Philosophy in the Bible

[De Selby]

Ayn Rand promoted a brand of Nietzschean fascism.  Her views could not be more divergent from and inimical to biblical moral teachings.

There's no comparing a book that's all about community and doing right by others, even when it means personal sacrifice, to a philosophy that thinks everything wrong with the world comes from altruism.

[Regolith]

Regolith,
Your theories on human nature are interesting rather obvious sophomoric cynicism, but you really can't know any of that.  Project much?

My suggestion is that you do some research into human behavioral models.  Our brains function, to some degree, on a somewhat simple action-consequence model.  When we do something that rewards us in some way, that behavior is reinforced.  When it doesn't reward, or yields a negative consequence, that behavior is either not reinforced or is actively suppressed.  In other words, most of human behavior can be explained because it rewards us in some way.  If we don't do something, it is because we don't find it rewarding in some way or because the consequences of some act results in some form of negative consequences.  If we repeatedly do something, it is because we are rewarded in some way, regardless of whether or not we see it this way.

Now, being thinking beings, we can control or subvert this process.  We can make ourselves think that an action is rewarding, even if there is no external benefits, or even if the external consequences are painful or in some way not to our advantage.  But the action-consequence sequence is still there.

Thus it is with altruistic behavior, such as charitable giving.  We receive no perceivable net benefit from doing so.  However, we have built a moral culture that states that giving altruistically is something that is good.  Thus, when we do give altruistically, we are rewarded, either socially or psychology for that action.  We feel good about it.  Again, this is natural.

In other words, we do not get nothing out of a charitable exchange.  It may not be the reason you think you are doing it, but your behavior is being reinforced by the action-consequence reward system anyway.  You may think it cynical, but these simple models are the foundation for more complex social behavior, and recognizing their existence isn't some moral dilemma.

Again, Rand, along with Hobbes and a few other philosophers, recognized this behavior.  Where Rand went wrong was trying to build an explicit moral code off of it; in other words, using the reward as the explicit reason or justification for giving rather than for any other ethical considerations above that.  As it is now, the reward exists; it simply isn't the cause of the behavior - other ethical considerations are.  The reward is simply the consequence, and one that reinforces the behavior.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

In other words, it makes them feel good.  When was the last time you gave to charity, and felt bad about that act?  I doubt that most people who donate don't feel anything when they do so.  And I really doubt they felt bad, because they wouldn't continue to donate unless they had some other reason (their religion expects it, they're expected to, etc.).

I'm approaching this a bit from the behavioral side of things, though.  What Rand did was recognize the behavior, and instead of simply acknowledging it, tried to build a moral structure on it.  This is probably where she failed.

No, not quite.  To some, giving a gift is still the right/moral thing to do even if it costs the giver on net.  Such a transaction would be immoral in Rand-world, but it might be perfectly reasonable or even expected of you under other systems.

Your notion that people only give to charity because it makes them feel good is the root of your misunderstanding.  It simply isn't true.  Maybe you don't behave this way, and maybe you don't know anyone else who behaves this way, and maybe you can't even imagine that other people behave this way.  But they do.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Ayn Rand promoted a brand of Nietzschean fascism.  Her views could not be more divergent from and inimical to biblical moral teachings.

There's no comparing a book that's all about community and doing right by others, even when it means personal sacrifice, to a philosophy that thinks everything wrong with the world comes from altruism.

Rand's gripe wasn't with altruism, it was with coerced altruism.

[Regolith]

No, not quite.  To some, giving a gift is still the right/moral thing to do even if it costs the giver on net.  Such a transaction would be immoral in Rand-world, but it might be perfectly reasonable or even expected of you under other systems.

Your notion that people only give to charity because it makes them feel good is the root of your misunderstanding.  It simply isn't true.  Maybe you don't behave this way, and maybe you don't know anyone else who behaves this way, and maybe you can't even imagine that other people behave this way.  But they do.

Go back and read my response post to fistful.  My point wasn't that people only give to charity because of how it made them feel.  My point was simply that giving to charity was not a one-sided transaction.

I think I forgot to insert an "only" into my first post, and hence perhaps my point wasn't as clear as I'd have liked it to be, and for that I apologize.   I was a bit tired when I wrote it and perhaps wasn't thinking as straight as I should have been.

[LadySmith]

Regolith, what you wrote makes sense. I don't have to like it, but it makes sense. 

But what about people who lay down their lives, often impulsively, for others?
Can't say they feel good about it because they're dead and feel nothing.

[Regolith]

Regolith, what you wrote makes sense. I don't have to like it, but it makes sense. 

But what about people who lay down their lives, often impulsively, for others?
Can't say they feel good about it because they're dead and feel nothing.

Most people who act like that would feel bad if they hadn't. They may be subconsciously anticipating a negative consequence for a failure to act, one that may be stronger than their self-preservation.

It does sound very dry and cynical, but I don't really think it is.  It's simply how we are. 

I do think our moral codes exist independently of these subroutines our brains are running and grow out of our ability to think rationally and logically, but our moral codes do take advantage of them to reinforce and influence behavior.

