Posted on 04/06/2010 7:07:19 AM PDT by truthfinder9
The internet and popular literature are awash in false charges that Christianity is the result of pagan, Hellenistic, and/or Gnostic syncretism.
A simple internet search and cursory perusal of public sharing sites yield manifold examples of profound error and many are being misled today as a result. A growing body of atheists and people adhering to neopaganism or false religious systems are propagating this information usually due to their own misunderstanding and deception but some are propigating the error knowingly on purpose.
During a period roughly spanning 1890 to 1940, scholars often alleged that New Testament Christianity was heavily influenced by Platonism, Stoicism, the pagan mystery religions, and other movements in the Hellenistic world. Other scholars carefully qualified these assertions and, as a result of their careful research, a large body of scholarly books and articles were written firmly rebutting these allegations as false assertions. It is understood among the world’s theologians and scholars that Christianity was not influenced by these other worldviews. Yet even though it is commonly understood in Biblical and classical studies how weak the old case for Christian dependence is upon Greco-Roman paganism, Hellenism, and gnosticism, some modern revisionists and a host of misinformed and deceived people, for reasons other than truth seeking, continue to circulate the false assertions.
Examples include information based on texts such as the late E. A. Burtt’s argument that the theology of Paul was dependent on ideas borrowed from the Hellenistic world, Thomas W. Mrica’s work, and W. T. Jones’s textbook ‘The Medieval Mind’ in which Jones spends the first two chapters reiterating many of the old arguments about Christian dependence on the pagan mystery religions or on Hellenistic philosophy in a one sided discussion which completely ignores the fact that 19th and 20th century scholars already settled the discussion against assertions of Christian syncretism.
Because of this and the large accumulating body of popular literature asserting inaccurate information on the internet, both the public at large and the contemporary student need to be reminded of the older debate and the conclusion reached by almost all scholars, past and present, that these assertions are patently false.
Nash (2003) points out that while Christianity and Greek philosophies, as systems; have no elements in common, the Christians, as people, often held pagan ideas. Being converted from paganism it took time for them to shed their previous thinking styles. So it is no surprise that some engaged in apologetics making use of the Platonism or Stoicism they had been raised with. However, this they did accomplish and a purely Christian Nicene Creed came into being.
That creed has been consistently reinforced by subsequent creeds right up to the present. When revisionist scholars looking to undermine Christianity or make a name for themselves come along and assert gross untruths based on supposed parallels, they do a disservice to authentic history. When untrained people perpetuate the false assertions, they do as well.
As Gordon Clark (1940) explains:
"Since the New Testament was written in Greek, it uses words found in pagan writings .... But the point in question is not the use of words but the occurrence of ideas. ... One cannot forbid Christian writers to use common words on pain of becoming pagans."
He points out that when revisionist scholars assert that because a New Testament writer used terminology prominent in some pagan philosophy or religion this somehow proves his dependence on the pagan usage they are setting up a straw man argument that is simply incorrect. Even the presence of real parallels between the New Testament and pagan literature never proves dependence. From an authentic systematic theological examination perspective, these assertions of pagan influence are patently false.
Nash (2003) shows that Christians assert instead that God dictated His revelation to human authors whose writings merely reflect their distinctive backgrounds and education stating:
“It is one thing to discover that a New Testament writer like the anonymous author of the Epistle to the Hebrews was familiar with Hellenistic philosophy. But this interesting bit of biographical information does not prove that the writer was actually influenced by some alien system or terminology.” (p. 7).
Furthermore, it is important to discern between different senses of the vocabulary influence and dependence. As Nash states, “A casual disregard of these distinctions is responsible for much of the misinformation and faulty reasoning present in many discussions of the alleged Christian dependence on pagan sources” (p. 8).
He explains one tactic revisionists use when they take B is dependent on A so therefore A is a necessary condition for B meaning that if a writer had not first known or believed A, he would never have come to know or believe B. Completely disregarding everything that doesn’t support their error they then use this theory of dependence to extrapolate that Paul would never have thought of making up a dying and rising savior-god such as Jesus had he not first become aware of similar thought in pagan religion.
This sort of faulty reasoning combines with a bias that Geisler (2003) describes as follows to perpetuate the false view that New Testament revelation could not have come from God and must have derived from other sources:
“Unmistakably, however, is the commonality of a consistent and persistent anti-supernaturalism that attacks orthodox Christianity at its core. If miracles do not occur, then the Bible is unreliable and historic Christianity is not credible. On this unjustified premise modern liberalism is based. Its view of Scripture, then, is as faulty as its view of miracles. Of course, the Bible cannot be a supernatural revelation of God if there are no supernatural events. Some form of negative biblical criticism thus becomes necessary” (p. 348).
