other? If the entire world did it, though Christianity was not even representative for the entire world, why would you keep such label? If the connections between the doctrines and the results are weak, why not research and argue first and conclude later, if it's anything to conclude upon? Nobody say that. That's a silly straw man. Of course atheists like anyone else should be held responsible for their actions. You're not reading what you're replying to. I've said "as exponents of the atheism". Do you bash atheists (and consequently atheism, to paraphrase you: if most atheists - in some countries - did it, and the atheist leaders advocated doing it) for Communism?

The point is that they don't. If they did, yes then I would bash them.  Of course atheists should be held responsible for what they do: I've never come across a single atheist or agnostic who held otherwise.

 

On the other hand there are an awful lot of religious people who claim they should be exempt from laws because of what they believe.

 

In a completely objective, humanist legal system there is no reason at all to take into account anyone's beliefs in determining responsibility.

 

I hope not. And as I'm not throwing a blame on atheism because I realize that there's no ethical constraint on the atheist to force him act in a certain harmful - in my view - way,

Taradiddle.

 

Of course there are ethical constraints on atheists. Since we just mentioned Epicurus, take him as an example: an out-and-out atheist he certainly had ethical guidelines he followed (though no formalised ethical system).

I should realize that in many cases I can't throw a blame nor on Christianity or many other -isms or -logies which were loaded with burdens of the past.

-------------

You started that by calling me preposterous.

 

Not that I mind, but there is that thing about beams in one's own eye.

 

 

I don't know what you're laughing at. What he was doing was discussing an ethical system, which you had said he wasn't doing. The fact that you coudln't see the connection and had to try and make a joke of it just shows up your own shallowness.

 

 

You didn't answer the question there either.

 

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/egoism - http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/egoism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism

http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/epicur.htm - http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/epicur.htm

You miss the point completely. 'The pursuit of happiness' is a pretty good definition of hedonism. Equality has nothing to do with it: I just quoted the entire extract.

You're the only one who misses the point. Hedonism is not about a right to pursue happiness, nor about equality in rights, but about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism .

Read this paper about some differences: http://www.freeinquiry.com/humanism-uu.html - http://www.freeinquiry.com/humanism-uu.html  (he uses a similar definition as yours and he calls it "naturalistic humanism").

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheism - http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheism

 

Funny to distort facts when scripta manent.

In general, preposterous is an epithet given to an idea or a situation, not a person. Well, one person with a cubic eye seems preposterous

 

I don't know what you're laughing at. What he was doing was discussing an ethical system, which you had said he wasn't doing. The fact that you coudln't see the connection and had to try and make a joke of it just shows up your own shallowness.

 

Leaving my shallowness aside, let's check others narrowmindedness. Deconstruction follows:

 

We are individuals,

Gee, I thought we're apples.

and our freedoms are individual before being collectives!

Collective freedom, interesting  You said ethics, Gcle2003? At the best this smells of economics or sociology.

Also, the very subtle point of our freedoms being first individual, then collective. Some kind of "collectivization" of freedoms happens and we have no clue about it

 

There is NO evil in individualism,

  I'm not sure what value has this while talking about ethics. If let's say this individual considers individualism as an ethical system, why would he consider its evilness? Is he also considering a "meta-ethical" system (I asked him if he's objectivist, he didn't answer), an ethics of the ethics, an ultimate ground?

Or he's judging individualism from his own (or Popper's as he quotes him too) ethical perspective (which frankly I don't give a damn about it)?

 

Sociologists and philosophers like Popper showed in their books to which extent this false ideea that individualism is evil, and that cherishing the collectivism is good, wreaked havoc in history, and he’s pointing his finger first exactly to philosophers of the beginning (Plato)!

And again ... ethics?

 

Needless to say that both of you have not read what he quoted from my reply:

Originally posted by Chilbudios' original point How many philosophies (having a certain extent) do not treat humanity like an ant farm? Individualism does not mean what these "similarities" seem to suggest, individualism it's an emphasis on the personal liberties and self-interest. Of course, if you focus on some rather recent reformated Christian Churches/sects from Western Europe, the discussion may get some nuances.

