An Atheist on The Ten Commandments
. . . if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He [the rich young man] saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. – Matthew 19:17-19
Flickr attribution: Mickelodeon
The commandments that Jesus is noted as saying above are the only important ones. There is nothing there about worshiping one god, making graven images, honoring the Sabbath, taking the lord’s name in vain, etc. If there indeed was a godly transfer of rules to live by, what Jesus said in Matthew 19:17-19 were probably the only ones communicated. Moses or someone else added the rest. The core commandments deal with true humanism and morality, the others are a human arrogance and a lack of humility imposed upon god.
Read the Bible, the Koran, Book of Mormon, etc. through a non-believer’s eyes. It’s the only way to truly understand them for what they are. The commandments are a perfect example of wonderful teachings twisted by blind and jealous faith of those who have or had power in their spiritual domains.
Nov 26th, 2008 at 9:22 am
the original ten commandments only applied to jews. thou shalt not kill…jews, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife (neighbor=jew). they were to lay down rules of the religious ingroup of jews…this also allowed them to commit genocide without god getting all angry…that and he told them to do it
Nov 26th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Great site! I like this post but I think it is important to remember what the real ten commandments are!
Exodus 34!
I’m not fond of goats boiled in their mother’s milk anyway! But if god wants my first harvest, he’s going to have to get it himself.
Nov 26th, 2008 at 11:51 am
“f there indeed was a godly transfer of rules to live by, what Jesus said in Matthew 19:17-19 were probably the only ones communicated.”
Pffft…Jesus obviously didn’t know what he was talking about…
Nov 28th, 2008 at 9:03 am
“Read the Bible, the Koran, Book of Mormon, etc. through a non-believer’s eyes. It’s the only way to truly understand them for what they are. The commandments are a perfect example of wonderful teachings twisted by blind and jealous faith of those who have or had power in their spiritual domains.”
If one in fact doesn’t believe these texts, how does one know with certainty this is “the only way to truly understand them for what they are…”?
How does one differentiate between what is “wonderful” and what is “twisted” if one does not believe the texts?
That appears on the surface anyway to be quite subjective. Seeing as how the Scriptures of which you speak were compiled by believing people I’m not sure that correct or proper interpretation is derived through an unbelieving worldview.
Nov 28th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Dan, thanks for the comment!
As with many other aspects of life, a fuller understanding comes from being removed from the assumptions and dogma of a thing. By seeing a thing through both sets of eyes reality can be more easily ascertained.
Differentiating between wonderful and twisted comes from an analysis of what leads to “human flourishing”. Making these distinctions from some source outside the human condition is folly. Trying to imagine how a deity of your imagining would judge them is an arrogant statement that you “know the mind” of your god. See another post on the topic that agrees with my general perception of the topic of human flourishing.
Lastly, I have sought the understanding of your scriptures through the eyes of the believer. There is so much more to be learned from their historical context. Once I became a skeptic, a new world of understanding opened up for me. It felt like being released from a cold, dark box I had been in all my life; accepting things on faith instead of truly understanding them. Once I made the rule that things had to be reasonable or at least plausible, all of the dogma slipped away like a weight being lifted.
Nov 28th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Thank you for the reply.
You mention:
“As with many other aspects of life, a fuller understanding comes from being removed from the assumptions and dogma of a thing. By seeing a thing through both sets of eyes reality can be more easily ascertained.”
I guess I’d tangle with “assumptions and dogma of a thing.” Intellectual concepts such as reason and skepticism have embedded within them a host of assumptions and dogmatics about what constitutes the nature and reality of truth.
Skepticism, for example, posits the assumption that I must begin with a skeptical premise in ascertaining truth.
If that is so, then skepticism is essentially a tautology, for it leads me back to having to be skeptical of skepticism, if I use it in the same way it is used in attempting to understand Scripture.
I find that intellectual constructs often posit themselves as a prior foundations which are often presented as unassailable.
You mention for example,
“Trying to imagine how a deity of your imagining would judge them is an arrogant statement that you “know the mind” of your god.”
You obviously believe this to be true. Is it thus a belief or is this knowledge? Can you validate this claim empirically? What intellectual concept or paradigm do you embrace which permits you to assert this?
How is it possible, if you are attempting to ascertain the truth in an objective manner, that you can claim this statement isn’t some sort of dogmatic assumption?
You posit the individual attempting to discern God’s wisdom as “arrogant”. In essence, you’ve abandoned one contextual definition of pride for another. I don’t see how this is free of assumptions and dogma. Same dogma, different source.
You are determining the behavior of someone by a standard.
Nov 28th, 2008 at 9:56 am
In short, I don’t think it’s possible to be “dogma free” so long as we are human.
Nov 28th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Also,
“Once I made the rule that things had to be reasonable or at least plausible…”,
You made the rule. That I claim, is an untenable universal premise, at least I think it is. How is it you know that your rule making is accurate?
