• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The value of Bible literature for atheism and the value of atheism for Bible literature

Here's something recent that corroborates Waton's critique:
Desmond, Adrian J.; Moore, James Richard (1994). Darwin. W. W. Norton & Company. p. xxi. ISBN 978-0-393-31150-1.
What of Darwin’s own latter-day prejudices? He thought blacks inferior but was sickened by slavery; he subordinated women but was totally dependent on his redoubtable wife. How did his views on sex, race, and empire reflect the late-Victorian ethos? Was he still remaking the world in the image of his times in the Descent of Man (1871)? Did he see society, like nature, progress by culling its unfit members? ‘Social Darwinism’ is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin's image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start — ‘Darwinism’ was always intended to explain human society.

Is it possible to cite the pertinent entries in notebooks ?
Per "The Dark Side of Darwinism | Philosophy for the Many". sites.williams.edu.
How can Desmond and Moore claim to know Darwin’s intent? They reached their conclusions after an exhaustive search through “a wealth of unpublished family letters and a massive amount of manuscript material,” and use “Darwin’s notes, cryptic marginalia (where key clues lie) and even ships’ logs and lists of books read by Darwin. His published notebooks and correspondence (some 15,000 letters are now known) are an invaluable source” (xx). Using these sources, Desmond and Moore attempt to make a substantial case against the idea that Darwin was racist, citing evidence such as the diary that Darwin kept during his Beagle voyage. Darwin writes of slavery, “It makes one’s blood boil, yet heart tremble, to think that we Englishmen and our American descendants, with their boastful cry of liberty, have been and are so guilty” (quoted in Desmond and Moore, 183). Darwin often wrote thoughts that don’t quite align with the ideas in The Descent of Man. In his theory, Darwin suggests that it is natural for more successful races to dominate over others, and speaks comfortably of white Europeans exterminating other races. However, he wrote in his diary that “the white Man … has debased his Nature & violates every best instinctive feeling by making slave of his fellow black” (quoted in Desmond and Moore, 115). Desmond and Moore view Darwin’s later contradictions of his racist ideas in The Descent of Man as reason to interpret the text of Darwin’s theory cautiously.

Desmond and Moore also offer details of Darwin’s life that they claim are incongruent with his purported racism. Darwin came from a family that fought to emancipate Britain’s slaves, and many of his friends and readers were abolitionists as well. As a young man, Darwin took lessons in bird-stuffing from a local African American servant. Desmond and Moore write, “Evidently the sixteen-going-on-seventeen year old saw nothing untoward in paying money to apprentice himself to a Negro, and the forty or so hour-long sessions which he had with the ‘blackamoor’ through that frosty winter clearly made an impact” (18). Desmond and Moore see Darwin’s willingness to associate with African Americans as evidence that he was not prejudiced. Finally, the authors bring up a story that is actually mentioned in The Descent of Man. When Darwin writes of similarities he has noticed between savages and himself, he mentions “a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate” (232). Again, Desmond and Moore see Darwin’s personal experiences with colored people as evidence that he is not biased against them; further, they believe this information should influence our interpretation of The Descent of Man.

A final argument made in favor of Darwin blames the time period in which he wrote. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education writes that “Darwin, like [Abraham] Lincoln, believed in white supremacy, but he was far more enlightened and sympathetic to blacks than most white men of his time” (39). In this view, The Descent of Man must be considered within the context of its conception, namely a period and location in which white supremacy was the norm.

The external information supplied by Darwin’s personal notes, experiences, context, etc. adds to our understanding of Darwin himself, but it cannot change our understanding of his theories. The question of whether Darwin was a racist man is separate from the question of whether his theory was racist, and the answer to the former question has no bearing on the latter.
 