The Greco-Roman culture was mostly Hellenistic at the time of Christ and peoples and nations of the Mediterranean world were united by a common government, law, language (e.g. Greek) and an increasingly common culture enabling trade, travel, and communication. But individualism was present in ways it had not been prior to Alexander. While it is true that a trait of the Hellenistic world was syncretism, it is not true that Christianity was a result of it (Nash, 2003).
Nash (2003) points out that:
“Christianity began in a world in which the spirit of syncretism was king. Students of the history of philosophy know that gradually, during the Hellenistic age, most of the walls between the major philosophical systems began to break down. This is especially true in the case of Platonism and Stoicism from about 100 B.C. to A.D. 100. There was little to prevent an especially religious person from worshiping any number of gods that belonged to an equally large number of religions” (p. 12).
The problem arises when some revisionists uncritically assert the general eclecticism of the age is proof that early Christianity was a syncretistic faith. Christianity was exclusive teaching only one true God with all others false and those who worship them lost. It taught there is only one mediator between God and man and that is Jesus Christ God’s son whom any seeking to approach God must go through with all other ways closed and those who attempt any other way lost. Christianity was an exception to the syncretism and inclusiveness of the Hellenistic age.
Nash (2003) notes that:
“Christ appeared at the time when all the striving and hopes of all peoples were converging to a focus, when the vast majority of mankind were hungering for religious support, when East and West had been wedded, when men were expecting a new era, when the philosophy of Greece and the religious consciousness of the Hebrew were pointing toward a new revelation. Christ came at the one time in history when all civilized nations lived, as it were, under one roof, when the happiness of mankind depended on the will of one, when all were able to communicate in one language, when men were unanimous as to the perils and needs of the world, when there was peace on earth” (p. 12).
Christianity was exclusive offering one way of salvation and it is irresponsible for proponents of an early Christian syncretism to dismiss disliked portions of the Gospels on the grounds that they result from a Hellenistic influence on the Gospel writer. For example, if one approaches the New Testament with a worldview of atheism, the presence of a miracle in the text then is easily dismissed as Hellenistic myth; if they dislike the Christian exclusiveness regarding atonement, they write it off to an intrusion of Hellenism into the text; and so on and so forth recklessly mistreating every aspect of the text that offends them.
The author has personally had these types explain to him that Paul must have been a homosexual struggling with a homosexual “thorn in the flesh”, using similar reasoning, and all sorts of nonsense erroneously impressing their own prejudices and biases onto the text. The author recommends reading Samples (2007) ‘A World of Difference: Putting Christian truth-claims to the worldview test’ paying attention to part one for more information on how formal reasoning is used amongst scholars to derive accurate and proper conclusions.
Philosophy immediately preceding the life and death of Jesus was transitional. Platonism and stoicism, for example, of this period are just a transition from a more important past to a more important future. Aristotelianism, Epicureanism, and even Pythagoreanism had relatively minor followings. These systems are all very different from Christianity and alleged parallels are easily explained (Nash, 2003).
For example, it is often claimed that the writings of the apostle Paul show Platonic dualism. They do not. The scholars that asserted Pauline dependence on Platonism all claim this. Paul never taught that his body was evil or the source of his sinning claiming instead that people are born with a sinful nature in need of redemption and bodily resurrection to glory in an environment where all matter is not inherently evil and all spirits are not inherently good. This has no parallel in pagan usage being derived from Hebrew scripture (Nash, 2003).
The same goes for Stoic influence. Though only late stoic manuscripts remain, the stoics were pantheists who believed God has no personality, free-will does not exist, the world keeps repeating itself (a cosmological error similar to that in Hinduism), etc… It is important to note that phrases such as "the will of God" meant something very different to a pantheistic Stoic than it does in the context of New Testament theism (Nash, 2003).
While Paul quoted from Stoic writers in his famous sermon on Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17) in attempting to communicate to them, using language they understood something of the one true God, it is an exaggeration to assert anything more. Seneca’s ethic is repulsive to Pauline Christianity as it is totally devoid of genuine human emotion and compassion and there is no place for love or pity or contrition lacking repentance, conversion, and faith in God. When Stoic writers use phrases like "imitation of God" they have nothing in mind resembling the New Testament God and the New Testament, and when viewed properly do not appropriate any Stoic ideas.
A number of scholars have claimed that the New Testament concept of Logos, prominent in the Fourth Gospel and other Johannine literature, was borrowed from either Philo or Alexandrian Judaism. They mistake its usage in the New Testament.
