Reflections From a Murky Pond

The “Golden Rule” states that one should do unto others as he would like them to do unto him. This may be the best piece of evidence for a universal absolute moral code. Just about every religion in existence exhorts their followers to practice this simple ideal. A few examples are listed below:

Buddhism (500 BCE)

Hurt not others in ways you yourself would find hurtful.

— Udana-Varga, 5, 18

Christianity (50 CE)

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them, for this is the law and the prophets.

— Matthew 7:12

Confucianism (600 BCE)

Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto other that you would not have them do unto you.

— Analects, 15, 23

Islam (622 CE)

No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.

— Imam An-Nawawi’s 40 Hadiths, 13

Hinduism (1500 BCE)

This is the turn of duty; do naught unto others which could cause you pain if done to you.

— Mahabharata, 5, 1517

Judaism (1800 BCE)

What is harmful to you, do not to your fellow men. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.

— Talmud, Shabbat, 312

Taoism (300 BCE)

Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.

— T’sai Shang Kan Ying P’ien

Zoroastrianism (600 BCE)

That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.

— Didistan-i-dinik, 94, 5

If this stricture were limited to only the Abrahamic faiths – and possibly Zoroastrianism – I would write it off as nothing of note. Each of those faiths builds upon its predecessor. The Golden Rule is not so limited however. Even religions and philosophies with little or connection or exposure to the Abrahamic faiths include essentially the same stricture.

While this alone is not proof, it seems to be enough evidence to support postulating a universal absolute morality.

In truth we are all delusional. Our God(s) are made in the image of Man.

From Wikipedia:

The God Delusion is a 2006 book by British biologist Richard Dawkins, holder of the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.

In The God Delusion, Dawkins contends that a supernatural creator almost certainly does not exist and that belief in a god qualifies as a delusion, which he defines as a persistent false belief held in the face of strong contradictory evidence. He is sympathetic to Robert Pirsig‘s observation in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance that “when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion.”

Now I don’t subscribe to Dawkins’ philosophy. None of his evidence addresses the root cause of Life. It only provides a basis for a scientifically understandable methodology for the progression of life. A lack of evidence is not reason for dismissal, only flatly contradictory evidence would be so.

I will say though that all of our Gods are delusions. They are solely the constructs of Man.

Now please don’t get me wrong, I do not deny the existence of a god-head. I deny Man’s understanding of it. I believe that Man cannot – not in any meaningful way – understand the divine. We see the God(s) through the lenses of our own inadequacy.

All of our holy books and oral histories have been passed down through so many translations and edits that they no longer carry the unabridged Word. Worse, all of these strictures have been interpreted and reinterpreted in the light of Man’s understanding and conceit.

There are 6 billion of us, each with our God(s) created in our minds to help us strive towards understanding some fraction of the God(s)’ true nature and mind. I find this a delusion that is worth perpetuating. 😉

I have my faith, but I accept that I know only the most infinitesimal fraction of the nature of my Gods. I know only what they chose to reveal and that only through the lens of my own imperfect understanding.

The Truth will not set you free. Truth is a tyrant that will enslave you and cast you into a bondage more absolute than any falsehood or ignorance could.

— jonolan

The old adage, “the Truth will set you free” is sadly wrong. No freedom is bestowed by knowledge of the Truth. Knowledge of any Truth removes the possibility of error or judgment, and thereby eliminates one’s freedom.

The enslavement by falsehood or ignorance can be replaced by another falsehood or error that provides for more freedom than the original lie or error did. However, no such alternative exists for the Truth. That is an absolute and does not brook dissembling or evasion.

While the truth is unknown one has the freedom to take various actions, many of which will be based on false premises. These opportunities represent a freedom that falsehood or ignorance provides. A person, innocent of Truth, can do many things; one’s choices may well be near boundless.

Once one knows a truth one can no longer dissemble or evade the consequences of that knowledge. It is a thing that is. The choices one has are now chained by that Truth. To act differently is to act in willful error.

All life is conflict; there is no peace this side of the grave.

— jonolan

All living things are in a state of conflict with other living things. Even plants struggle against each other for sunlight, water and soil. The natural cycle of predation is a very basic and primal example of the constant struggle between lifeforms for their very survival.

There is also the even more basic struggle the living engage in with their environment. The old adage of “adapt or die” is a perfect summation of this struggle to adapt to changing conditions that are at odds with a creature’s or plant’s continued survival.

Among people these primal conflicts are often expanded into conflicts over wealth, status and power. No longer just a struggle for survival, the conflict turned into wars of ideologies as Man grew to think beyond his immediate fleshly needs.

Finally there is Man’s internal conflict – his struggle with himself. The unrelenting struggle Man engages in with himself will outlast all other forms of conflict that he engages in and will continue until death.

Philip Pullman’s His Dark Materials trilogy (The Golden Compass, The Subtle Knife and The Amber Spyglass) have been getting a lot of attention. Many Christians are up in arms over the anti-Christian and supposedly atheistic theme of the the trilogy. Now that the first novel, The Golden Compass, is a major motion picture the rancor has increased.

Why are these Christians so upset? It’s simple – they’re right in the thought that Pullman’s His Dark Materials is intended to be both anti-Christian church (anti-Catholic to be more specific) and atheistic. Generally reliable sources confirm that Pullman wrote the works to promote atheism in the same way that C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia promoted Christianity. Pullman’s trilogy is in admitted fact a reworking of Milton’s classic 17th-century poem Paradise Lost into a children’s tale.

I’m Pagan so the anti-Christian church theme doesn’t particularly bother me. I’m not thrilled with the atheistic message contained in the works, but I feel that intelligent readers can see more of the author’s bitterness and disillusionment than of any basis for denying the existence of some form of divinity.

That doesn’t mean I believe that His Dark Materials is suitable reading material for children and many young teens. I firmly believe that the works were egregiously miscategorized. The material is these works is far too complex, dark, and grim for children.

The villains are on par with any of literature’s worst and the books show the actions of those villains with garish details – acts that make the most hideous techniques employed at GITMO pale in comparison. This, combined with the near constant failure, setback and grief that the young heroes experience despite their best efforts, makes the books unsuitable in my opinion for younger readers. I don’t think that children need to read stories that unrelentingly highlight that all plans can fail and that sometimes there are no good choices.

To sum it up – I thought the books were a good read – for adults!