So in short I'm saying what individualism is and how is it matching or not the Christianity and he answers me individualism is not evil. I'm not joining this game, sorry!

 

You didn't answer the question there either.

Yes, I did. I reissued multiple times the impossibility to infer from simple actions the ethics given by an ideology to which an individual allegedly belongs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You didn't answer the question there either.      Yes, I did. I reissued multiple times the impossibility to infer from simple actions the ethics given by an ideology to which an individual allegedly belongs.

 

Chilbudios, there is an ethics of an ideology; of any ideology; there is an ethics of christianism. As I told you already, as long as the Bible incite to crimes and intolerance, and the fans of this ideology are puting in effect this demented incitements, you have no chance to convince "the imposibility [...]"

Be smart!

 

 

 

 

  

Originally posted by Chilbudios Epicurean ethics, insofar as there are any, are neither egoist not hedonist (in the modern sense).   'For Epicurus, the highest pleasure (tranquility and freedom from fear) was obtained by knowledge, friendship, and living a virtuous and temperate life. He lauded the enjoyment of simple pleasures, by which he meant abstaining from bodily desires, such as sex and appetites, verging on asceticism. He argued that when eating, one should not eat too richly, for it could lead to dissatisfaction later, such as the grim realization that one could not afford such delicacies in the future. Likewise, sex could lead to increased lust and dissatisfaction with the sexual partner. Epicurus did not articulate a broad system of social ethics that has survived.' It's futile to argue against one that googles for convenient quotes just to avoid to concede.

(As far as I can see the 'quote,/quote' pairs here are perfectly accurate. I can't see why they go wrong. - It's not the first post to which this has applied.)
 
What's wrong with looking for back-up to one's arguments? This is an online discussion group. I can't show you a book. There's not much point in referring you to a book, because you may not have it available. So I need a web reference. And the way you find those is to use a search engine.
 
That was really rather a silly remark, unless you can suggest an alternative. What you could do instead, if you don't like the quote, is find another one to counter it.

You're not making any point about self-interest/pleasure vs others. And from what I'm reading from your quote, if you somehow thought hedonism ment only physical pleasure or excesses (which often lead to pain, as Epicurus himself notices), then you were wrong. I haven't mentioned such thing, modern hedonism doesn't mean such thing.

Of course I don't think hedonism only refers to physical pleasure. That's why I quoted the Declaration of Independence (which I didn't have to google for). 'The pursuit of happiness' is quite a good definition of hedonism.
 
Anyway what's your definition, and where do you get it from? And you might as well define what you mean by 'egoism' too, since that seems to be a rather free-floating concept.
 

Increase in social welfare programs, from old age pensions to universal health care and education. Overseas aid programs. Care for unmarried mothers and their children. All sorts of very obvious stuff that spread like wildfire in the 20th century (admittedly having got a start in the 19th). The local social welfare is an investment. Usually people pay somehow. I pay taxes, so I want something in return. Healthcare, education, old age pension, I pay for them. I wouldn't call that charity or lack of egoism.

It's altruistic in that you are funding other people with your taxes. Now I admit that frequently people have to be forced to pay taxes and don't want to. My point is though that over most of the world many more people now happily pay taxes to support the poor, sick, old and otherwise unfortunate. They vote for governments that do that. They choose to do it.
 
The picture is somewhat different in the US of course, where opposition to welfare and taxes is deeply entrenched. But - strengthening my overall point - the US is more Christian than other developed countries, as well as more backward with regard to social welfare, and the need for the community to care for the disadvantaged.
 

Charity (probably with no intentions, as they couldn't care less anyway) is only from those who have enough wealth that they wouldn't  need anything given from these budgets. But if you give something you don't care about is not a proof of altruism, is it? You're not damaging your own interest, in some case, on the contrary. The overseas aid except some true volunteers (which are just some individuals) is not what you think. Companies make money from it.

 
I think this is a blinkered viewpoint that derives from looking only at the American situation. American attitudes are not typical since Americans contribute considerably less than any other developed country to overseas aid.
 

People give things they otherwise have to trash them, and eventually be more bothered than that. It's not common for modern people to live with bread and water because they shared their wealth with other thousands of subnutrited children which in this way benefit also from bread.

