From: dgraham@bmers30.bnr.ca (Douglas Graham)
Subject: Re:      Re: God Is Unfair
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 92 09:21:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.000101.44534@watson.ibm.com> strom@Watson.Ibm.Com (Rob Strom) writes:
>Daniel Starr brought up using Aristotle and Plato, and you approved,
>so I'd like to pursue that direction a bit.

Remember that what I am asserting is that I would be far more likely
teach morality from the Greek philosophers that I would the Bible.
I am not saying that the Greeks are the best choice of all.  I
only mentioned the Greeks because they were the contemporaries of
the Biblical Jews, and I mentioned them to emphasize the contrast
between their accomplishments, and those of the "light to all the nations."

>Of course we have
>Aristotle and Plato on our bookshelves, and I don't
>dispute their greatness.  But I'd like to understand
>how you propose to use them for teaching youngsters.
>
>With the Jewish Bible, there's a whole history of a people's
>having evolved a way of life around these principles.  There
>are also commentaries, Midrashim, and so forth, making
>it a living system.

Is "living system" supposed to have positive connotations, or
is it just a statement of fact?

The big difference between you and I is that you're mired in the
past.  You have a lot of respect for the traditions and supposed
wisdom of your ancestors.  So much so that you let them govern you
from beyond the grave.    Me, I realize that much of what my
ancestors considered wisdom is in reality a lot of nonsense.
I think it's possible to build a much better world than the one
they did, but only if we stop appealing to them as authorities.

>You have criticized this living system
>on several grounds, one of which is that some of today's
>interpretation appears to contradict the text.  That may
>be a weakness, but it's also a strength.

I do not understand why you think that interpretations which
contradict the main text are a strength.  That sounds like
Orwellian doublespeak to me.

>There is no
>such living system for Aristotelianism or Platonism.
>Followers of the two schools didn't evolve their systems,
>so now if I tried to teach it, I'd be teaching a much
>more calcified doctrine than I'd be by trying to teach
>Judaism.  Additionally you don't see a market for
>Platonic/Aristotelian picturebooks for preschoolers.

Well, that's partly because our mad society has decided to get
its wisdom from fairy tales instead.  Since we're discussing
problems that have existed for thousands of years, it's
rather pointless for you to defend the status quo by pointing
at how things have been done for the past few thousand years,
or are being done today.  Of course there is no market for
Plato amongst preschoolers.  They're too busy being taught
superstitious nonsense.  That's what we're trying to fix.
Of course there is no living system for Platonism.  But do
you really think that the Bible won because of its merits?
Me, I think it won because it bred intolerant fanaticism, which
is one of the things we're trying to avoid.  Remember again
that the Greeks were only an example.  Today, I would use the
secular humanist literature.

>Now in your other posting you write:
>>It seems
>>to me that if the intent is to teach from literature, the literature
>>ought to be as clear as possible, and not require a whole lot of
>>contorted interpretations or reference to magical gods and things.
>>If a flaw is found in the work, it ought to be rewritten rather
>>than "interpreted."
>
>I disagree in part.  (I agree that if you're an atheist,
>you want to eliminate references to magic and gods.)
>The problem is that, for example, Nicomachean Ethics
>was never either reinterpreted or rewritten.  It
>was never even re-*applied* to contemporary problems.

Again, your point seems to be that because your tribe has expended
tremendous effort over the years in reinterpreting an old book,
long past the point where they should have given up on it, the
book therefore has more value than another book which people did
have the good sense to give up on and move on to better stuff.
Doesn't make much sense to me.

>Suppose I want to give a lesson on the kinds of
>subjects we deal with in religion: e.g. charity,
>compensation, rehabilitation, forgiveness, 
>etc.  How can I craft a lesson from Nicomachean
>Ethics?  It's a nice distillation of abstract
>principles, but I think I can't use it by itself
>without lots of additional material.

Great.  Then let's use lots of additional material.  And, by the
way, I think that abstract principles are one hell of a lot
more helpful that a bunch of "Thou shalt nots."

Just out of interest, what would a lesson in rehabilitation entail?

>I should point out that the positive features of
>Aristotle and Plato *did* work their way into Judaism.
>Philo of Alexandria and later, the Rambam (that is,
>Rabbi Moses Maimonides) attempted to apply the
>reasoning systems, some of the new abstraction,
>and the principles of rationalism to Torah.

I still can't figure out why everything has to be filtered through
that Torah thing.  Why the need for the middleman?

Say, have you got any idea of why Spinoza was kicked out?

>There are definitely a sizable number of people who use
>the Bible to preach hate.

How on earth do they manage to do that, when the book is so
obviously about love and tolerance?  I can't imagine how
some of the God mandated genocides could possibly be used to
preach intolerance.  I can't imagine how the Chosen People stuff
could possibly be interpreted to mean that the Unchosen People
are somehow inferior.

>Not only do we have reason
>to be "a little nervous" about them; we have an affirmative
>duty to refute them.

I'm glad to hear that, but I'm curious.  Just where is that affirmative
duty spelled out?

>The Jewish Bible does not say that you are evil because
>you are an unbeliever.  Anybody who teaches this is
>actually breaking a commandment not to slander the nation.
>My daughter's speech quotes Genesis 18:19 "... he may
>command his children and his household after him, that
>they may keep the way of the Lord, to do righteousness
>and justice".  Biblical Hebrew style is to say the same
>thing twice, so "keep the way of the Lord" *means*
>"to do righteousness and justice".

