Cont. The Case Against God تكملة الالحاد 321
321
In assessing the ethical significance of Jesus, it is illuminating to contrast him with the ancient Greek philosophers who preceded him by hundreds of years. The differences are so striking that few scholars care to place Jesus on the same level as such intellectual giants as Plato and Aristotle. Whether one agrees with these philosophers or not, they at least argue for their claims, Jesus , on the other hand , issues proclamations backed by the threat of force.
It is not my purpose to "refute" the moral precepts of Jesus by demonstrating them to be ethically unsound. Since Jesus does not argue for his doctrines, they are , philosophically, nothing more than arbitrary assertions. And one cannot argue with an arbitrary proposition; one either accepts on faith or ignores it. Christians prefer the former alternative, while I choose the latter. The precepts of Jesus simply do not merit a serious or comprehensive refutation. My sole purpose in this discussion is to examine the effects and wider implications of Jesus' major doctrines, not lend them the undeserved respect of a counter-argument.
As indicated previously, the major precept of the biblical Jesus is what contemporary theologians like to call total devotion , or commitment, to God. In this context, of course, the terms "devotion" and "commitment" are euphemisms for their less flattering counterparts; obedience and conformity. As with all theologians, when Jesus says "believe" he means "obey." And when Jesus praises men of great "faith," he is praising men who will obey unquestioningly any command they believe to come from God.
When conformity is required, as it is in Christianity, what are the results? To begin with, the sacrifice of truth inevitably follows. One can be committed to conformity or one can be committed to truth, but not both. The pursuit of truth requires the unrestricted use of one's mind-the moral freedom to question, to examine evidence, to consider opposing viewpoints, to criticize, to accept as true only that which can be demonstrated-regardless of whether one's conclusions conform to a particular creed.
The fundamental teaching of Jesus-the demand for conformity- thus gives rise to a fundamental and viciously destructive teaching of Christianity; that some beliefs lie beyond the scope of criticism and that to question them is sinful, or morally wrong. By placing a moral restrictions on what one is permitted to believe, Christianity declares itself an enemy of truth and of the faculty by which man arrives at truth -reason.
321
In assessing the ethical significance of Jesus, it is illuminating to contrast him with the ancient Greek philosophers who preceded him by hundreds of years. The differences are so striking that few scholars care to place Jesus on the same level as such intellectual giants as Plato and Aristotle. Whether one agrees with these philosophers or not, they at least argue for their claims, Jesus , on the other hand , issues proclamations backed by the threat of force.
It is not my purpose to "refute" the moral precepts of Jesus by demonstrating them to be ethically unsound. Since Jesus does not argue for his doctrines, they are , philosophically, nothing more than arbitrary assertions. And one cannot argue with an arbitrary proposition; one either accepts on faith or ignores it. Christians prefer the former alternative, while I choose the latter. The precepts of Jesus simply do not merit a serious or comprehensive refutation. My sole purpose in this discussion is to examine the effects and wider implications of Jesus' major doctrines, not lend them the undeserved respect of a counter-argument.
As indicated previously, the major precept of the biblical Jesus is what contemporary theologians like to call total devotion , or commitment, to God. In this context, of course, the terms "devotion" and "commitment" are euphemisms for their less flattering counterparts; obedience and conformity. As with all theologians, when Jesus says "believe" he means "obey." And when Jesus praises men of great "faith," he is praising men who will obey unquestioningly any command they believe to come from God.
When conformity is required, as it is in Christianity, what are the results? To begin with, the sacrifice of truth inevitably follows. One can be committed to conformity or one can be committed to truth, but not both. The pursuit of truth requires the unrestricted use of one's mind-the moral freedom to question, to examine evidence, to consider opposing viewpoints, to criticize, to accept as true only that which can be demonstrated-regardless of whether one's conclusions conform to a particular creed.
The fundamental teaching of Jesus-the demand for conformity- thus gives rise to a fundamental and viciously destructive teaching of Christianity; that some beliefs lie beyond the scope of criticism and that to question them is sinful, or morally wrong. By placing a moral restrictions on what one is permitted to believe, Christianity declares itself an enemy of truth and of the faculty by which man arrives at truth -reason.
321
في تقييم الأهمية الأخلاقية للسيد المسيح، يعتبر مضيئا لتغايره مع فلاسفة اليونانيّة القديمة الذين سبقوه بمئات السنوات. إنّ الإختلافات مميّز جدا بحيث يهتمّ بضعة علماء بوضع السيد المسيح على نفس المستوى مع عمالقة الثقافة كأفلاطون وأرسطو. سواء يتّفق المرء مع هؤلاء الفلاسفة أو لا يتفق ، يدافعون عن إدّعاءاتهم على الأقل، السيد المسيح، من الناحية الأخرى، إعلانات القضايا دعمت بتهديد القوة.
هي ليست غايتي لـ"دحض" النصائح الأخلاقية للسيد المسيح باثباتات لكي أبين غير موثوقين بشكل أخلاقي. بما أن السيد المسيح لا يدافع عن مذاهبه ، هم، بشكل فلسفي، لا شيء أكثر من مزاعم إعتباطية. والمرء لا يستطيع المجادلة بمقترح إعتباطي؛ المرء أمّا يقبل دون طلب إثبات أو يهمله. يفضّل المسيحيون البديل السابق، بينما أختار الأخير. نصائح السيد المسيح ببساطة لا تستحقّ تفنيدا جدّي أو شامل. غرضي الوحيد في هذه المناقشة القيام بدراسة التأثيرات والنتائج الأوسع من مذاهب السيد المسيح الرئيسية، لا أعيرهم الإحترام الغير مستحق من حجّة مضاد.
كما أشير سابقا، النصيحة الرئيسية للسيد المسيح التوراتي ما يحب علماء الدين المعاصرون دعوته الولاء الكليّ، أو إلتزام، إلى الله. في هذا السياق، بالطبع، "الولاء" و"إلتزام" تعتبر شروط تلطيفية أقل اغراء للنظرائهم ؛ الطاعة والإلتزام. كما هو الحال مع كلّ علماء الدين، عندما يقول السيد المسيح "اعتقدوا" هو يعني "اطيعوا ." وعندما يمدح السيد المسيح رجال بعظمة "ايمانهم" ، "هو يمدح الرجال الذين سيطيعون بشكل مطلق أي أمر من الاوامرة يعتقدون أتية من الله.
عندما يكون الإلتزام مطلوبا، كما هو مبين في المسيحية، ماذا تكون النتائج؟. للبدء، حتميا سوف تتبعها التضحية . يمكن للمرء أن يتعهّد بالإنسجام أو يمكن للمرء أن يتعهّد بالحقيقة، لكن ليس كلاهما. تتطلب مسعى الحقيقة استخدام الغير مقيّد من عقله - الحرية الأخلاقية للشك ، لدراسة الدليل، لإعتبار وجهات النظر مغايرة ، للإنتقاد، لتقبل كحقيقة فقط الذي بامكان برهانه بغض النظر عن ما اذا استنتاجاته تتوافق مع مذهب معيّن.
التعليم الأساسي للسيد المسيح، المطالبة للإلتزام- بالتالي يسبّب تعليم مدمر بضراوة ومبيدة للمسيحية؛ بأن بعض الإعتقادات تقع وراء مجال النقد وبأن الشك بهم يعتبر شرا ، أو خاطئة اخلاقيا . بوضع القيود الأخلاقية على ما يجب السماح للمرء اعتقاده، تعلن المسيحية نفسها عدوة الحقيقة والقدرة التي فيها يصل الرجل الحقيقة - المنطق .
No comments:
Post a Comment