You may have “your” rule and you may assess my actions by it, but don’t expect universal acceptance or acclaim for it, let alone adherence to it.
I mean no offense by that. It’s just that I believe the premise of “self” as the source for objectivity is a contradiction in terms. We are all, by nature, subjective creatures.
This, to me at least, demonstrates the need for moral arbitration which transcends our own limited perspectives.
Nov 28th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Being a skeptic means I require plausibility and evidence; dogma requires faith in things as fact that do not have plausible or evidence-based reasoning behind them.
Based on who any theist tradition describes their god to be, a human knowing the mind of god would be akin to an ant knowing the mind of a human.
According to Merriam-Webster, arrogant is defined as “exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one’s own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner”. It seems this fits.
When you say “objective”, what do you mean exactly? If you world view defines objective as adhering to immutable laws that would exist with or without mankind, then I don’t believe anything “objective” exists. My world view says that morality, feelings, thoughts, and our discussion here only has relevance in the context of the human experience. That is not to say they are validly defined by an individual without the congruence of society as a whole. I am not a relativist in that sense.
Nov 28th, 2008 at 10:26 am
“If you world view defines objective as adhering to immutable laws that would exist with or without mankind, then I don’t believe anything “objective” exists.”
Yes, that is what I would posit by objective.
But then to say nothing objective exists is to posit the existence of an “immutable law that would exist with or without mankind.”
Because for “nothing” to “exist” does not depend on what man would have to say about it.
As for “skepticism” and “faith” I could argue that your premise, what “you require” is just as faith-based as anyone’s belief in Scripture would be.
For you have never “seen” an intellectual concept in the same way I’ve never “seen” God. but you trust in its unseen mechanisms to guide your thoughts and actions, just like a believer does with the written Word.
I have an agnostic brother who chides me for my belief in Scripture. He is always demanding I prove something to him.
I cannot, not in the way he requires. I do, however, challenge him to prove empiricism. Is it possible to prove it by it’s own standards?
Nov 28th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Good discussion Dan. Seriously, I know I’m attacking your belief system here, but I hope you don’t take it as an attack on your person. I enjoy these debates.
Now, on the last comment about “my” rule of requiring plausibility and evidence…you are correct, it is my own rule.
I would say that it is taking the full responsibility for my decisions and actions on myself. It is true that we can not know everything, and we never will. Using this as a reason to cop-out and defer judgment to an outside lawgiver for whom the evidence is severely lacking is irresponsible and unhelpful, IMHO.
Nov 28th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Let me say this. Nothing objective exists in terms of human concerns to the extent of our human knowledge outside of our own human context. I am not alluding to any law outside of ourselves or claiming knowledge outside of the human condition.
I’m sure you could tell me how requiring evidence for belief is just as “faith-based as anyone’s belief in Scripture”. You begin to sound like so many apologetic I am familiar with. Geisler, Limbaugh, Turek, Zacharias, etc. Trying to equate all intellectual concepts and pursuits, methods of gaining and analyzing knowledge, etc. with you faith is unreasonable.
I’m not saying you believe in faith healing, but let’s juxtapose the following:
Two families have sick children. One family seeks out the medical knowledge and expertise that has been built up by science and the medical profession, the majority of which is based on solid evidence, double-blinded studies, etc.
The other family believes in faith healing, and if they pray hard enough their deity will make the disease go away.
Evidence tells us that the medical approach works much more effectively than faith healing. There are many “intellectual concept”s at play in both sides. One works well, the other doesn’t work at all.
That was just symbolism for what I’m getting at. All of religious faith is like this to me.
Nov 28th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Oh, no sir. Not at all. I take nothing personally and mean nothing personal. I read your posting and it seemed relatively void of rant and caustic emotionalism I see in so many other places where I’ve attempted to engage, not to mention intelligent. I am not at all taken aback or offended. I know where I am, where you stand, etc. No worries.
Apologetics is something which I am currently exploring. I also am fascinated by the underlying mechanisms, assumptions of atheistic/agnostic interpretations of reality. I feel if I truly am going to delve into apologetics, I need a well-rounded understanding of what the populace is saying about a godless world and how it influences life, etc., not just the academy. Thus, I blog.
I hardly consider myself a faith healer. I great much of that is hocus-pocus placebo.
I do believe, however, that Jesus healed and still does heal, whether through miraculous, inexplicable means or through the talent and skill of a physician, both of which I believe attest to the genius of a Creator. In my own estimation, I believe there are a plethora of examples of hubris in “faith healing”.
But attempting to know what God thinks of me, of man, etc. I think is an entirely different premise. Even as a Christian, there is a great deal about God I’m not going to know and don’t.
But He has revealed some things about Himself that I can know.