As the Original Catholic Encyclopedia states:
"The word Logos is the term by which Christian theology in the Greek language designates the Word of God, or Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Before St. John had consecrated this term by adopting it, the Greeks and the Jews had used it to express religious conceptions. The Logos has not for him the Stoic meaning that it so often had for Philo: it is not the impersonal power that sustains the world, nor the law that regulates it; neither do we find in St. John the Platonistic concept of the Logos as the ideal model of the world; the Word is for him the Word of God, and thereby he holds with Jewish tradition, the theology of the Book of Wisdom, of the Psalms, of the Prophetical Books, and of Genesis; he perfects the idea and transforms it by showing that this creative Word, which from all eternity was in God and was God, took flesh and dwelt among men. This difference is not the only one which distinguishes the Johannine theology of the Logos from the concept of Philo, to which not a few have sought to liken it. The Logos of Philo is impersonal, it is an idea, a power, a law; at most it may be likened to those half-abstract, half-concrete entities, to which the Stoic mythology had lent a certain personal form" (para. 1, 11, and 12).
Regarding the mystery religions themselves, comparative mythology which finds casual connections between everything while tearing down solid barriers, bridging unbridgeable chasms, making spurious claims from disparate combinations, etc…. are simply bad scholarship that must be rejected.
As Nash (2003) states:
“By such methods one can turn Christ into a sun god in the twinkling of an eye, or one can bring up the legends attending the birth of every conceivable god, or one can catch all sorts of mythological doves to keep company with the baptismal dove; and find any number of celebrated asses to follow the ass on which Jesus rode into Jerusalem; [etc… etc… etc…]” (p. 108).
The magic wand of comparative religion wielded by revisionist atheists triumphantly eliminates every spontaneous trait in any religion while scholars who understand them far better asserting the mystery religions exercised little if any substantive influences on early Christianity are simply ignored. For authentic modern scholars, the subject was settled in the 19th century and considered a dead issue. Despite the issue being settled in the favor of authentic Christianity, deceived modern atheists and neo-pagans today are attempting any length to revive a discussion that was long since settled posting erroneous information and making spurious claims in popular, not to be confused with scholarly, publications and all over the internet deceiving many.
The worst simply run false assertions out of context together in a linear timeline presenting a completely false presentation of both history and Christianity claiming Christianity is, in fact, simply another mystery religion built from pieces of other mystery religions which amounts to nothing more than a fanciful invention. Other’s then repeat them and as a final act of reckless madness they cosign each other’s falsehoods. Unscholarly people deceived by their own or other’s misinformation and their own prejudice are completely out of step with the tide of relevant contemporary scholarship. As Nash (2003) states:
“We must analyze the biblical writing to see if the author's Christian beliefs have been shaped by, or derived from, the non-Christian parallel. Hugo Rahner declares that even if early Christians like Paul did borrow ''words, images, and gestures from the mysteries, they did so not as seekers but as possessors of a religious substance; what they borrowed was not the substance but a dress wherein to display it. Commitment to a high view of Scripture is not at all inconsistent with saying that biblical writers could have adapted language and ideas from their culture for the specific purpose of explaining and communicating the Christian message. Contemporary missionaries do this all the time” (p. 112).
Although Roman gods like Jupiter and Vesta drew many followers, it was the mystery religions (like those of Bacchus and Isis which originated with wine making, involved plays, and phallic processions) with all their darkness and perversion that captivated the empire. The mystery religions themselves were distinct religions in the first century which often included drunkenness and orgies seeking deep symbolic significance in the natural process of growth, death, decay, and rebirth. They stressed a "higher knowledge" associated with their secret ceremonies. The mysteries had little if any use for doctrine or correct belief. They were primarily concerned with the emotional state of their followers (Nash, 2003).
Many of the publications that purport to find signs of an early Christian dependence on the mystery religions repeat a number of fundamental errors. In many cases they ignore important differences between different cults or between different stages of the same religion so as to suggest too great an agreement among the mysteries. Sometimes they go so far as to imply that the Hellenistic world contained but one basic mystery religion. They often misinterpret accurate archaeology. Often they use careless language first using Christian terminology to describe pagan beliefs and practices and then marveling at the awesome parallels that they think they have discovered. Oversimplifications and exaggerations (especially regarding the notion of rebirth in certain mysteries) in this literature are in error.
For example, we never find Christianity borrowing from a mystery religion but we find the opposite sometimes is true. This cannot be used to show Christianity was influenced by the mystey religions. The chief rival of Christianity in the second century AD, the pagan mystery cult Mithras in Rome, copied sacred Christian rites and perverted them. Martin, Rische, and Van Gordon (2008) quote Justin Martyr in 150 AD stating:
“For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He ahad given thanks, said, “This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;” and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, “This is My blood;” and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn” (P. 107).