Hyperbole. It is much much more common for people to voluntary pay tayes and support social welfare structures than it was at the beginning of the 20th century. Immensely so.
 
They don't have to give up ALL their wealth to support others. It's enough to be ready to give up some of it.
 

That's largely because an infrastructure exists to ensure that there aren't people wandering around with no bed for the night. (Accepted that some fall through the net, but that's usually - not always - due to psychological or addictive factors that make them steer clear of 'authority'.) The infrastructure provides a possibility, not a certain realization.

Hyperbole again. Of course it isn't certain. Nothing in life is certain. It's providing the possibility that is the point.
 
That's as nutty as saying we can't have an immediate ceasefire because we want one that is guaranteed to last.
 

For instance, if I'm to come in Munich, no one can stop me of coming there without hotel reservation.

Yes they can. Unless you're an EU citizen, which you may be. Or of course, you could have arranged accomodation somewhere else.
 
I can't go to the US without having accomodation reserved (even though I have a visa). Same deal, different direction. The Germans are more lax about it however.

I know it, they know it. Only that they expect me to reserve or pay directly and not receiving favours from anyone. The bed is at the end of a long line of examples of how much I'm permitted to enter someone's private space (the same pattern apply, from un-modernized, un-crowded regions to more modernized and crowded), as we have interactions, as I'm invited to share something (more) with him. The social conventions and the distances seem much more rigid in the more modernized societies.

 
I don't understand what you're on about here at all. What does the conventionally accepted extent of private space to do with anything we're talking about? There's no connection to Christianity, and none to how well off people are now compared to 100 years ago.
 
Scandinavians like a lot more private space that Italians. So what? Also it hasn't changed in the last 100 years.
 

This is an idyllic and popular image without a lot going for it in fact. Write me on PM. Maybe you want a one week vacation to be persuaded on what hospitability may mean    But what on earth has it to do with the topic? Christianity is not a rural religion. If you want to say that the move from country living to city living has worsened human relations, you may well have a point. But it has nothing to do with the decline of Christianity.  Of course it has. The rural world (at least some parts of it - excluding satelite villages, touristic places, technologization in agriculture, etc.) is much more traditional than the urban world.

Accepted. Which is why pagan and other pre-Christian traditions have lingered longer there, as I said.
 
I'm not objecting to your rural-urban comparison, though rural societies can in fact be pretty paranoid and distrustful of outsiders. They do tend to look after their own however.
 

The rural world is less-industrialized and less-modern than the urban world. In many countries (mine included), the differences between modernity and the past are to be seen in the contact between these worlds. Christian Europe some many centuries ago was rather like some parts of today rural world than today's urban world.   know that hedonism emphasises the priority of pleasure, which is why I picked up on your reference to Epicurus, who in this sense is no hedonist. Of course he is. It's about priority in choices and decisions not excess in actions. But let's cut short this apparently unwilling to concede: http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/epicur.htm - http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/epicur.htm   I didn't claim anything whatsoever about south or east European anythings, or about Christian 'flavours' of hedonism. It's nothing about "Christian" flavours of hedonism (where do you read such things? ), but about European (southern, eastern) flavours of hedonism. Your earlier claims are unsubstantiated because hedonism exists where no Puritan tradition existed, therefore its appearance cannot be justified through the decline of Puritanism.

Of course it existed before. It probably is a fundamental part of human psychology.
 
The point is it was attacked by the Puritans, and reduced in Puritan society. The decline of Puritanism, and to some extent Christianity in general, allowed hedonism to re-emerge. I don't see how anyone can look at contemporary advertising, see contemporary films, listen to contemporary music or watch contemporary TV without realising that hedonism is much more blatantly appealed to than it used to be.
 
Something similar incidentally occurred with the rise of Epicurean and Stoic philosophies in the ancient world: they were also associated with a decline in hedonism.

If there's a special flavour of Western, post-Puritan hedonism, then please, do emphasize it!   In the 20th century, the search for a life devoted to pleasure increased substantially. The Puritanical attitude of deploring the search for pleasure as a diversion from one's duty to god decreased substantially. You're pointing now a reverse causation, that Puritanism declined due to the increasing of Hedonism (not that Hedonism was caused by the decline of Puritanism as you earlier claimed), an idea which seems reasonable to hold.