[makattak]

Most people who act like that would feel bad if they hadn't. They may be subconsciously anticipating a negative consequence for a failure to act, one that may be stronger than their self-preservation.

It does sound very dry and cynical, but I don't really think it is.  It's simply how we are. 

I do think our moral codes exist independently of these subroutines our brains are running and grow out of our ability to think rationally and logically, but our moral codes do take advantage of them to reinforce and influence behavior.

Ah, a materialist.

[Regolith]

Ah, a materialist.

Perhaps, in part anyway.  I approach it more from a scientific point of view than a philosophical one, though. These behaviors can be readily seen and described in animals.  It gets more blurry with humans because of our ability to rationalize, but the basic underlying mechanisms are similar.  The major difference between us and them is the ability to use our higher-order intelligence to influence lower-order behaviors.  To tweak the machine, so to speak, in order to achieve desired outcomes.

Call it a bit of a hybrid between materialism mixed with a bit of tabula rasa social theory mixed in for good measure, which is where current behavioral science is trending. 

[zahc]

Thus it is with altruistic behavior, such as charitable giving.  We receive no perceivable net benefit from doing so.

Why not? I find that on the whole, being altruistic and charitable, also known as "not being an ahole", has many fringe social benefits. Not to mention spiritual ones. I just don't see why people think that there is no reason to give to charity.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Go back and read my response post to fistful.  My point wasn't that people only give to charity because of how it made them feel.  My point was simply that giving to charity was not a one-sided transaction.

I think I forgot to insert an "only" into my first post, and hence perhaps my point wasn't as clear as I'd have liked it to be, and for that I apologize.   I was a bit tired when I wrote it and perhaps wasn't thinking as straight as I should have been.

Nobody denies that giving to charity can feel good and have some personal benefits.  My point, and I suspect fistful's too, is that "feeling good" isn't necessarily what motivates everyone to give.  There are lots of people out there who give purely for the recipient's sake, not for their own, which is a distinctly un-Randian ideal.

[Crazy-G]

I emailed my brother this thread and this is his response which I mostly agree with, posted with his permission.

"I seem to agree with Regolith.

Biblical morality assumes that there is a supernaturally created overarching moral code and I just don't believe that.  Things like charity and altruism exist because they are beneficial to the species, not because a "god" willed them to exist.

The people complaining about moral relativism and materialism are missing the point...their arguments are based on their personal feelings about how moral acts make them feel.  Which is exactly the point.  The other argument relies on saying morality is constant because God said it is, and in the common Christian realm the justification falls on the Bible, which is a circular argument.  Once you try to justify a particular morality without relying on arguments that cannot be falsified (and thus are not scientific) I have never heard anyone come up with anything more convincing than simple Darwinism.

That is not to say I think the basic morality championed by the Bible is wrong, most of it is obviously correct...and most of it is absolutely not unique to Christianity.  The exact same basic rules exist in every culture simply because without them a civilization cannot exist.  If murder and theft were not discouraged, people would never even advance to the tribal stage, and so every existing society by default must have that rule.  If everyone stole everything everyone would starve and freeze to death.  If everyone murdered everyone would be dead, etc.  And so social upbringing re-enforces the ideas that these things must be obeyed, because societies that re-enforce them are more successful.

Which is why the non-central portions of morality fluctuate drastically over time.  Sometimes technology or social practice makes them obsolete, like the hygiene laws in the Old Testament.  Sometimes societies simply moves past old behavior, like slavery.  And sometimes changing traditional behavior results in a net positive, and so is re-enforced...like womens rights and democracy (neither of which would have been encouraged in the Old Testament).

The basic "rules" of morality exist because alternate behavior is destructive.  The danger comes when people think the morality that their social group believes in is divinely inspired or somehow perfect.  But it never is.  Adultery morality is silly to a swinger couple.  Homosexual morality is silly to a homosexual.  Food and hygiene morality is silly to a culture that understands germ theory.  Idolatry morality is silly in a culture that has multiple ethnic groups.  If we could create replicator technology theft morality would be obsolete, and if anyone ever discovered true cloning technology murder would not even be a big deal any more.

Perhaps this can also be demonstrated by abnormal psychology.  If someone has a defect where every time they kill a person they get a stiffy, guess what, they turn into a serial killer.  Many people also exist who simply have no capacity for human empathy.  The traditional moral response to this is to label them an inhuman monster, but that is simply because analyzing what is really going on in their heads creates uncomfortable questions for the "moral" person.  Many people are unable to accept the fact that they have within themselves the capacity for "monstrous" behavior.

I had a guy at work tell me that World War 2 happened because Satan directly influenced Germany (and Hitler was possibly a demon), because without direct unholy intervention he thought the very idea of genocide was impossible.  He totally refused to accept the very idea that a "normal" person could ever be persuaded to commit such heinous acts.  But they can, because people have no soul, no divine spark, no built in unbreakable moral system.  It is all fluid.  It all boils down to chemistry and physics.  There is no "you".