Consider the myth of the Isis cult concerning Osiris where Osiris was murdered by his brother Seth who then sank the coffin containing Osiris's body in the Nile. Isis discovers the body and returns it to Egypt. But Seth gains access to the body of Osiris dismembering it into fourteen pieces which he scatters widely. Following a long search, Isis recovers each part of the body and Osiris comes back to life. That’s the myth in a nutshell. But along comes the revisionist and begins projecting their bias into the story choosing words than never existed in the original story calling it a “resurrection “even rewriting the myth to incorporate a “resurrection” after a “baptism” in the Nile and then hijacking history to attempt to tie it to Christianity.
The early Christian church met and skillfully refuted these “rising savior myths” arguing that they had no relation to Jesus Christ, even as an archtype, since most of them died and did not rise again. They are from multiple cultures and seldom have much at all in common. Unfortunately, Christians today regularly encounter a resurrected form of this argument without any primary sources to support their claim. The eyewitness testimony of the apostles to the person and teaching of Jesus Christ provide a rock solid foundation for the defense of the Christian faith in the face of rampant pagan license. It is important to first separate the historical Jesus from the pagan saviors. Jesus is a historical person whose life is detailed in authentic accounts such as the gospel of John whereas the pagan saviors are myths.
It’s grievous scholarship to fabricate falsehood and then propagate it and that’s exactly what we see these revisionists engaging in as they actively seek parallels that don’t exist in the cult of Cybele and Attis, The cult of Mithra, etc… As the author has shown, the mere fact that Christianity has a sacred meal (or baptism) is no proof of pagan dependence whatsoever. Ceremonial washings that antedate the New Testament have a different meaning from New Testament baptism. Etc… Martin, Rische, and Van Gordon (2008) do an excellent job of refuting any Christian dependence on pagan mystery religions chapter four titled ‘Ancient Paganism.”
Early Christianity is an exclusive historical monotheistic religion (deriving from an earlier Hebrew belief system) with a definitive body of doctrine asserting that the death and resurrection of Christ happened to a historical person at a particular time and has absolutely no parallel in any of the pagan mystery religions. Alleged parallels between Christianity and the mysteries are imaginary or exaggerated and the genuine parallels that remain are not synergetic except as the Christian influences later pagan systems. Trendy fads among atheists, neo-pagans, and revisionist scholars regarding supposed New Testament dependence on mystery religions are patently false with the issue being settled amongst 19th century scholars. As that issue was settled, certain scholars shifted their attention to a supposed New Testament dependence on Gnosticism erring again in the process. The cycle repeated with the consensus of relevant scholars concluding Gnosticism was never a dependency for Christianity.
Geisler (2002) concludes his discussion noting:
“A survey of the history of the Christian church from the Reformation to recent times reveals that there is virtually unanimous consent that the Bible is the divinely inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God. This follows the basic view of the early church and deviations from this view were extremely rare before the late nineteenth century, when liberalism and neo-orthodoxy challenged the longstanding position of the Christian church, both East and west, Catholic and Protestant” (p. 500).
Nash (2003) encourages each person to ask the following when confronted with dependency theories and claims regarding the New Testament:
1. What is the evidence for the claim? Even recognized authorities have made unsupported and ill supported claims. Ask for exact specifics and qualify them.
2. What are the dates for the evidence?
3. What literature pro and con has already been published about this theory? Usually, new claims and theories are discussed in journals first.
4. Is the language used to describe the evidence faithful to the original source material, or does it include interpretive material such as Christian language, themes, or imagery? As we have seen, it is a lot easier to surmise the dependence of some Christian belief on a Hellenistic source if the pagan practice or belief is incorrectly described in Christian language.
5. Are the alleged parallels really similar, or are the likenesses a result of either exaggeration, oversimplification, inattention to detail, or-once again-the use of Christian language in the description?
6. In the case of any genuine parallel, is the point of analogy significant? Does it relate to an essential Christian belief or practice? Or does it refer to something incidental, such as the late Christian adoption of December 25 as the date of Christ's birth?
7. Is the parallel the sort of thing that could have arisen independently in several different movements? For example, could it have arisen from common language?
8. Is the claim consistent with the historical information we have about the first-century church?
9. Even if you discover something prior to, or contemporaneous with, early Christianity with a significant parallel to an essential Christian belief does the fact that some New Testament writer knew of a pagan belief or term prove that what he knew had a formative or genetic influence on his own essential beliefs? We’ve already discussed how early Christianity was exclusive and not syncretistic borrowing from Greco-Roman mystery religions, Hellenism, or Gnosticism.
Christianity, Christian revelation, Christian doctrine, and the New Testament is a unique revelation from God, not a product of nor in any way dependent on mystery pagan religions, Hellenism, or Gnosticism. Martin, Rische, and Van Gordon's 'The Kingdom of the Occult" is an excellent resource for further information on this topic and the topic of ancient paganism.