Was Waterloo a defeat for Napoleon or a victory for Wellington? Did Napoleon lose the battle because Wellington won it, or did Wellington win it because Napoleon lost it?
 
The decline of Puritanism and the rise (again) of hedonism are two sides of the same coin. It isn't a question of one being the effect of the other.

You miss the point completely. 'The pursuit of happiness' is a pretty good definition of hedonism. Equality has nothing to do with it: I just quoted the entire extract. You're the only one who misses the point. Hedonism is not about a right to pursue happiness, nor about equality in rights, but about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonism .

? Funny - there's something wrong with that link. I finally found my way to it however.
 
You might care to read the discussion of the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hedonism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hedonism
 
I fail to see how you can distinguish 'pursuit of happiness' from 'pursuit of pleasure', especially given the multitudinous interpretations of 'pleasure' that abound in this context. Is happiness not pleasant, in your view? Or does pleasure not make you happy?
 
In fact, given the contrasting definitions of pleasure that make the whole thing a little meaningless, I think 'pursuit of happiness' is a better definition. Though if it's adopted, I've no doubt the word 'happiness' would doon be as debased as the word 'pleasure' is.

Go read the books. Start with Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, followed by Tawney's Religion and the Rise of Capitalism. Max Weber's work is one century old and was severely criticised by modern researchers.

Not on the ground of his historical accuracy.

Among them Tawney criticised Weber's point, postulating a reverse causation, that Protestantism was influenced by Capitalism, not vice-versa.

Precisely why I recommended both of them. Have you read either? I even said in an earlier post that there different schools of thought about the causation factor. What I said was undeniable (and undenied) is that the two movements were correlated.

You're apparently not reading the materials you recommend. So, please read the books yourself and we'll talk about them, later, ok?

I have read them. A fairly essential part of my degree course. Many years ago, admittedly. I rather suspect however that you haven't, that you quickly looked them up, thought you had found something to contradict me, and ignored what I had actually said.

Of course they do. They're desperate to modify their Christianity to fit the prevailing Zeitgeist. Irrelevant Christian bashing. How is this arguing pro or against the fact that Christian ethics is a Humanistic one?

Because it is a relatively modern phenomenon. Christianity (some sects) over the centuries has tended to drop banning things it originally considered immoral - like, regarding the Weber/Tawney/Roper stuff, charging interest.
 
Another book you might care to read is Rattray Taylor's Sex in History, which is good on tracing such developments in the history of Christianity, though he has a rather Freudian rationale which I wouldn't entirely agree with. However, he gets his facts straight.
 

Of course there is, despite the sophistry. Ignoring the misery that banning divorce, for instance, causes because 'God' has forbidden it is inhumane no matter how many specious arguments are dreamt up to justify it. You're missing the point and create slippery slopes. What is humane? A killer may argue that he acts for the benefit of his victims as he cuts short their suffering. Can you disagree with him? Sure, by postulating your own values.

They're the only ones I have. Like everyone else.
 
However, society in general makes the judgement, and I'm usually happy to abide by it as long as fundamental legal principles are followed. If a jury determines he is a murderer, then his arguments about motivation are no more relevant than his religious beliefs.

But you can't say that, though in a very cynical way, his ethics wouldn't have a humanist dimension if he indeed would follow some coherent principles for his deeds (though they are seen as wrong by you or others).

His arguments might have a 'humanist dimension' I suppose. However he's breaking the law. So he gets punished. And, given that the society doesn't agree with him, everything acceptable is done to ensure he doesn't do it again.
 
But you're mixing up criminality with right and wrong here, which is always a mistake.

For the record, I don't believe in natural (objective) rights, nor in natural (objective) morality: I hope I won't receive arguments which will easily fall

You make them easily enough.

It obviously is secondary, in every church teaching I have ever come across. Ad nauseam. You haven't shown why. And I really doubt your accuracy in representing here various theologies, so you have to try better if you want to make a point

 
When a text says that something is FIRST and something else is SECOND the immediate natural English language assumption is that the first thing comes first. If you're claiming some twisted unnatural other meaning it's rather your job to find some reason to believe it, not mine to defend the natural meaning.
 