Ah yes.  This occurs just before good old Yahweh wipes out the
men, women, and children of Sodom does it not?  Well, I suppose
that as long as it was done in the name of "righteousness and
justice" it teaches a perfectly wonderful lesson.  It's a good
thing too that Yahweh gets to define just what "righteousness
and justice" are; it keeps things nice and tidy.  Of course,
Hitler had the same advantages, but he lost, so he doesn't
count.

One thing I've learned fairly recently, and it came as quite
a shock to me, is that intolerant hateful people do not know that they
are hateful and intolerant.  They sincerely believe that what they
are doing is right, and feel no guilt at all about persecuting others
in the name of "righteousness" or "love."  So I'm very suspicious
when I hear people ranting about "righteousness" or "love", because
invariably what it means is that they wish to impose their own narrow
set of morals on others.  Oftentimes, those morals include donating
your brain to the deity of the day.  So when you say that your daughter
is a fan of "righteousness and justice", I'd have to know just what
she thinks "righteousness" is before this means anything to me.

>Are there Jewish hatemongers?  You bet!  Go into soc.culture.jewish
>and read the threads about the teachings of the late Rabbi Kahane.
>He taught that Arabs who did not voluntarily relinquish
>their civil rights should be expelled from Israel.  A few
>defend him.  But most have stood up to denounce him as
>a racist, even though he was a rabbi, and a scholar, and,
>unfortunately, a martyr --- killed by an assassin's bullet.

So, since he was preaching the wrong message, would you say that
he did not interpret the Bible properly?

>|> >What do you think accounts for the relative improvement
>|> >(from more backwards to no more backwards) the Jews have
>|> >made over the centuries?
>|> 
>|> Science.
>|> 
>I agree.  What do you think draws Jews to science?

I've pointed out before that I think Judaism is less of a mindfuck
than Christianity.  What makes Jews successful in science and many
other endeavors is that they are competing with people infected with
a more destructive meme complex.  I once had a theory that the Jews
started Christianity in order to make idiots of the Gentiles so that
they could exploit them.  But when I answered science, I meant that
science has allowed us all to advance, not just the Jews.

>|> Yes, they were cruel.  But, as far as I can tell, they were
>|> fairly sane.  My impression is that the Jews were to the Roman
>|> empire what the fundies are to our current civilization.
>
>I disagree entirely.  Do you mean that Jews tried to
>influence the government to make Judaism the state religion???
>What is your evidence for that???

No, sorry, that's not what I meant.  I meant that the Jews were
relatively intolerant, fanatical, and irrational.  Monotheism
was not an advance; it was a big step backwards.

>|> Granted, Plato was all too willing to encourage superstition,
>|> but not among the philosopher-kings.  Not among the people who
>|> were calling the shots.
>
>In that respect, Plato was less egalitarian than the Jews.

I suppose, although there was a reasonably fair sifting process
though.  What I do know is that I'd feel a lot more secure if there
weren't a bunch of whacked out lunatics running the countries.
It scares the shit out of me that people like Ronald Reagan or
Menachem Begin (sp?) actually believe in Biblical prophecy
and such.  I can only hope that there are sane people behind
the scenes who do the actual brainwork, but it doesn't appear
that way.

>And Judaism became less and less superstitious over time.

It still looks pretty crazy to me.  Not only do Jews still
worship an imaginary being, but many won't even spell its
name properly (G-d).  But yes, no doubt it has become less
superstitious over time.  So why not get rid of the old books
before they suck you back into more superstitious times?

>Where is the golden age of Judaism?  Some have written
>that we're living in it now.  Look at the contribution
>Jews are making to sciences and the arts, way out of
>proportion to their distribution in the population.

It would be interesting to see a survey of the beliefs of
the leading Jewish contributors.  The ones that I can
think of, such as Asimov, Einstein, Freud, and Spinoza,
didn't buy into the Yahweh mythology.

>Incidentally, the Jews did pick up where the Greeks
>left off and did nurture the knowledge.  The decline
>of Spain as a cultural center was in part precipitated
>by the expulsion of the Jews in 1492.

We're straying pretty far from the original subject.  It
doesn't mean much to me for you to say that the Jews did
better than the Christians or the Muslims at that point
in time, because by then, everybody was all screwed up
on monotheism.  I don't remember any great works of philosophy
or science emanating from Spain before that time.

>|> In which respects were they the most advanced?
>
>IMHO, the fact that they taught that reading and scholarship
>and study are commandments.  The scholar was respected
>over the rich man, the brave warrior, the popular politician.

I'd be interested to see you back up this claim.  I don't
remember any emphasis on reading and scholarship in the
Bible.  I do remember lots on brave warriors.  Wasn't the
messiah supposed to be a king who would kick the shit out
of the Romans?

Did you ever ask your daughter about Canaan and the Nazis?
--
Should the human race not be extinguished by a nuclear war, it will degenerate
into a flock of stupid, dumb creatures under the tyranny of dictators who rule
them with the help of machines and electronic computers.  This is no prophecy,
just a nightmare.  -- Max Born.   **** dgraham@bnr.ca    My own opinions. ****
Newsgroups: alt.atheism