In a future article we will examine a completely separate issue of how pagan practices affected the organizational structure of the church after the church was legitimized by the pagan Greco-Roman empire from Constantine in the fourth century onwards. Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola is an excellent introduction to that topic. But understand that the early Christians were all Jewish converts and Christian revelation/doctrine is a unique revelation from God given from Him and is completely separate from the worldviews of paganism, Hellenism, and Gnosticism.
References
Bradshaw, Paul F. (1992). The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. New York: Oxford University Press.
Clark, Gordon H. (1940). Hellenistic Philosophy. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Geisler, Norman. (2002). Systematic Theology, Vol. 1: Introduction/Bible. Michigan: Bethany House
Gonzalez, J. L. (1999). The Story of Christianity. Peabody, MA: Prince Press.
Nash, Ronald H. (2003). The Gospel and the Greeks: Did the New Testament borrow from pagan thought? Michigan: Zondervan.
Samples, K.R. (2007). A World of Difference: Putting Christian truth-claims to the worldview test. Michigan: Baker Books.
Stark, R. (2003). For the Glory of God, How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
The Catholic Encyclopedia (2010). Logos. M Div quick retrieval. Retrieved on January 24, 2010 from http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Logos
Martin W., Rische J. M., & Van Gordon K. (2008). The Kingdom of the Occult. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
Wikipedia. (2005). Greco-Roman Mysteries. M.Div quick retrieval. Retrieved on February 1, 2010 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_religion
I believe I understand where you're coming from, but surely you must see that this statement is a self-contradiction.
And I'm the best looking. :)
Very judgmental.
Yes, it was a personal opinion and judgement. I should have phrased it generically, but…
>>It will cause you less pleasure and more pain
Why?
It's a very small self to live in, completely selfish, and, in my experience, when we are motivated by our own pleasure, no matter how skillfully we do so, the truly good and beautiful aspects of life become invisible and after a while we become resentful.
It's a self-protective state, but, for lack of a pithier cliché, 'no pain, no gain.'
I'm not referring to delayed gratification here, but to what happens to a life directed solely towards it's own pleasure, or happiness. Not that anyone seeks unhappiness or doesn't wish to be happy. It's when our own happiness is our whole world, the world becomes pretty small.
Being equal to what? The decisive factor is what is least hurtful. This is where the "principles" end. But it's always good, for domestic consumption, to pay them a lip service.
The example we are using - murder vs. telling the truth - is an extreme case
Even one exception make an absolute value relative.
Then at least in some cases, sating it is a choice, one could choose not to for a higher value - if one has them
Not unless there is no perceived reward in it. There are no "higher" values. All desirable personal values are subjective and relative (i.e. they vary form one individual to another). But they can all be reduced to "feels good." Every one of them. Name any one.
Based on their value as best I know at the moment So it's all about you? Your knowledge? This is what you call "absolute?" Amazing.
Discerning value, making choices in my view involves all of our Self.
Solipsism at its best. And you talk to me about selfishness? LOL.
It is part of knowing who we are, what our relationship is to other humans and to the rest of the cosmos.
Which can all be reduced to "feels good", "feels bad." and the "I don't care' category. But things we desire and aim for are all in the "feels good" category.
We are conscious beings who have control over our instincts
Human instincts? LOL! Name one. All human skills and behavior are learned, not instinctual—save for the sucking and grasping reflexes.
We can learn, grow, gain experience and hopefully some wisdom, develop new understanding, decide what our goals are and act in our lives motivated by what has value.
We are motivated by what "feels good." That which feels good has value because it is experienced as a reward. Experimental psychology will show you without fail that, "all thing being equal," rewards produce predictable repetitive behavior. People are willing to follow and work for rewards. Rewards = "feels good."
There is no contradiction in it. Sometimes we must choose a "feels bad" path to happiness. The goal ("feel good")doesn't change, just the path to it. Some paths leading to happiness require more "feels bad" than others. Some people have to work full time and go to school at night for their educations; other have rich parents; all they have to do is drive themselves to school in the car daddy bought them, and try to pass.
That's not a goal.
It's a very small self to live in, completely selfish, and, in my experience, when we are motivated by our own pleasure, no matter how skillfully we do so, the truly good and beautiful aspects of life become invisible and after a while we become resentful
This is all gibberish to me. What motivates you if not that which feels good?
It's a very small self to live in...It's a self-protective state, but, for lack of a pithier cliché, 'no pain, no gain.'
Sometimes that is true, but not necessarily desirable. I don't see what is "small" about looking for ways to make the pain as insignificant as possible.
It's when our own happiness is our whole world, the world becomes pretty small.
I never said it's our whole world; it's out desired goal. You are making a straw man.
Equal in value. In your case it would be equal in "feels good." To you, truth would then have zero value, it's a coin flip.
The decisive factor is what is least hurtful. This is where the "principles" end.
