Kwanzaa: How to Be Good Without God
I'm always amazed there are people in the year 2020 who still believe the old myth Christianity provides moral guidance and without Christianity there would be wholesale pillage. What is obvious from the last decade or so is that wholesale pillage goes instead inside Christianity itself.
So, where do rules of good behavior come from. They come from human experience. A great example are the seven principles of Kwanzaa.
The seven principles of Kwanzaa are not technically considered modern. They were published recently in 1966. Starting in late December one of the seven principles is celebrated each day with ritual and food. The seven principles presented here without broader explanation are:
Unity of the family and group.
Selfdeterminization
Collective work and responsibility
Purpose of the group
Creativity
Faith in the group
Collective economics
It is specifically stated none of these has religious meaning, even though a person can be religious and follow them. Kwanzaa came from the black power movement of the 1960's and is said to have roots in Marxism which was popular at that time. Polling shows the number of people who practice the Kwanzaa rituals has declined in recent years.
Recently a black woman where I live gave a speech about the effect of the Kwanzaa principles on her life. She had lost her parents while a young teenager and was living on the streets when she encountered the principles. They helped her regain her direction. She was an educator in the public school system for four decades.
These are principles that allow a group to function. The Ten Commandments had the same purpose back when they were written. Both the Ten Commandments and the seven principles had their origin in the minds of humans who needed rules in order to survive.
It is claimed the Ten Commandments came from a god but as we see from Kwanzaa rules that work well can be formed without religion.
One can be an atheist and do good things. One can be a Christian and sin. Everyone sins. Ultimately, one's soul depends on one's relationship with Jesus Christ. Nearly all people who are 'right' with Jesus Christ are very good people.
ReplyDeleteIt is a known fact that western civilization, which is nearly synonymous with the spread of Christianity, is responsible for institutions of moral goodness, e.g. hospitals, universities, scholars, scientists, physicians, nurses, inventors and musicians.
The Ten Commandments came from God in the form of 2 stone tablets. Perhaps the original stone tablets will be discovered buried in the Middle East in the Ark of the Covenant.
Matt "Perhaps the original stone tablets will be discovered buried..."
ReplyDeleteI thought the story tellers took care of the possibility someone might come looking for the stone tablets. They made sure the stone tablets in the tale were destroyed.
Where are you getting your alleged facts? Or are you the storyteller of fiction?
Deleteyou seem to be quite "touchy" when it comes to atheist morality. keep insisting that atheists can be good people, too. which indubitably they can. I, of course, don't know what others may have told you in that regard. for my part, I have only asked you to tell us whether or not atheism can provide a solid foundation for a moral system. you deny the Christian view that God provides any such foundation. you also, as far as I can tell, deny the classical view that morality can be grounded in the nature of the human as a rational being. you do cite "experience,'" a general term that, in the end, goes nowhere. from which I conclude that your secular humanist ethos is little more ultimately ungrounded sentiment. or perhaps a crude utilitarian pain-pleasure concoction.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous "secular humanist ethos...crude utilitarian pain-pleasure concoction."
DeleteYou really like to drop terms like this. It's kind of, "How can I appear to be the smartest guy in the room."
I understood Anonymous 1:35 comments well. Apparently, Jon 2:20 does not.
Delete"secular humanist ethos", i.e. non-religion-based set of guidelines ...
"utilitarian pain-pleasure concoction", i.e. a working definition of being one way as it is more pleasure-filled than pain-filled.
A Christian will act a certain way based on what he perceives is wanted by God. Since the God of the Bible preaches and teaches love of neighbor, many good and moral things come about as a result of this worldview, i.e. faith.
An atheist, secular humanist, pagan - you pick - will act a certain way based any number of things except NEVER God. In some cases, in direct defiance of God. As such, abortion has to be justified in the atheist mind as a "good" thing. Homosexuality has to be justified in the atheist mind as a "good" thing. Transgenderism, socialism communism, intolerance and many more are now consider "good" things. Anyone who stands in the way of the atheist ethos should be chopped down and "canceled".
Matt "..the Bible preaches and teaches love of neighbor..."
DeleteUnless the neighbor is gay and married. That neighbor needs to be instructed he/she is hell bound.
Jon 220P. If you knew anything about philosophy, ethical thought especially, you would easily understand these terms. they are very standard terms, nothing especially mysterious. if you understood you might even be able to carry on an informed discussion. sorry that all you can come up with is something like "the smartest guy in the room"
DeleteJon, "Unless the neighbor is gay and married." Love thy neighbor is not a gushy, mushy 'accept you just as you are' love. Love means wanting the best for someone so much so that one is willing to sacrifice to help that person.
DeleteSince homosexuality and marriage is the sins du jor, let's examine how to love a practicing homosexual who obtains a civil marriage should be loved.