Then, by voicing that idea the same "moral" people would be afraid of me.  After all, without Christian morality and perhaps without the system of divine reward and punishment to hold my actions in check, wouldn't I just be an untrustworthy, murdering, sex fiend?

But of course I would not.  Well, maybe the sex fiend part is true.  But it is in my interest to behave in a "moral" fashion.  If I help people they help me, if I am kind to others my whole society benefits and so I benefit.  If I do not benefit directly, maybe my children will.  And to top it off my upbringing still creates guilt about socially destructive behavior, so I still have a emotional force for traditional morality.  And if I raised my children without that same emotional reenforcement it would cause problems with negative behavior, so again, it is still in my best interest to teach morality.

But it also means I can pick and choose between why specific items of morality I think are valid.  And if I am totally wrong in my choices things will go to hell and the consequences will be dire for myself and my family.  Which would also prove my point :)"

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Hooray for anti-religious screeds!

 

[Perd Hapley]

The people complaining about moral relativism and materialism are missing the point...their arguments are based on their personal feelings about how moral acts make them feel. 

Who is complaining about those things, and how are their arguments based on their feelings?

The other argument relies on saying morality is constant because God said it is, and in the common Christian realm the justification falls on the Bible, which is a circular argument.  

Where is the circular argument, and who is making it? 

Once you try to justify a particular morality without relying on arguments that cannot be falsified (and thus are not scientific)

If we're talking about the "common Christian realm" and the Bible, Christian beliefs purport to have a factual basis.  Falsifying Christianity is as simple as disproving those facts. 

[mellestad]

Hooray for anti-religious screeds!

 

This is why I was hesitant to have my brother post this.  I was only interested in constructive criticism and feedback, not knee-jerk emotional responses.

[mellestad]

Who is complaining about those things, and how are their arguments based on their feelings?
Where is the circular argument, and who is making it? 
If we're talking about the "common Christian realm" and the Bible, Christian beliefs purport to have a factual basis.  Falsifying Christianity is as simple as disproving those facts. 

This was a general philisophical response about my thoughts when I read this thread, sent to my brother, who wanted your input on what I wrote him.

No-one is persecuting you.

[Perd Hapley]

Did I sound like I felt persecuted? 

[MechAg94]

Hooray for anti-religious screeds!

 

:D

That is not to say I think the basic morality championed by the Bible is wrong, most of it is obviously correct...and most of it is absolutely not unique to Christianity.

Of course it is not unique to Christianity from his perspective.  Since everyone descended from the people on Noah's Arc, all cultures derive their moral code from the same point.  :D 

Food and hygiene morality is silly to a culture that understands germ theory.

Why would knowledge of germ theory make someone reject basic hygiene? 

[mellestad]

Did I sound like I felt persecuted? 

No, I was just pointing out that I was just responding to a question outside of the forum, I was not singling one of you out for a fight, my apologies if I misspoke.

[mellestad]

:DOf course it is not unique to Christianity from his perspective.  Since everyone descended from the people on Noah's Arc, all cultures derive their moral code from the same point.  :D 
Why would knowledge of germ theory make someone reject basic hygiene? 

Not reject basic hygiene, reject hygiene taught as law derived from supernatural sources.  Once germ theory was understood many of the directives about food and sanitation can be explained through science, or invalidated as unnecessary outside of their religious function.

[Ron]

people have no soul, no divine spark, no built in unbreakable moral system.  It is all fluid.  It all boils down to chemistry and physics.  There is no "you"

In other words

There are no "inalienable rights". There is only what the mob, oligarchy or tyrant decide you have.

There is no "Love" it is all a chemical trick to get you to couple and breed.

There is no "Truth" per say, even what little can be proven true by the scientific method is dependent upon presuppositions.

There is no "you", thou has said...

[seeker_two]

If we're talking about the "common Christian realm" and the Bible, Christian beliefs purport to have a factual basis.  Falsifying Christianity is as simple as disproving those facts. 

Agreed....so, why hasn't anyone been able to disprove those facts (like, where's Jesus' body) ?

[Perd Hapley]

I would say, because it's all true.  But I'm not sure which way you're trying to go with this.

When I said that Christianity could be "falsified," I meant that the Bible makes truth claims that can be objectively proven or dis-proven.  That is, as opposed to a religious book that consists only of a set of moral guidelines.

[seeker_two]

I would say, because it's all true.  But I'm not sure which way you're trying to go with this.

When I said that Christianity could be "falsified," I meant that the Bible makes truth claims that can be objectively proven or dis-proven.  That is, as opposed to a religious book that consists only of a set of moral guidelines.

We're on the same page....and the Bible has proven to be more accurate than any of its detractors....either as history or as a set of moral guidelines.

In other words, is there any moral stance in the Bible that doesn't hold up to scrutiny?  And, in fairness, has there been any other moral teaching (Islam, Buddhism, secularism, etc.) that has held up to the same intensity of scrutiny that the Bible has?

I think not...

[Perd Hapley]

Oh crud.  I'm gonna need a lot of popcorn.