The most Darwin wrote about his beliefs on the state of human culture was his deep abhorence of the institute of slavery.
I take it you never actually read his works! The Descent of Man says a great deal more about the human situation than that alone. Not culture, because that concept was not yet common in Britain; the primary subdivider of the human species, to Darwin, was "race", and within races, the "tribe" or the "nation". Does the wording sound familiar?
 
True. Humans are not always savages who are selfish and evil. They cooperate to achieve good things. Darwin pointed out such things. But Darwin never wrote long thick tomes about humann civilization. He was no social guru. He was a scientist and a naturalist and good one. He was no Herbert Spencer, no Karl Marx.
 
True. Humans are not always savages who are selfish and evil. They cooperate to achieve good things. Darwin pointed out such things. But Darwin never wrote long thick tomes about humann civilization. He was no social guru. He was a scientist and a naturalist and good one. He was no Herbert Spencer, no Karl Marx.
Charles Darwin wrote a great deal about human beings, both in professional life and in his personal letters. This is not an obscure fact. The Descent of Man is easily his second most notorious work. Spencer and Darwin were well aware of one another's work, though they had very differrent foci, and there are many cross-references within their works. Marx was more than aware of Darwin too, and after the release of became a harsh critic of his social theories, which he saw as an inapproporiate "application of the social Victorian model to Nature". Darwin, however, pointedly never read Marx at all, and publically snubbed him after Marx sent him a dedicated copy of Das Kapital (in which Darwin had been cited). In class politics as well as in religious matters, they were fated to be enemies, for many of the same reasons that Darwin is today critiqued and Marx guardedly vindicated in the house of public opinion.
 
It it appears the thread is demonstrating social Darwinism. A dog eat dog intectual battle for dominance. Combat in an intellectual jungle and ecosystem.

The strong eat the weak.....taht is the observable history of humans from the personal to the national. As we speak there is an existential battle between the USA and Russia-China for global influence and power.

In a sense the USA representing liberal democracy is failing the 'Darwin Test'. Cina as an authoritarian ate is gaining griund.

And this is a derail to social science.
 
It it appears the thread is demonstrating social Darwinism. A dog eat dog intectual battle for dominance. Combat in an intellectual jungle and ecosystem.

The strong eat the weak.....taht is the observable history of humans from the personal to the national.
My history 101 lecture (w/o condemning or condoning):
  1. Resource are limited
  2. Might makes right
 
It it appears the thread is demonstrating social Darwinism. A dog eat dog intectual battle for dominance. Combat in an intellectual jungle and ecosystem.

The strong eat the weak.....taht is the observable history of humans from the personal to the national.

Ah, you concede the argument to your intellectual superiors, then? :D
 
Here is Harry Waton on the superiority of a Bible-based biology:

But in the realm of life, modern science accomplished nothing. Biology—this is the science of life. What shall be said about a biology that does not know what life is? And this is the biology of the Aryans? Study the thousands of books that were written on biology by the Aryans, and in all of them you will not find a single statement as to what life itself is. For instance, Spencer defines life to be a continuous adjustment of inner relations to outer relations. Is this a definition of life? This only tells us of a function of life, but what is life itself that makes this adjustment? Spencer himself admits that he does not know. And in all cases in which the Aryans come to the ultimate aspects of existence, they draw down the curtain on which is written: The Thing in Itself, Nihil Ulterius, The Unknowable. And ask no further questions. Now, the basis of the nazi philosophy is the blood theory, and we already saw that the nazis do not know what blood is, and they know absolutely nothing about life itself. What is life? We already saw that the Bible knew what life is. Life is what the Bible calls nephesh, it is the soul in its implicit state. Life is the Absolute, it is the cause of itself, it is the substance of all realities, and all infinite existence is a living reality.
What does any of this have to do with the OP?

On the other thread I thought you wanted to discuss the bible without a myth derail.