A practicing Christian, not sinless himself, should treat everyone with the love of Christ. Friendliness, humility, courtesy and joy should be part of every encounter with one's neighbor. That can be difficult with a difficult neighbor, even one who professes to be Christian!
It is never correct to treat the issue of homosexuality for anything than what it is, a sin. Loving one's neighbor is through genuine friendship reminding them of God's grace, grace which is cut off when one is living in sin. The same would be true if one's neighbor was a heterosexual and promiscuous. It is never acceptable to tell the sinner that the sin is tolerable. Being mindful of the gospel message of removing the plank from one's own eye before telling your neighbor to remove the splinter from their eye is always the right mindset to approach the situation.
In the end, I have found 2 likely outcomes. First, the sinner will be genuinely thankful for the friendship and will work to rid himself of the sin. Second, the sinner will grow angry and accuse the Christian of homophobia, bigotry or hate.
So be it.
Anonymous "If you knew anything about philosophy..."
ReplyDeleteI had some discussions years ago with helper about this issue. He used sophisticated theology terms. As I recall he, like you chided me because I didn't know them nor have any interest in learning them. I told him what I am telling you.
This discussion page is not here for you are anyone else to show off how many words you know or to put down others who don't care one twit about them. It is here to entertain other readers--almost none of whom ever post. It take little effort to simply state what you mean or the point you want to make instead of dropping a word that others have to look up. They, of course, will not look up anything but will move on to some other blog. Matt probably defined those words you used correctly. You need to get in the habit of explaining your point instead of impressing others with your vocabulary. Be forewarned.
Jon; The only problem with that is ; Words mean things. Often times one correctly placed word, and understanding it, replaces an entire paragraph of explanation.
Deletehelper "...replaces and entire paragraph."
ReplyDeleteDuh..do you think economics does not have it's own language for its own purposes? The point is, who is this writing for? It's for people who have no reason to learn a new vocabulary. Bart Ehrman discusses this a lot on his blog. He writes some books for people with the vocabulary for the discipline but others for the general public. He said no one thought taking the ideas in the field of ancient languages could be put into lay language but once he did it others do it. We are all better off for this effort.
And all would be better to learn what the words mean. After all, these are your topics. If you don't wish to discuss it, and understand it, don't bring it up. "DUH"
Deletehelper "If you don't wish to discuss it, and understand it, don't bring it up."
DeleteI disagree. In economics, there are important issues that involve the well being of millions of people. Those making decisions are politicians, and indirectly the general public, and not trained in economics. They are trained in other things. That puts the responsibility on economists to explain concepts using language people outside the field can understand. Without that the field has no value. The same is true in religion.
This discussion about language has an application close to me. I would guess that of all of us who discuss here, Matt in computer science is the one who uses language at work most difficult for any outsider to understand. Our ex daughter in law makes a good living writing about the work computer science people do. People in top management but not in technology need to have some understanding of what goes on in computer technology parts of their firms. Her job is to explain this and record the history of tech events using common language. She has a master's in chemistry but branched into this work at Mayo in Rochester and now with a tech company that serves the Pfizer company in New York.
Deletere your 623 remarks. the terms that I used were boiled down about as much as I could and still make sense of it all. I suppose that I could write a long post explaining concepts like utilitarianism or classical ethical thought. honestly, however, I don't have time for that. anyway, maybe it's good that some readers may be motivated to look some things up: broaden their perspective as you say. might be a good thing for you to do, also.
DeleteJon; @ 8;09; If your field is economics, talk economics. If your field is electronics, talk electronics. If I don't understand something, I can go to a dictionary. or the web. Evidently others can't. This is indeed "Post Enlightenment".
Deletehelper--"If I don't understand something, I can go to the dictionary or the web."
ReplyDeleteThat is one way of communicating, use the vocabulary from inside a field of knowledge and force the reader to look up thing he/she does not know or understand. We ran across this the other day here when a critic took me to task for my writing about Star Wars. He pointed out I had not read up on terms and concepts embedded in the story or read books written about it and should not be writing about it since I did not know what he knows. I am not interested in learning the various ways of understanding Star Wars, but like religion, I can write about it if I want to.
There is another way of communicating, use common language and short bits of information over and over. North Dakota Republicans do this with their billboards. Every election cycle you see billboards with two words, "Jones" and "Congress." Another would be "McDonalds" (picture of fries). This can be done in religion with a billboard that has two words "Christianity" and "Sin." Christianity could fight atheism with a billboard that says "Atheism" and "Hell." It's always been my theory that if you can't fit a message on a billboard no one will ever know your message.
great, the world shrunk to a billboard level of awareness. how about atheism and dead end.
DeleteAnonymous "how about atheism and dead end."
ReplyDeleteThat's a possibility. I prefer "Atheism, no tithe."