If you claim apples fall up into trees it's your job to demonstrate it, not mind to demonstrate they fall down. That's the natural assumption.

In fact it is also secondary in Judaism and Islam: it's a problem with any religion that accepts the need to behave according to God's will. A fallacy of equivocation. Christianity is nor Judaism nor Islam, nor subordonated to them. Nor "obey God will" or whatever trivialization you choose to minimize the inconvenient.

An idiotic remark. I didn't say Christianisty is Judaism or that Christianity was Islam or that Islam was Judaism. I happen to have published a school textbook on comparative religion back in the 1970s (by McGraw Hill if you want repute). i know a little about the subject.
 
Saying I confused them is simply ridiculous and smartass.
 
What I quite clearly said that in all of them the same principle applies: what God commands comes first. The same is true I think in any monotheistic religion.
 

Randians in my experience are almost all Christians. I've met mostly (if not only) atheist Randians (Rand herself was an atheist). Try iidb.com for online exponents. Somehow related to Randians are LaVey and his followers, and if these are not anti-Christians I'm not sure who is

Then we have different experiences. The ones I know - none of them particularly distinguished - are attracted by her laissez-faire views on economics, her apparent libertarianism (whether she called herself libertarian or not) and things like her abhorrence of homosexuality, and her support for racial discrimination. In fact in almost everything Rand's political and economic views line her up witb America's religious right.
 
I don't think a lot of her followers care about her metaphysics.
 
Of course if you want to say these people aren't 'true' Randians, or 'true' Christians for that matter, then I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. And they to theirs.
 

I don't recall social Darwinists being anti-Christian: in fact again many of them were Christian. See above (except the names).

 
The precursor Malthus was Christian. Galton was a Quaker. Anyone who held an academic post in Oxford or Cambridge in the 19th century had to be Christian (as Darwin himself was). Spencer started out as one, though I'd accept he changed later.
 
The Australian government that carried out the aboriginal children abduction policy was made up of Christians.
 
There's nothing in Social Darwinism (as opposed to actual Darwinism) to conflict with Christian belief: in general it would seem the average profile of Social Darwinists more or less reflected the average profile of the (academic) world at large.
 
And the same point about the religious right tends to apply.
 

As soon as you start bashing other people is usually the point it does. All I did was to talk about Christian ethics. If you can't handle it, it's not my fault.   There might be some point to that if you could suggest someone who thinks that those examples are good things. The point is that Christianity supported the things I mentioned. What Christianity? Has the Coptic Church supported the Albigensian crusade?

Oh, come on and be serious. You know perfectly well the Roman Catholic Church supported that crusade. At least, maybe you don't since you have to ask.

Has the Greek Orthodox Church supported the Salem witch hunts? Has the mountainous village with a wooden church and inhabited by 49 illiterate people and their priest supported the banning of "heretic" books? Has the ethics of Christianity, which I focused so much upon, supported the things you mentioned?

You are in your muddled way, making the point there is no 'Christian ethics' since different Christian sects (and indeed different Christian individuals) see different things as right and wrong. So there's no point in trying to discuss it.
 
What one can talk about is what Christians DO and HAVE DONE, because that's factual, not hypothetical. One of the things Christianity has more or less consistently DONE is hold back scientific progress and experimentation (though, of course, after a while they drop the opposition when it becomes untenable or risks losing believers).
 
In fact that is happening right now in the case of stem cell research. It's happening with the attempt to introduce creationism into US (and British, sadly) schools as a scientific study rather than a quaint exploded fable.

No-one supprts the ones you mention, except the perpetrators. The same point applies to the "Christianity" you identified. I don't understand why this double standard is applied. If some wrong-doer is Christian, he's immediately hidden behind this large scapegoat: "Christianity". If not, then he's isolated and treated like an individual.   "the system of philosophy based upon human reason, actions, and motives without concern of deity or supernatural phenomena"   Christianity fits that definition, does it? Huh? Another equivocation? I haven't said Christian philosophy = Secular Humanism (whose definition you quoted, apparently).