The purpose of this thread is to examine the meaning and value that Bible literature and atheism have for each other. I intend to provide quotations from and links to pertinent literature.
Waton is arguing that the dominant paradigm (what he calls Aryan biology) provides no understanding of the nature of life itself. He argues that the essence of life is given in the Bible as nephesh, and that this is foundation of the whole of reality. In short, the Bible provides a way to understand biology that is superior to the current dominant paradigm. This may be of some importance to those atheists who find the dominant paradigm in biology deficient. I point, for example, to this thread.
No, this does not give any better way of understanding 'the nature of' biology more than understanding biochemistry.

At best it provides a rubric of religious worship of the concepts? It's not the same thing and it's just not valuable, neither to our survival nor our art.

If you really wish to engage in worship of biology, you would be better off actually studying the mechanics of biochemistry and "rolling your own" as it were.

As has been discussed and addressed as to the "darwinistic" aspects of both psychology and ethics, I seem to recall saying similar the last time you were principally active here: there is no problem with biology, and there is no problem with darwinism being acknowledged in it..

The issue is failing to recognize that there are more than one evolutionary and systemic survival strategies in play among humans. Lamarckian and Neo-Lamarckian evolutionary strategies also inform our higher ethics.

Darwinism being accepted as a truth of human history says nothing against or about further developing our understanding of our progress with regards to other evolutionary strategies we employ.

To isolate this juxtaposition and the concepts it allows though around with regards to ethical behavior, acceptance and understanding of Darwinian evolutionary biology is a must.
 
Don't know about progress. Russia. Ukraine, the Korean peninsula,, Chinese militarization of the South China Sea. The USA fanatically promoting our version of democracy regardless of consequences.

Over here increasing political divisions and conflict in congress and the streets. Civil unrest and gun violence.

Religious conflict here and around the world.

I take Darwinism to be more metaphor than any specific definition.

It is not called Darwinism, it is called Theory Of Evolution which encompass a wide range of disciplines.

We are essentially screeching feces flinging chimps with nuclear weapons. Religion and moral philosophy are veneers covering our instints.
 
It it appears the thread is demonstrating social Darwinism. A dog eat dog intectual battle for dominance. Combat in an intellectual jungle and ecosystem.

The strong eat the weak.....taht is the observable history of humans from the personal to the national.

Ah, you concede the argument to your intellectual superiors, then? :D
You have caught me off guard. I just did not imagine you had a sense of humor.

Are you arguing academia is not a competitive and political ecosystem?
 
Another wiki-quote thread.

Just trying to kick things off with a few quotations and links.

Again what value is the bible to the atheist ohter than as literature, and what exactly do you believe. What do yiu personally think about atheism and the bible?

It is all and only literature. But there is nothing in the life of mankind more powerful than literature.

What do I think personally about the Bible and literature? I believe that only an atheist can really understand and exploit its power, that it is in essence the ultimate atheist manifesto.

What is a christian atheist? Us atheists on the forum generally agree in the n on existence of a god but we do not necessarily agree on anything else. What is a christian atheist?

It is a person who understands that Jesus of Nazareth is the greatest atheist of all time.

Your starting the thead by quoting ni French tells me you are presenting a facade.

Take it easy, man. I just happen to adore the table function that allows me to put the original French side-by-side with my own translation of the passage into English. I don't want to be accused of skewing the translation in my favour, so I provide the original. In some cases, like the quotation from Goethe that I provided in another thread, no translation can equal the original in beauty and power, so I provide the original for those who can appreciate it.
 
Is it possible to cite the pertinent entries in notebooks ?

There is this little gem from The Descent of Man:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.--Chapter 6 of The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex; The Works of Charles Darwin.
 
Something from Ernst Bloch's Atheism in Christianity:

There is only this point, that Church and Bible are not one and the same. The Bible has always been the Church's bad conscience. Tolstoy, speaking against her, called not on Haeckel but on the words of Jesus. The Enlightenment, therefore, will be all the more radical when it does not pour equal scorn on the Bible's all-pervading, healthy insight into man. It is for this very reason (one not remote from the Enlightenment) that the Bible can speak to all men, and be understood across so many lands and right on through the ages.
 