I'm assuming you mean least hurtful to you. Yes, this is the test of principles. I believe for you there is no test here. Whatever feels best IS the principle. For others accepting unpleasurable consequences can be a test of whether our principles are really held.
Even one exception make an absolute value relative.
Again, you are make an error in the meaning of the term absolute value. It means it's value is not completely relative to another, not completely conditional; rather, it has value on it's own. Inherent value. In your value system "feels good" is the absolute value, it's value is not relative to another and all other values gain the totality of their value from it.
Whether or not absolute values exist, we should use the proper terms to mean the same thing.There are no "higher" values. All desirable personal values are subjective and relative (i.e. they vary form one individual to another). But they can all be reduced to "feels good." Every one of them. Name any one.
Believe me I get your philosophy, you've repeated and clarified it enough. Feels good is your highest and only absolute value. That's your choice. Others choose differently.
So it's all about you? Your knowledge? This is what you call "absolute?" Amazing.
Please there's no need for this attempt at distortion. We are both describing and discussing what we know or believe we know. This discussion is all about both of us, our knowledge and views.
Solipsism at its best.
Solipsism is the view that the self is all that can be known to exist. I don't hold that view. Perhaps you meant something different.
Which can all be reduced to "feels good"
Again I know that is your view. I think it's your choice, and you also said you have the ability to not choose it.
All human skills and behavior are learned, not instinctual
I'm speaking of survival and sex for example. Or pleasure. Many humans would not keep punching the button for morphine like a lab rat.
We are motivated by what "feels good."
Yes, I really do know that is your view and your choice.
People are willing to follow and work for rewards.
Of course they are, this is not news and not really relevant to the discussion.
It a contradiction on its face.
Sometimes we must choose a "feels bad" path to happiness.
We've discussed delayed gratification before and you've stated it's not qualitatively different that "feels good." Same value, same goal, merely a hopefully more skillful way of achieving more of it.
I guess that's to be expected.
What motivates you if not that which feels good?
Asked and answered, twice I believe.
I don't see what is "small" about looking for ways to make the pain as insignificant as possible.
If it is all about your pain (and pleasure) then it's small. There's much more to the world.
I never said it's our whole world; it's out desired goal. You are making a straw man.
You've made very clear that all of value of the world and everyone else in it is relative to how good it makes you feel, and that maximizing your "feel good" is the only goal you know. I think the straw man is flesh and bone.
I appreciate the clarification of meaning in the parenthetical statement. For clarifying my own use: When I compare relative and absolute values, I'm using relative as in relative to another value - relative values take their value from another, "X is only valuable because it increases Y" for example. If a value does not rely solely on another for its value, it's said to have absolute, or inherent value.
Values can be both relative and absolute. I do realize you believe absolute values don't exist. I believe they do, and further that you have illustrated one that you hold: "feels good."
Truth has a relative value: either it hurts or it benefits. We take our approach to truth accordingly.
I'm assuming you mean least hurtful to you
Yes, of course. And "me" includes people and things that are the source of "feel god," i.e. my interest sphere, my family, friends, country, etc.
For others accepting unpleasurable consequences can be a test of whether our principles are really held
Like what? Give me an example and I will show you that there is a "feel good" in it.
Again, you are make an error in the meaning of the term absolute value. It means it's value is not completely relative to another, not completely conditional; rather, it has value on it's own
That's nonsense. Nothing has a value of its own. What good is $100 on Mars?
In your value system "feels good" is the absolute value, it's value is not relative to another and all other values gain the totality of their value from it.
Our goal is not to be hurt, to fail, to lose, etc. You keep hinting that it "might be" but you will not give me any examples to back it up.
I think it's your choice, and you also said you have the ability to not choose it
If there is something to be gained from it.
I'm speaking of survival and sex for example
Sex is not instinctual but appetitive. The "how" of sex is learned. Survival is not a behavior but an atavistic desire that is inherent in all non-plant species. Humans have to learn to survive. Some animals don't.
Or pleasure
Pleasure is a sensation, not behavior.
Many humans would not keep punching the button for morphine like a lab rat.
Maybe because they learned that it could kill them...
Yes, I really do know that is your view and your choice.
And you are motivated by pain, failure and loneliness, to mention a few "feels bad" examples?
Of course they are, this is not news and not really relevant to the discussion
It's very relevant. Rewards are the "feel good" stimulants.
It a contradiction on its face
There is no contradiction.
If it is all about your pain (and pleasure) then it's small. There's much more to the world.
In terms of what? What drives you? Let me guess, you starve yourself because there is hunger in the world? Or maybe you deprive yourself of water since so much of the world has no clean water to drink? Do you take a shower once a week because some people have no water? What does that accomplish other than perhaps a vicarious pleasure of being "one" with the world? But does that ease the world's suffering? No it doesn't. However it does make one feel good that they can see themselves as "caring."