You said, if I recall correctly, that Christianity and Humanism were not inconsistent (or possibly incompatible). Unfortunately you clipped out what you originally wrote. On the basis of that definition, which looks fine to me, Christianity is inconsistent with humanism.
 
Consistency and equality are different things.
 

Read this paper about some differences: http://www.freeinquiry.com/humanism-uu.html - http://www.freeinquiry.com/humanism-uu.html (he uses a similar definition as yours and he calls it "naturalistic humanism").

I hardly need to - you're the one that said Christianity and humanism were compatible (or something like that). Not me.
 

The point is that they don't. If they did, yes then I would bash them.

But they do.
 

Of course atheists should be held responsible for what they do: I've never come across a single atheist or agnostic who held otherwise.

  Analogous for Christianity is the atheism, not the atheists.
[/QUOTE]
It's maddening the way you clip out what you wrote, and then distort it in recollection. Just for once I'll nail you down: usually it's too much trouble.
 
You actually wrote:
'And let me give an example. Observing the quarrels between Christians and their opponents, the latter defending atheism say "atheists cannot be held responsible for certain actions - as exponents of the atheism, of course - because their atheism does not have any morale imperatives".'
 
Your analogy was between Christians and atheists. Not between Christianity and atheism. My response was therefore perfectly valid, unlike your rather snide attempt at a putdown.
 
This is all getting to be too much. If you're not prepared to stick with what you say it's certainly too much.

On the other hand there are an awful lot of religious people who claim they should be exempt from laws because of what they believe. Becuase many religions have their own laws / codes. I don't understand what's the point.

Don't be naive.
 
The point is that you said that atheists seek to be excused from being responsible, whereas in fact it is the religious (not just Christians) who seek to be excused. There is no reason anyone should be excused from obeying the law just because of their beliefs, religious or otherwise.

In a completely objective, humanist legal system there is no reason at all to take into account anyone's beliefs in determining responsibility. You're making a mess of terms. If you refer to "Secular Humanism" and to objectivity as "scientific objectivity" then you have a point, but this one is not related in anyway with what we were talking about here. Don't be naive again.   You brought up the topic of relief from responsibility becuse of one's beliefs, not me. I just pointed out how wrong you were. Of cour Of course there are ethical constraints on atheists. Since we just mentioned Epicurus, take him as an example: an out-and-out atheist he certainly had ethical guidelines he followed (though no formalised ethical system). Perhaps you don't know what atheism is: What a pitiful childish attempt at a putdown. Of course I know what atheism is. Of cour http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheism - http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/atheism a disbelief in the existence of deity; the doctrine that there is no deity I fail to see any ethical consequence. Your example of Epicurus is a red herring since you're not addressing his atheism, but his epicureanism

Epicureanism is atheist in the sense that Buddhism is - i.e. that gods are, if they exist, irrelevant.
 
And - in an attempt to head off some other sad excuse for an argument - that is not saying Epicureanism and atheism are the same thing. Or that Epicureanism and Buddhism are the same thing.
 

 

Thank you.

Chilbudios, you failed to answer my last message. I can conclude you ran short of emoticons (your only "arguments")?

 

My message waiting answer:

 

You didn't answer the question there either.   Yes, I did. I reissued multiple times the impossibility to infer from simple actions the ethics given by an ideology to which an individual allegedly belongs.

 

Chilbudios, there is an ethics of an ideology; of any ideology; there is an ethics of christianism. As I told you already, as long as the Bible incite to crimes and intolerance, and the fans of this ideology are puting in effect this demented incitements, you have no chance to convince "the imposibility [...]"

Be smart!

 

 

Originally posted by Chilbudios In case you expect an answer can you make an effort and write a legible text?   Thank you.

-------------

 

It seems to be cleared up now, though why putting in a bracketed comment should have made a difference I don't know.

 

So, what other convenient excuse can you find?

You cannot blame me for your unclosed [QUOTE] tags and the consequent badly structured text, for what you wrote between the [QUOTE] tags and hence hard to be followed. Were it to be few lines I'd made the effort to read - I don't want to spend half of a day counting the dotted lines surrounding each paragraph to see what exactly in that message is new, or who said what (nor I want to reread endlessly the discussion, it's enough I have to quote from behind to expose your fallacies and failures to concede).