And something from Amy-Jill Levine's Short Stories by Jesus: The Enigmatic Parables of a Controversial Rabbi:

Jesus was requiring that his disciples do more than listen; he was asking them to think as well. What makes the parables mysterious, or difficult, is that they challenge us to look into the hidden aspects of our own values, our own lives. They bring to the surface unasked questions, and they reveal the answers we have always known, but refuse to acknowledge. Religion has been defined as designed to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable. We do well to think of the parables of Jesus as doing the afflicting. Therefore, if we hear a parable and think, "I really like that" or, worse, fail to take any challenge, we are not listening well enough.
 
Jesus and the New Testament are practically void of any practical use. The Eightfold Path, an outline, provides a substantial moral code. The premise is generalized and non-arbitrary.

In book after book in the New Testament, there is almost no guidance for morality, in fact Jesus is only involved in four of them. Jesus barely taught people anything other than the old rules aren't that important, be nicer. And the remainder is just propaganda to grow a religion. So much text, and no practical use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dbz
The Eightfold Path, an outline, provides a substantial moral code. The premise is generalized and non-arbitrary.
"The Real War on Christmas: The Fact That Christmas Is Better Than Christ • Richard Carrier". Richard Carrier. 24 December 2016.
Let’s face it. Jesus is a dick.


The Gospels portray him as a cruel, sociopathic asshole who gloats over millions being horribly tortured for billions of years at his command (Mk. 9:43-49, Mt. 13:40-42, Mt. 13:49-50, Mt. 18:7-9, Mt. 24:51, Mt. 25:40-46, Mt. 5:22, Lk. 13:23-34, Jn. 15:6, etc.) and to whom he shall never ever show even the minutest mercy (Lk. 16:22-29); who calls racial minorities dogs (Mk. 7:24-29); who murders thousands of pigs (Mk. 5:12-13), and doesn’t even say he’s sorry to the town that in result just lost its livelihood and the better part of their food supply; a guy who is so horrifically disgusted by sex he tells people to cut off their own limbs, eyes, and genitals before even so much as thinking a sexual thought (Mt. 5:27-30, Mt. 18:7-9, Mk. 9:43-49, Mt. 19:10-12); who endorses the legal execution of anyone who divorces and remarries (Mt. 5:31-32, Mt. 19:3-10), even of children who talk back to their parents (Mk. 7:7-13), and, let’s be honest (Mt. 5:17-20), even gay men and raped women (and countless others; Jesus loved killing, and was in fact convicted of the very death penalty offense he himself supported—an irony lost on pretty much every Christian then or since); who not only never condemns slavery but actually endorses it as a moral model God should be admired for following (e.g. Mt. 18:23-35, Mt. 24:44-51, Mt. 25:14-30, Lk. 17:7-9, Lk. 12:36-48); who has scary paranoid rage issues even with his closest friends (Mt. 16:21-23, Mk. 8:31-33)—even to the point of committing mass public violence (yes, Jesus is literally a criminal; and not because he was falsely convicted, but because he actually committed felony assault: Jn. 2:13-16, Mk. 11:15–16, Mt. 21:12, Lk. 19:45); and who arrogantly commands you to abandon and hate your family in order to follow him instead (Lk. 14:26, Mt. 10:34-37, Mt. 8:21-22, Lk. 9:59-60)—literally boasting that he shall tear families apart (Lk. 12:51-53, Mk. 10:29-30, Mt. 19:29). He never unites or reconciles any family. Not a single intact family ever follows or befriends him. He even tells his own family to fuck off (Mk. 3:32-35). “Love” does not mean coming from him what we now imagine. And despite being able to eradicate all disease, he eradicates not even one of them—despite visiting a planet where more than half of all children die of one. Like I said. A total dick.​
Also:
Remarking on the central power of a myth in organizing a civilization does not really tell us anything at all about whether that myth is true, or indeed even admirable. The Greeks were already starting to notice Homer was a pretty awful moral guide. The Romans eventually noticed Romulus was a fratricide, a category of criminal that earned in Virgil’s national mythology the worst place in Hell. We now notice the Laws of Moses are hopelessly superstitious and horrifically immoral. And all mainstream historians now agree all these men were mythical; certainly as depicted, they never existed, and what’s recorded of them never happened. They all now agree this is the case as well for the Gospel Jesus. They still cling to “a” Jesus at least having existed (the lone remaining holdout for mythical heroes in the West), but they reject almost everything he is claimed to have said and done as myth. So we can’t just boast of how Western Imperialism was built on our myth of Jesus, and then claim we’ve defended that myth as anything worth our continued attention. So we have to be honest with the evidence and not special plead for Jesus, as if he was any relevantly different than any other myth-laden founder of any world religion in history. He’s not.