You've made very clear that all of value of the world and everyone else in it is relative to how good it makes you feel, and that maximizing your "feel good" is the only goal you know. I think the straw man is flesh and bone.
I am human and I don't see my fellow humans being any different, even if they outwardly claim to be.
When I compare relative and absolute values, I'm using relative as in relative to another value - relative values take their value from another
So do I. Truth means different things to different people.
If a value does not rely solely on another for its value, it's said to have absolute, or inherent value.
Inherent value is an oxymoron.
I do realize you believe absolute values don't exist. I believe they do
Based on what?
According to your philosophy, if telling the truth has zero feel good benefit to you, you're just as likely to lie as tell the truth - it's a coin flip.
Give me an example and I will show you that there is a "feel good" in it. Admitting a failure even though it can mean lose someone you love.
Like telling the truth even if there is feel bad for you as a result.
Nothing has a value of its own. What good is $100 on Mars?
What good is honesty if it doesn't make you feel good?
Sex is not instinctual but appetitive
Whatever. We have control over our appetites. The point is the same.
And you are motivated by pain, failure
For the fifth time, that A is not our primary motivator, does not mean the Not-A is.
<>Rewards are the "feel good" stimulants.
And *everything* you do is for your own reward. I really do get it.
I am human and I don't see my fellow humans being any different.
I don't see any difference, in your view, between humans and, again, crustaceans. What's the difference in terms of values and morality?
Inherent value is an oxymoron.
Yet you believe "feels good" has inherent value.
Based on what?
Based on my personal experience, on asking other people about theirs and based on the logically problem of making choices without them. Either they exist and we can know them, we choose them on some other basis or we assume they exist. It's impossible to make a choice solely on relative value. Ultimately the relative chain of value must stop on an absolute (like your feels good) in order for us make a choice.
Are you afraid that if you saw the world as more than a source of feels good for you, you would have to starve yourself?
Religious, or self-appointed ethical people lie if telling the truth will hurt them. It's a coin-flip for them too. You yourself have agreed that lying to the enemy serves a "higher" purpose, but that is just a semantic feel-good flattery. If I do it, that is designated as "selfish" (not to say immoral), but the lying of the self-rigtheous serves a "higher" purpose.
By designating absolute (Platonic) values as "higher" (I suppose "higher" as in heavenly, since we all know from the Bible "science" that heaven is "up there"), we automatically designate others as "'lower" (and therefore less noble, less important). This is typical arrogance and hypocrisy of the self-righteous. But this is how they achieve their "feel-good." After all, they call themselves the "elect."
Like telling the truth even if there is feel bad for you as a result.
Most (if not all) people would lie to save their loved ones, their careers, their savings, etc. If telling the truth has a deleterious existential consequence attached, people will try to "save" themselves rather than trust in their God. But they would never admit it publicly.
Whatever. We have control over our appetites
To some degree. Have you ever been deprived of food to the point of starvation? More straws.
For the fifth time, that A is not our primary motivator, does not mean the Not-A is.
I was hoping you'd realize that it is nonsense. In this particular case we have three options, not an infinite number of possibilities. Either something feels good, feels bad, or feels indifferent. There is no fourth option. And since we do not pursue the indifferent, we pursue only the feel good and avoid only the feel bad as much as practically possible.
And *everything* you do is for your own reward.
No, only as much as possible.
What's the difference in terms of values and morality?
What's the difference between that and invented morality and "higher" values except self-flattery to make oneself feel good and more noble?
Yet you believe "feels good" has inherent value.
Nope, "feels good" is a sensation of satisfaction of a need.
Based on my personal experience, on asking other people about theirs and based on the logically problem of making choices without them.
Same here, except I avoid self-flattery.
Either they exist and we can know them, we choose them on some other basis or we assume they exist
That's correct. Man-made, no matter how you turn it around. Except that we have added the "higher" label in a vain attempt to show that our "feel good" is better, and nobler. But in the final analysis it is all reduced to human arrogance, pride, and self-flattery.
Ultimately the relative chain of value must stop on an absolute (like your feels good) in order for us make a choice.
Yes, by accepting our biological reality, or as some say—that we all put on our pants one leg at a time.
I don't see the world as only the source of "feels good." To the contrary, most of the world is filled with needless suffering mostly created by people promoting "higher" values.
It's true that having low or no values is the easiest way to avoid the failure of higher values.
However, whether we live up to higher values or not is no argument for or against their existence or the rightness of trying.
So most of your reply is irrelevant to the discussion. Except that it does illustrate that the easiest way to avoid pain is not struggle with trying to have higher values than selfishness.
We will fail to live up to our ideal. Being human means we can choose higher ideals. However, it also means we will struggle with them and our imperfection, and face our failures.
