Sunday, November 11, 2012

Religions take credit for what they didn't establish

It's rather contradictory and ironic that there's a common adage in Christianity (and possibly in other religions, but especially Christianity) that God's word and morals are eternal and never change, that they have always been and will always be the same, unchanged and perfect, yet when you look at the history of Christianity, what is and isn't considered morally good and morally bad has changed quite radically with the times. What was considered morally acceptable a couple of hundreds of years ago may well be abhorrent today, and the other way around.

The fact is, Christian "morals" have always adjusted to the secular morals of the time. For example, when slavery was generally considered acceptable, Christians generally considered it acceptable. Nowadays when slavery is generally considered abhorrent, Christians also consider it abhorrent. And this is but just one example of many.

The obnoxious thing about this is, however, that (many) Christians still maintain that all these morals come from the Bible. It doesn't matter if completely opposite moral values were considered biblical some hundreds of years ago than today, and that these "biblical" morals seem to always follow secular morals, Christians still claim that morals come from the Bible. Almost no Christian will admit that they do not, that in fact they are just trying to apply modern secular morals to what the Bible writes (rather than the other way around.)

What's happening here is that Christianity is trying to take credit from the hundreds of years of development in secular morality and human rights. They cannot accept nor admit that humans themselves are, in fact, capable of coming up with good and valuable morality, and instead try to shove whatever is currently morally acceptable into the Bible (sometimes by using really twisted interpretations) and then take credit, reverse the direction and claim that those morals actually come from the Bible (rather than the other way around.)

It becomes quite amusing (and sad at the same time) when they try to reconcile the biggest contradictions between modern secular morality and the Bible. The twisted explanations can become pretty wild. (I have seen really, really amazing attempts to eg. whitewash the fact that the mosaic law in the Bible permits a slave owner to not only own slaves, but to hit them.)

Some apologists can be incredibly more obnoxious than this, however. For example there are many of them (among others Kent Hovind, although he is certainly not the only one) who actually try to claim that secular atheism has never produced any scientific advances nor discoveries, and that those have actually all been made thanks to Christianity. (Nowadays it's also very common for muslims to claim this from Islam.) This kind of attempt to take credit and completely reverse the direction of events is just astonishingly obnoxious.

(It is a well known fact that modern science started to thrive most prominently when science was separated from theology and philosophy. Many hundreds of years ago those three things were actually considered just different aspects of the same thing. However, in the so-called age of enlightenment science was completely severed from theology and also from the most esoteric forms of philosophy, which allowed it to make progress in giant leaps afterward because of not being bound by religious nonsense.)

No comments:

Post a Comment