Weeellll ... the context is an evidently quite rational / science-driven human seemingly being obliged by regulation or tradition to swear on a physical object, subsequently choosing a piece of non-fiction written by one of the more well known astrophysicists, and then you suggested the golden rule was coined (according to third hand sources, I think?) by someone several centuries after we have prior art to the contrary. In HN parlance that'd be like an Apple apologist claiming Steve.J invented Unix. ; |

Anyway, it was the 'fundamental' bit I was asking about -- I wasn't sure if by that you meant originating there, or just an in passing teaching (which the NT pinched from existing religions / philosophies).

If I were an atheist on the fence, so to speak, I expect that I'd want something a bit better than 'not so bad after all' - but from my readings, the moral philosophy does feel like it falls short of godly, more's the pity.

I'll stand by self-evident, given the sentiment has originated in several places / cultures over the millennia. Happily deferring to Hitch on the wording (from god is not great)

"The so-called Golden Rule, sometimes needlessly identified with a folktale about the Babylonian Rabbi Hillel, simply enjoins us to treat others as one would wish to be treated by them. This sober and rational precept, which one can teach to any child with its innate sense of fairness (and which predates all Jesus’s “beatitudes” and parables), is well within the compass of any atheist and does not require masochism and hysteria, or sadism and hysteria, when it is breached. It is gradually learned, as part of the painfully slow evolution of the species, and once grasped is never forgotten. Ordinary conscience will do, without any heavenly wrath behind it."

As you observe, known thinkers - eg Kant - can provide some guiding insights:

"Kant’s principle enjoins us to “act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a general natural law.” In this summary of mutual interest and solidarity, there is no requirement for any enforcing or supernatural authority. And why should there be? Human decency is not derived from religion. It precedes it."

Respectfully, the context of the post you replied to was that of getting behind the Bible as a book to swear upon by atheists, and even people of other religions. Or in the least that they use some book of moral philosophy, instead of a general book about some unrelated science. I mean, would you also swear on a book on algebra if you wanted to make an important and official oath?

Also, I never suggested that Jesus coined The Golden Rule. Please see the third sentence of the last post if you want to verify that. Jesus certainly never invented equal rights either, but he stood for those principles, and they are foundational within Christianity. There are many things to attack Christianity for, but that's not one of them.

Moreover, Christianity has one thing going for it that atheism (at least in its current form) can't, and that is a certain rigidity and dogmatism which pushes everyone in the same direction in a way that the relativist streak of atheism can never hope for.

Obviously, I think that's a positive trait of Christianity, as long as it isn't taken too far. Pun intended; Lord knows that it certainly has (been taken too far) in the past! But then let us hope they learned from it, instead of repeating the same overreach again. Yet again, kind of a tenet of Jesus (i.e. learning from past mistakes and not repeating them)...

But the fact that atheism is so relativistic is one of its weakest points, and the reason no atheist can agree on morality, or what is good either for the individual or society as a whole – and not even UPB! If atheism ever changes on this topic, I'm sure a lot more people will find it a worthy endeavour. But as it is, I doubt that it will get much traction for that very reason, and if not that, then certainly because religious customs and rituals are so much more fulfilling, if not outright dramatic and thought provoking.

> [christianity ...] rigidity and dogmatism which pushes everyone in the same direction in a way that the relativist streak of atheism can never hope for.

This is a pretty incredulous assertion to make - given the existence of six broadly recognised and highly divergent branches, but more so the tens of thousands of sects worldwide, that would all claim to hide under the 'christianity' umbrella.

How does their very existence, let alone the myriad famously violent contra-examples to 'let's all push in the same direction' (let's pick Ireland as just one example among many) reconcile with this claim?

You mentioned relativism twice, as a point against anti-theism, but don't seem to accept it's rampant within every religion (AFAIK) but certainly every christian denomination.

I'm referring to the way practitioners will select and abide by only the teachings they agree with, and happily discard the ones they don't. The very definition of relativism, yes?

Claims that atheists can't agree on morality are hard to argue against, but I posit they're even harder - for you - to substantiate. All research I've seen suggests that in general atheists express higher empathy, understanding, tolerance to the rest of the world (not just their clique, as we tend to see with religious in-groups).

I'd suggest, returning to where we came in, the ethic of reciprocity - or rather than negation - don't do things to other people that you wouldn't want them doing to you - would be fairly widely accepted by non-theists the world over as a starting point. From there you can draw out a fairly robust moral framework, without needing to invoke the supernatural.

This is extra fortunate for me, as I wouldn't want to have to choose between a purported moral code, and giving up my mixed-fabric clothing.