Where I tend to differ with “faith healers” is the attitude that one can “tell” God or “claim” healing as a foregone conclusion.
My aunt just passed away last month. God didn’t heal her. But I don’t fault Him for it. For I believe He died, too. He is intimately acquainted with all my ways, including suffering physically.
I’m the one who came to you. I realize and accept the responsibility and am in no way offended.
Thanks.
Nov 28th, 2008 at 11:35 am
I think we understand each other, we just disagree which is OK.
I’m genuinely sorry about your aunt. I lost my grandmother a short time ago as well.
In terms of supernatural judgment, direction, healing or in general, in the worlds of Laplace “I have no need of that hypothesis.”
Thank you for the discourse Dan, it is welcome.
Nov 28th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Thanks.
Sorry about your grandmother. I empathize.
Hope you had and are intending to have a restful remainder of this icon our culture deems a “holiday”.
I’d say “Happy Thanksgiving” but I know the very term is suggestive of “thankfulness” which thus implies being thankful to someone, something outside of ourselves, etc. etc. You know.
Anyhow, hope you found meaning, solace and a plethora of edible pleasures during this time of year.
Thanks for your good-sportedness.
Dan
Nov 28th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Thanks Dan. BTW, I am very thankful for many things. You are correct in that I am not thankful to any supernatural force. It’s basically the people around me, and gratitude for them and the situation I am in is a wonderful thing. I actually found gratitude to be much more meaningful when I ceased believing in the supernatural.
Everyone can be thankful, including atheists.
Thanks again for the chat!
Nov 28th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
In closing, though, I wanted to comment on this. You said,
“Nothing objective exists in terms of human concerns to the extent of our human knowledge outside of our own human context. I am not alluding to any law outside of ourselves or claiming knowledge outside of the human condition.”
If I may attempt a summary of this, you’re saying there is nothing objective or perhaps objectively “real” outside of human experience?
But if we are unable to transcend our human experience, there is no way of verifying whether or not this statement is true.
If we go no higher than man, we are essentially caught in a rather cruel and impersonal vortex of the subjectivity of transitory human emotion and experience.
In short, even what I claim to know has come from sources outside myself. Yes, such information has been transmitted by man, but a great portion of the foundations of Western Civilization rest upon the notion that there is something beyond our own limited perceptions, something which transcends what we simply see with our eyes.
You know this, of course.
You conclude, as Laplace did, that you have no need of such a hypothesis.
You hope you’re right!
Anyhow. Thanks again, sir.
Dan
Nov 28th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“If I may attempt a summary of this, you’re saying there is nothing objective or perhaps objectively “real” outside of human experience?”
No. I said ‘in terms of human concerns.’ The universe exists without us. I’m talking about human constructs like morality, meaning, love, hate, etc. There may be other species out there that have these things, or something similar to them. I mean these things don’t exist independent of a species of our intellectual capacities or similar/greater.
I don’t see how it is more cruel without a higher power. And even so, this is wishful thinking in my view, not any reason or evidence for a higher power. And I find more reason to be a good, moral person without a god. It is so much more significant to do these things for other people and yourself, and not in any way because of a supernatural belief system.
For the last, please do not mistake me to be saying we know or have seen everything. Far from it. Science it the way to avail ourselves of these things, and we have done a lot of that in the last few centuries. Part of this journey involves shedding the false claims and beliefs in order to move forward. It is true that nearly all civilizations have had some belief in a supernatural power. This “everyone is doing it” argument holds absolutely no weight for me however. There are too many examples of nearly everyone being wrong. Go back 500 years in a thought experiment and you’ll see what I mean.
Nov 28th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Hey there Josh. Sorry I don’t have a picture to post. I can tell you though that my students over the years have told me I look like everyone from Vin Diesel to Jean Claude Van Dame to the guy on “Cash Cab”. I’ve got the quintessential male pattern baldness and crop my hair down to a buzz because of it. My nose is inexplicably large and borders on being Roman. It is the one facial feature which is conceivably contributory in some regard to my remaining single.
Anyhow, that’s my head shot. I don’t photo well.
Ok. I fully understand what you mean by human constructs. I do. At least I think so. We wouldn’t be communicating if “we” weren’t here.
BUT…you do say, “I mean these things don’t exist independent of a species of our intellectual capacities or similar/greater.”
If you don’t know whether or not these things exist (or claim they don’t) it’s not even theoretically possible to make such a conjecture about what they could or could not do, for you speak of non-existent beings. For if there actually was a species (or being) with greater intellectual capacities than we possess they could conceptually be capable of doing things we simply could not comprehend, let alone rule out.
You also mention this:
“Science is the way to avail ourselves of these things”.
Now this begs a few questions.
How does one know of what we need to avail ourselves?
And how does one know science is the thing to do the availing?
