From: iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ivan A Derzhanski)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Re:      Re: God Is Unfair
Date: 19 Nov 92 10:47:56 GMT
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK

In article <1992Nov18.151044.23933@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.032637.21553@bmerh85.bnr.ca>, dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham) writes:
>|> I'd be about 1e20 times more likely to chose
>|> something written by the ancient Greeks than I would the Bible.  [...]
>
>OK.  Let's do the experiment.  Pick a package from the Iliad or
>the Odyssey, which I imagine we can agree are the most famous
>pieces of epic literature from ancient Greece.

So they are.  Of course, they are not meant to be anything other than
epic literature, and I imagine D Graham was rather thinking of
something written by one of the philosophers, not the poets.  But the
works of Homer will do.

>Prepare a commentary and a sermon which would allow you to teach
>a public lesson from this passage.

Fair enough.  You suggest the passage, and we'll discuss it.  I've
done that many times in the past, in my head and on paper -- as part
of my own reading of the Homeric epics, as well as for classes, as
high school and college.  Time permitting, I'll enjoy doing it again.

>I don't think it's going to be as easy as you think.  Make sure that
>the lesson can be understood at multiple levels --- by young
>children and by adults.

I don't see why it should be difficult.  The Greeks did it all the
time over many centuries.  The Homeric epics were one of the basic
components of the education of a citizen.  It was not a perfect
education (after all, Socrates was condemned to death by Athenian
citizens), but it was one of the best at its time.

>Could you divide the Iliad into 52 weekly portions and
>give a lesson a week throughout the year on them?

Oh dear.  Now we're in trouble.  The Iliad has 24 books, so it is
easily divided into 48 portions.  But 52?  I don't know.  :-)

>If my memory serves me correctly, the Iliad and the Odyssey
>have problematic passages even more disturbing than the
>"bad" Biblical passages like Elisha and the bears.  I'll
>try to look up a few and post them.

Pray do.  I'm all ears.  The only justification for the double quotes
on "bad" that I can think of is that there were (reportedly) no bears
in Palestine.

>|> BTW, how do *you* think the Jews compared to the ancient Greeks
>|> or even the Romans in terms of backwardness?
>
>Well, I'm not sure "backwards" is a rigorous scientific term.
>I find myself somewhat in a role-reversal here:  a theist
>who appears to be more of a cultural relativist than the
>atheist he is disputing with.  

Cultural relativism is fine in its context.  It can be a source of
problems when you insist on using as a moral guide, here and now, a
book which was written for a society with a largely different set of
values.  Even so, however, you'll never see me criticise the Bible for
its treatment of women or for its apology for slavery, particularly
the latter.  Society follows a certain set of laws which determine its
development, it goes through a number of stages, and at the time we
are dealing with it was the advanced societies that practised slavery;
the less advanced ones hadn't yet got there.  That form of social
order later yielded its place to feudalism.

>Certainly the Romans appear to be out of the running.
>Their entire history seems to be one of cruelty and
>conquest, slavery, bread-and-circuses.

Well, the bread'n'circuses business certainly doesn't mark the entire
period of the Roman history.  If it did, the Romans would have to be
commended for their care for the material and spiritual needs of each
and every free citizen.  Many people in Edinburgh nowadays can't
afford the daily bread, never mind circuses.

>As I mentioned above, I disagree that I could teach
>a kinder gentler morality from the Iliad.

That's a disappointment.  The skills you demonstrated with the Abraham
passages were so impressive that I was beginning to think that you
could teach a kind gentle morality from a basket of coal.

>First of all, the Jews didn't actually do to the
>Canaanites what some of the hyperbolic descriptions in the
>Bible actually said.

We know.  One of the best thing about the atrocious stories in the
Bible is that they have no connexion to reality.

>Second of all, to use an expression
>you used earlier, that was then and this is now.  What they
>did then would, if done in the 21st century, be as bad.

Frankly, I don't think that this kind of thing has ever been something
to be proud of.  The Assyrians occasionally went for this form of
total destruction, but only when punishing rebellious vassals, and
they were universally known as barbarians.  And I wouldn't use
Ashurnas.irpal's military records to teach my children morality.

-- 
 `Haud yer wheesht!  Come oot o the man an gie him peace.' (The Glasgow Gospel)
Ivan A Derzhanski   (iad@cogsci.ed.ac.uk;  iad@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu)
* Centre for Cognitive Science,  2 Buccleuch Place,  Edinburgh EH8 9LW,  UK
* Cowan House, Pollock Halls, 18 Holyrood Park Road, Edinburgh EH16 5BD, UK