 

You're showing an ugly face here, Gcle2003. You blame me ("The flaws [...] all stem back to your") for your obvious inabilities. Don't quote me if you don't know how to quote.

 

I see now your changes - it's still miserable in the latter part, but I'll make now the effort to read it.

 

Christians are quick, as the start of this topic showed, very quick to claim that the perceived evils of contemporary society are due to a decline in Christianity.

 

However, when it is pointed out to them that

a) Christiantiy declined in influence from 1900-2000

while over the same period

b) many more countries became free and independent

c) toleration of minorities, especially sexual ones, increased tremendously.

d) provision of welfare care for the disadvantaged improved immensely

e) universal health care spread through most developed countries

f) many more countries became democratic, and dictatorship and auocratic government was considerably reduced (though not eliminated of course)

g) racial and gender discrimination diminished considerably (especially in the secular states)

h) precautions against child abuse - and prosecution of offenders - increased hugely

and so on, indicating how IMPROVED society is over the last 100 years, then suddenly it becomes 'just a correlation' with no necessary causation.

 

So - if things get worse, that'd because of a decline in Chsitianity. But if things get better, the decline in Christianity has nothing to do with it.

 

That's the point.

 

I would like to add that's nothing more fallacious than saying that 20th century is the only that saw a decline of christianity: this religion declined in power from the end of the first millenium till now . . . it was a continuous process that started with shaking the christian vision of believers themselves . . . The apparition of feudal states, the translation of Bible from latin (and that not happened only with reformation, but before that), the foundation of universities and redescovering of western (greek) philosophy, the failure to consider properly and smart the effects of scientific revolution in XVIIth century, the failure to consider properly and wisely the validity of democratic ideas in the XVIIIth century, as was unfortunatelly the case with discoveries in biology too in XIX and XXth centuries . . . all that happened in a looong period of 1000 years, not in 20th century . . .

In 20th century, just happen that live some naives that ignoring history, think it is the most desastruous period for christianity . . . 

Christianity just stinks now; but he's dead for more time some like it to believe . . . 

 

And actually there were some periods between 1000 and 2000 in which Christianity grew in influence as well as ones in which it declined. But I accept that the whole thing could do with more detailed analysis.

Of course, a contemporary meaning of the term refers to the modus vivendi, and even more trivially, to a life lived in pleasure under absolutely no relevant ethical constraint. But like in the case of egoism or other similar doctrines I brought into the discussion (and similarily you attempted to reject their presence in the contexts I created), it was about an ethical opposition with Christianity, therefore I think it's quite clear what meaning of the term I'm taking into account.

 

 

Not on the ground of his historical accuracy.

Please ... For instance, Weber postulated that capitalism was an European product, which is rather false. N. Chaudhuri, for instance, supports an original Far-Eastern capitalism (he follows the division: industrial capitalism vs comercial capitalism) - I've read a summary on Chinese capitalism presented by him in an interesting debate on capitalism during Braudel days in 1984 (talking of whom, Braudel himself doesn't share Weber's view, stressing that the modern trajectory of Europe - particularily the development of capitalism - was shaped before the 16th century - i.e. the birth of Protestantism). Weber has similar short-sights when looking at European history, because him like many of his time, there are heavy influences from the stereotypes of the Enlightenment and of the long and nationalistic 19th century.
He follows a trend of those days which attempts to assess Western Christianity (not Christianity!) as an engine of progress and cause of modernity and its achievements. Similar contemporary euro-centric (or rather western-euro-centric - for some Europe ends at Vienna) theories were issued by Durkheim, Duhem or Jaki while attempting to emphasize various "qualities" of the modern Western thought (and western religiousity - i.e. Catholic and/or Protestant Christianity). They all could've been right on certain points, but generally, their perspective is short and rather inaccurate in terms of modern knowledge. Weber uses extensively special pleading and ignores (or simply he's not aware of) the inconvenient evidences.
Not mentioning that Weber was even criticised for misunderstangind Protestant theology, so basically his theory was attacked from all angles.