"Some Good Reads on Ancient History vs. the Gospels • Richard Carrier". Richard Carrier Blogs. 4 November 2013.
Ferguson (a doctoral student in Classics at UCI) has been blogging a lot since, in ancient history, counter-apologetics, and philosophy. But I thought my readers would be especially interested in a recent fine article of interest to historicity buffs: Ancient Historical Writing Compared to the Gospels of the New Testament. I have often written about the same subject (such as in Not the Impossible Faith, ch. 7; Sense and Goodness without God IV.1.2.6, pp. 246-47; and my analysis of Xenophon vs. the Gospels and the two sections after that). But Ferguson does a really good job building even further on all this, adding examples and clearly explaining the significance of each point, and going beyond even the points I’ve made. Any history buff will find it interesting. It’s just gravy that it has its uses in combating Christian apologetics as well. I’d even say it’s required reading for any layman who wants to get up to speed on essential common knowledge in the field of ancient history that often isn’t known by Christian apologists.
 
Last edited:
Jesus and the New Testament are practically void of any practical use. The Eightfold Path, an outline, provides a substantial moral code. The premise is generalized and non-arbitrary.

In book after book in the New Testament, there is almost no guidance for morality, in fact Jesus is only involved in four of them. Jesus barely taught people anything other than the old rules aren't that important, be nicer. And the remainder is just propaganda to grow a religion. So much text, and no practical use.

Jesus did not present a morality and system for the ages. What Jesus was presenting was simply to survive the apocalypse and be one of the sheep, not one of the goats. To survive to live in the new Kingdom of God that was to come very soon. Since that time has gone without the second coming and the coming of the utopin and perfect Kingdom of God this no longer makes sense. Nobody sells all they have and gives to the poor. The remnants of the commands of Jesus do really suffice as a blue print for a viable society. Besides, Jesus was too woke for today's right winged Christians.
 
I suppose if it's down to pick and choose only the bits of what Jesus was teaching, then on that, I would understand this to be merely a personal preference, a Jesus to suit, creating a false image, if you will.

Feed the hungry, give to the poor, heal the sick, forgive and love your enemies, just some of the things preached which imo sounds quite moral to me, and quite beneficially, of practical use.
 
I suppose if it's down to pick and choose only the bits of what Jesus was teaching...
But you reject his second coming heralded by the Trump toilet paper apocalypse...
 
I suppose if it's down to pick and choose only the bits of what Jesus was teaching, then on that, I would understand this to be merely a personal preference, a Jesus to suit, creating a false image, if you will.

Feed the hungry, give to the poor, heal the sick, forgive and love your enemies, just some of the things preached which imo sounds quite moral to me, and quite beneficially, of practical use.
Four gospels, and all you have off the top of your head is feed the hungry, give to the poor, heal the sick, forgive and love your enemies? Sure, it is nice thinking, but it isn't particularly broad.
 
Back
Top Bottom