Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Ethics’

Does It Matter if Jesus Existed?

October 17, 2010 32 comments

Is It Important If Jesus Existed?

There is not much evidence to support the actual existence of the biblical Jesus.  Does it really matter?  Which is more important, the message of peace, tolerance, and love or the physical presence of an individual person who may or may not have actually existed?

The message of Jesus, as most would believe, is to “Love thy neighbor as thyself”, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  In modern language, treat people fairly, honestly, and without prejudice or intolerance.  That’s pretty simple and good advice.  True, it’s not always so easy to do, but, acting in our own best interests, it is a good way to live.  Cheating people, taking advantage of them, or otherwise hurting someone unnecessarily will ultimately not be good for ourselves.  So, whether Jesus actually existed is not nearly as important as following the very good, true advice attributed to him.

Consider this.  What if there were no record of say, Thomas Jefferson, until 40 or 50 years after his death?  Then, there were suddenly one, then several people writing about things he said or did.  Would modern day people doubt his actual existence and believe he was a fable like Paul Bunyan or Pecos Bill?

In the case of the historical Jesus, there is not one contemporary record of his existence.  The Romans, who otherwise kept very good records, never mentioned a figure who was supposed to be socially, politically, and spiritually so significant.  Not until the Gospel of Mark, written from 40 to over 100 years after the supposed crucifixion, is there any mention of Jesus.  If we look at the fables of Horus, Attis, and Mithra, we see amazing similarities.  Born in low circumstances on December 25, 12 followers, executed at an early age, son of a god, resurrected, the list goes on. It would appear that the early church, in need of a powerful central figure, “borrowed” from earlier myths to create a rallying point for their religion.

As stated by Dr. Bart Ehrman, Professor of religious studies at the University of North Caroline, Chapel Hill, NC said, “In the entire first Christian century, Jesus is not mentioned  by a single Greek or Roman scholar, politician, philosopher, or poet.  His name never appears in a single inscription, and it is never found in a single piece of private correspondence.  Zero!  Zip references!”

Again, what does it matter?  The important thing is the message.  Be good to each other, help the less fortunate, do not discriminate because someone is not like you.  Be like the Good Samaritan and act kindly to all.  Are those things more valuable if they were spoken by an actual person or lessons a group of people agreed were important?  Being able to assemble these things into a coherent collection of quotations from one person makes them easier to understand and practice.  Maybe that’s what the founders of the religion had in mind?

Ethics

August 2, 2010 9 comments

Enlightened Self-Interest

A popular theist argument for religion is “Without religion (god) we would have no morality or ethics.”  So without religion can there be morality?  Morality based upon fear of punishment or seeking rewards isn’t really morality at all.  Perhaps what they are saying is that they would be evil without fear of hell.  Then they project that lack of moral courage upon everyone else.  I say to them, “Don’t judge others by yourself.  Your lack of ethical backbone is not universal.”

People can practice what I term enlightened self-interest.  An individual’s self-interest is best served by doing no harm to others except in defense of themselves or those in their care.  This thinking does not need threats of eternal punishment to follow, It only requires thinking about what will ultimately yield the best results for yourself.  Treating others fairly and generously is always better for yourself, personally, financially, and socially.

Those that co-operate and adapt have always been more successful.  As such, basic ethics has evolved to improve the survival of species.  Indiscriminate killing, sex with close relatives, cannibalism, are a few examples of things that are contrary to survival of the group.  The most cooperative and adaptable species have the best survival rate.  Even animals conform to these “moral issues”.  That religions have attempted to claim these things originated with them and would not exist without religion is not just hypocritical, it is ignoring obvious facts.

There are more complex issues that apply more directly to humans.  For example, robbing a bank may yield temporary wealth, but at the expense of either a prison term or a life of fear, running from the law.  Similarly, cheating others in business dealings may increase profits for a time.  Eventually, your reputation will be so poor that your business may fail.  This is a simple principle that, “It’s always cheaper to make a customer happy than it is to make him angry.”  This same idea can pay dividends in ordinary human relations.  For reasons I don’t understand, few businesses or people appreciate this idea.  Maybe it’s because they operate on deist principles?  Everything is forgiven if you repent before you die. Although that wouldn’t seem to help those you cheated, treated badly, or even murdered.

So should nothing be discouraged?  Should everything be permitted?  Capable, informed individuals could engage in any activity that interests them even if it puts them personally at risk.

An example would be an automobile race.  It is certainly dangerous to drive at racing speeds and it is equally dangerous to stand near the race course to observe or record this event.  Two people may choose to do these things if they understand and accept the risks involved.

One question that arises from this would be, what if one or both of these people have a spouse and children that depend upon them for financial and emotional support?  Should they still do this knowing that if they are injured or killed it will cause some degree of harm to these dependents?  If they choose to do so, does anyone else have the right to prevent them?

Those are ethical questions that can and should be debated, but each person must be free to choose his own answer.  No other person, religion, or government should have the right to make these choices for us.  If you are keeping in mind that humans are often in error and thus prepared for all possible consequences, no matter how remote the possibility, you can do what you think best.