"The correlation between the growth of liberal capitalism and the growth of puritanism, both over time, and by country, is undeniable. There is some dispute over whether the Puritanism led to the liberal capitalism, or vice versa, but they were certainly closely linked."

 

 

I have to take a break now, so I'll continue the answer a bit later.

However, society in general makes the judgement, and I'm usually happy to abide by it as long as fundamental legal principles are followed. If a jury determines he is a murderer, then his arguments about motivation are no more relevant than his religious beliefs.   His arguments might have a 'humanist dimension' I suppose. However he's breaking the law. So he gets punished. And, given that the society doesn't agree with him, everything acceptable is done to ensure he doesn't do it again.   But you're mixing up criminality with right and wrong here, which is always a mistake.

I agree that mixing up criminality is a mistake, therefore I really don't understand why did you brought the issue in the first place? I'm not talking about criminality, but the humanist ethics which can be invoked by people whose acts are considered rather inhumane by many others. Therefore your technique of bashing an ethics starting from the acts of some individuals who allegedly follow some principles is a fallacious one. 
 

Then we have different experiences. The ones I know - none of them particularly distinguished - are attracted by her laissez-faire views on economics, her apparent libertarianism (whether she called herself libertarian or not) and things like her abhorrence of homosexuality, and her support for racial discrimination. In fact in almost everything Rand's political and economic views line her up witb America's religious right.

I have a problem imagining Christians following an atheist preacher (which among others said that religion is a primitive type of philosophy or that faith is harmful - if I'm not mistaken one of the metaphors assigned to it was: curse of the humanity - because it's the opposite of reason), but can't argue with your own experience but I can consider it inaccurate. And certainly you're wrong when you equivocate Randianism with America's religious right. Generally, these kind of philosophies promote a version of nihilism (talking of which, have you read Nietzsche? What does he say about Christianity and pity ) which basically anulls the love for God, for the neighbour or anybody else but the self.

Oh, come on and be serious. You know perfectly well the Roman Catholic Church supported that crusade. At least, maybe you don't since you have to ask.

I am not asking you, I'm raising rhetorical questions. The Catholic clergy which supported the crusade is not the Christianity (what can you say about the crusade from 1204 or other conflicts with religious load within Christianity?).

But they do.

Ad nauseam.

 

However I noticed one of your latest additions considering some correlations. Also the average global temperature has risen between 1901 and 2000 (20th century doesn't start in 1900, doh ), is this also caused by the decline of Christianity?

20th century was arguably the bloodiest (most victims) in the history of manking, is this also caused by the decline of Christianity? 20th century knows the most cases of AIDS or Alzheimer from the history of mankind (also because of the decline of Christianity?).

At the same time, isn't Japan a tolerant, modern country of the 20th century? Was Soviet Union for the most part of the 20th century tolerant, democratic or anything?

 

When one wants to talk about 20th century as a effect of decline of the Christianity must try first to consolidate the grounds he's staying on.

 

My initial post was in rejection of the implication that the 20th century was bad, and that this was the result of the decline of Christianity. I suggested that actually in many ways - most in my opinion - the 20th century was good, and that if the bad things could be attributed to declining Christianity, then so could the good.

 

I have no great objection to someone saying correlation doesn't demonstrate causality, as long as they accept it both ways.

 

Correlation certainly does not prove causality, it just hints at something worth investigation. What you then have to do is demonstrate the basis for the causal chain (as for instance Rattray Taylor does, with regard to homosexuality and incest, in Sex in History).

 

All you are doing in this post is repeating what I said at the outset. If one side can claim causality on the basis of correlation, then so can the other.

However I noticed one of your latest additions considering some correlations. Also the average global temperature has risen between 1901 and 2000 (20th century doesn't start in 1900, doh ), is this also caused by the decline of Christianity?

You seem to be suggesting that 1901 came before 1900. As far as i'm concerned the 20th century lies between 1900 and 2000 just as it lies between 1800 and 2100.

 

When one wants to talk about 20th century as a effect of decline of the Christianity must try first to consolidate the grounds he's staying on.

 

I don't quite understand the last bit ('consolidate the ground he is staying on') but you seem to be just repeating my original point.