You say, “It is so much more significant to do these things for other people and yourself, and not in any way because of a supernatural belief system.”
I’d suggest this, though. What’s wrong with the idea that I enjoy doing things for others because of a supernatural belief system? What is meant by significant?
I think that if Jesus really was who He said He was and it really was the God of the Universe on the cross, accepting or rejecting that IMO is going to have significant consequences for humanity.
I’m being summoned by family to play “Monopoly Here and Now”. So I’ll be off.
My full name is Dan Ray, by the way. Have a great evening.
DR
Nov 29th, 2008 at 6:26 am
We know science is the way to go because it works. Time and again, it’s proven itself to work. Of course, you might argue that the concept of “if it works, it’s right” is doubtful, but that’s what many theists use to try to prove that God exists. “My mum had a terminal illness, but I prayed and she got better.” In fact, if that can be proven to work, then science would accept that prayer works, too. But the sad truth is that some things just don’t happen the way we want them to… That is why science is equally critical of itself as of everything else.
Nov 29th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Well, I’ve got issues with what one means by “works”.
The atomic bomb “worked”.
Works depends on what sort of outcome you’re pursuing. As you say, it’s not necessarily “right” that something “works”.
As far as looking at prayer pragmatically, that’s akin to trying to look at a Longfellow poem under a microscope or in a test tube. You’re simply not going to derive any sort of meaning from it that way, at least not the sort Longfellow intended; save perhaps the fibers of the paper, the composition of the ink and any other physical attributes it might have. In doing so however, you miss what the man is attempting to say in such works as “The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere” or “The Children’s Hour”. You’re not looking at it in the proper context whatsoever and miss the entire point. Science is not the final arbiter of prayer. It is not the paradigm which will give you the least bit of insight into the nature and doctrines of prayer. Pragmatism is not the the worldview in which prayer came to be and prayer is not ever going to be rightly understood if one comes at it from the angle of a scientist.
I do not care whether or not science thinks it “works”. It is not necessary that I justify faith, God and Scripture as well as everything else which attends to the Christian life through the cosmology of a scientific viewpoint or whether or not it “works”. If people reject Christianity because it doesn’t make sense scientifically or that it’s not empirically verifiable or that it doesn’t “work” the way “they” think it should, that’s fine. But again it’s like attempting to understand Henry Wadsworth Longfellow with beakers, tweezers and microscopes. You’re going to miss the entire point of the poetry. This is not to dismiss the benefits that science yields, its just to say that such an approach is wholly inadequate in ascertaining the meaning in a soul connecting to its creator.
I wish science were as “equally critical of itself” as you suggest it is.
Nov 29th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Using science as a paradigm for attempting to understand Christianity is like a geneticist attempting to look at DNA to determine the meaning of a Henry Wadsworth Longfellow poem.
It cannot be done. Oh sure, you can analyze the paper, predict perhaps a monkey could type a few lines of it within a few million years or assess what compounds are found within the original ink, but you will never get to the contextual meaning of the arrangement of the words and what the author intended.
I’m not at all disturbed by the claims of empiricism or science in determining truth.
No one can “prove” empiricism by the same standards it demands of Scripture, for example.
Science provides a context for understanding the material aspects of the physical world. It is silent on the matter of it’s meaning. It should be.
It is not the vehicle by which prayer will ever be truly understood.
Nov 29th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Whoops. Didn’t mean to be redundant! Must’ve posted when I thought I deleted.
D
Dec 11th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
Here’s another perspective on the 10 Commandments… they are not an ideal to live up to. They are kind of a “baseline” for humanity. Religion and many people have held them up to be the perfect goal. Strangely, we kind of think of them as impossible.
They’re really the “zero” point for living if you think about it…
(imagine God speaking to one of us)
*Don’t kill each other
*Don’t take each other’s stuff
*When you come home, you, stay with the person you are married to and not someone that is married to someone else.
*Don’t worship gods that you make up and do not exist. Go for a God that is real and that you can know. (me)
and so forth, and so on
Many of us think it would be a great accomplishment to live up to them but that is not the point. God created us to live at a much higher level. But agin the goal is NOT to keep from breaking one of the big ten. The goal of faith in God is to allow your heart to be shaped and changed and to become the kind of person that lives above that base line.
I think this is why many people work really hard to explain so many things away… because to agree or to acknowledge any validity to faith would be giving credibility to some system that is trying to point out what you do wrong.
That’s not the point! God doesn’t want you to be controlled or restrained. Trying to live up to the 10 is a small way to live. It’s too confining. It gives people the power to define who’s in and who’s out. God invites all and all enter the relationship the same exact way… a choice of the heart.
God wants humanity to be free.
Huge misconception among atheists!
Religion and religious people may condemn and attempt to control but that is not God.
Be free! 60 days… money back guarantee!
Thanks for the space to post.