Nope, "feels good" is a sensation of satisfaction of a need.
Which you have made very clear is your ultimate and highest goal - for itself only, not relative to or conditioned by any other value. Which means this "sensation" has inherent value for you.
You've said you can choose otherwise. Humans can do this, can value something more than their own pleasure.
This is a key part of being human, but not being perfect we will also fail at it, and this will cause us pain.
The easiest way to avoid this pain is to not even try and to call those who do liars and hypocrites. From the nobel position of low ideals.
So promoting lower values is the way to decrease needless suffering?
I think there is noting lower than those who present themselves as holier than though but in reality are as fake as a $3 bill. They talk the talk but they don't walk the walk.
It's true that having low or no values is the easiest way to avoid the failure of higher values
There are no lower or higher values because there are no lower or higher humans. But some humans are hypocrites.
However, whether we live up to higher values or not is no argument for or against their existence or the rightness of trying
Yeah, that's the usual excuse.
So most of your reply is irrelevant to the discussion
LOL.
Except that it does illustrate that the easiest way to avoid pain is not struggle with trying to have higher values than selfishness
So, pain is your "feel good?" Or is this chest-thumping for the public consumption? Isn't wanting to be "holy" and making sure everyone knows it a form of selfishness too?
We will fail to live up to our ideal. Being human means we can choose higher ideals. However, it also means we will struggle with them and our imperfection, and face our failures.
So, a certain failure makes you feel good? Why not just leap off a tall building? You know you will hit the ground hard but at least you tried to be a superman...LOL. Pathetic.
Humans can do this, can value something more than their own pleasure.
Some do. They value their failure and pain more than pleasure. That's called pathological.
This is a key part of being human, but not being perfect we will also fail at it, and this will cause us pain
And recognizing that you have aimlessly suffered makes you feel good doesn't it? Do you always make sure others know how much you have suffered?
The easiest way to avoid this pain is to not even try and to call those who do liars and hypocrites.
Doing something that's certain to fail is stupid, not noble.
Promoting "higher" values certainy didn't!
Isn't wanting to be "holy" and making sure everyone knows it a form of selfishness too?
I haven't referred to being holy, just human; nor do I claim any success at it. And, no, realizing you have a choice beyond being selfish and acting on that choice is the antipode of selfishness.
Doing something that's certain to fail is stupid, not noble.
You will fail to be perfect that's for certain. But you won't fail to be human, more than a crustacean. No matter how much you succeed at living up to higher values, you will at least attempt to be human.
We each have that choice - whether to value something or someone - more than our own pleasure. This is a fact. Realizing this fact will inevitably bring some pain. So, if our highest goal is pleasure and avoiding pain, we will choose not to realize it, become blind and numb to it. We will act on our values, and, in this case, choose pleasure over truth.
But we'll lose what it means to be human, eventually resent it, ourselves and other humans and see them only as fake, pretentious and hypocritical - because they pretend to realize that being humans requires more being than the lowly pleasure-seeking animals we ourselves have chosen to be, incapable of being loved or loving except as it satisfies ourselves.
This may be pleasure, but I don't think it is happiness.
Have you interviewed each and every one of them to know where they set their sights? I am a retired naval officer and I know that many of my shipmates served for different reasons. Statistics show that people join the military for many reasons other than patriotism.
According to office of the the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, 17% who join do so to get out of jail.
This is not intended to undermine the military, but many people serve for a variety of reasons, most of them economic, so your fleeting generalization is moot. Thank God, today we can access information and not have to depend on anecdotal "evidence" and general scuttlebutt.
I haven't referred to being holy, just human; nor do I claim any success at it. And, no, realizing you have a choice beyond being selfish and acting on that choice is the antipode of selfishness.
Human can mean many things. Everyone is selfish, even people who claim they are not selfish, which is what makes it particularly deceitful.
You will fail to be perfect that's for certain. But you won't fail to be human, more than a crustacean
It's better to be successful at what you can be than to be a failure trying to be that which you can't be. There is no reason or obligation whatsoever to try to be perfect!
No matter how much you succeed at living up to higher values, you will at least attempt to be human.
This is your definition of humanity: trying to be all that you can't be? Amazing.
We each have that choice - whether to value something or someone - more than our own pleasure
That's nonsense. Why should what we value the most give us displeasure?
Realizing this fact will inevitably bring some pain.
That a masochit's "feel good!" Sorry, I am failure as a masochist. You will have to tell me what's so great about it, since you seem to think it's something we ought to desire.
So, if our highest goal is pleasure and avoiding pain, we will choose not to realize it, become blind and numb to it. We will act on our values, and, in this case, choose pleasure over truth.
Goodness! How did you get to equate pain with truth?
But we'll lose what it means to be human
That's pathetic, imo.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.