Monotheism: a path to Godlessness? (Jesus, ritual, Moses, evolution)

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by AlanGurvey

I don't even see how it leads to atheism, after all a more abstract G-d only creates in my mind the higher probabilty of Deism.

Or, perhaps more accurately, it creates an increasingly lower probability for anything other than a Deist God, a God-of-the-Gap, and one which is increasingly easy to dismiss altogether. Thanks for sharing ...

[Ody]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Or, perhaps more accurately, it creates an increasingly lower probability for anything other than a Deist God, a God-of-the-Gap, and one which is increasingly easy to dismiss altogether. Thanks for sharing ...

I have found arguements for deism actually to be quite interesting and not watery like other arguements about the divine.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by AlanGurvey

I have found arguements for deism actually to be quite interesting and not watery like other arguements about the divine.

Perhaps you should start a new thread ...

[Ody]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Perhaps you should start a new thread ...

Don't really have to it utilizes the two greatest arguements that are used when talking about the question "is there a G-d"

A)Complexity of nature
B)visible absurdity of society and the environment in regards to how it treats individuals.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Again, unless you're committed to derailing this thread, please consider raising your defense of deism elsewhere.

[Ody]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

Again, unless you're committed to derailing this thread, please consider raising your defense of deism elsewhere.

Sorry for getting off topic

[Sunstone]

Part I

My first question is somewhat off topic in this thread, but perhaps this is nevertheless the best place to raise it.

I've noticed that, if the author is correct, then abstract monotheism leads to most or all of the main values of the Western Englightenment, for instance:

"There's no one around to pray to, so one learns to enact sanctity through ethical behavior. Iconoclasm destroys all man-made symbols and leads to abstract monotheism, which in turn leads to an ethos of social justice."

In the absence of divine intervention (or new prophecies), what does one base this "ethical behavior" and "ethos of social justice" on if not reason and rationality? For to get agreement among people on what is ethical, one must resort to either force, bribes, or reason. And during the Western Enlightenment, as during the rise of Jewish Humanism, reason for once was the trump card. From a consensus that a rational social ethic is necessary, to a consensus that political, economic, and social liberty is humanely necessary is but a reasonable step.

Moreover, through negative theoloogy, we get:

"If we are to appreciate God, we must do so by contemplating the underlying order of the natural universe. God is in the beauty of the logic, the details."

Which, of course, is highly compatible with the rise of science.

So, here we seem to find in Jewish Humanism primal ideas of the Western Enlightenment. Reason, rationality; social, economic and political liberty; naturalism, science. I realize there are many sources for these values, including ancient Greek and Roman culture. But many sources for the same or similar values easily come together and reinforce each other. So I have questions about this.

First, am I way off base here? Is there any reason to believe that Jewish Humanism and other sources of Enlightenment values did not reinforce each other, or that Jewish Humanism was not a significant source of Enlightenment values? And if it was not a significant source of Englightenment values, how does one explain such Jewish thinkers as Spinoza and his influence on ethics? Or Maimonides and his earlier influence on Western theology and the philosophy of God?

Second, is there any evidence that Jewish Humanism influenced the Christian acceptance of the Enlightenment by providing to Christianity interpretations of deity (or the alleged will of deity) compatible with Enlightenment values? Has this question ever been explored by anyone? If so, who? And what did they come up with?

Third, I've heard it said (I can't recall where though) that the Western Enlightenment came late to European Jewry. That it was originally a Christian or former Christian movement, and only later was taken up by Judaism. Is there any truth to this? If so, is there a reason why it happened this way?

Forgive me for raising such speculative and off topic questions, but I've become as curious as the proverbial kitty about these things. I would at least like to know whether my questions have any merit, even if there are no answers to them.

Part II

This is closer to an on topic question (I am sure you are relieved to hear that): Christianity might be seen as a reversion from a pure abstract monotheism to an anthropormorphic deity. If so, does this account at least in part for the tendency among some Christians to rely on Biblical authority, rather than reason or other means, in establishing value? Does it have something to do with the insistance of some Christians that without God there is no meaning in life? Does it lead some Christians away from a focus on humanity to a focus instead on "Godliness"? Perhaps most importantly, does it create in some Christians a notion of deity that is so concrete they can become, as it were, emotionally dependent on that deity, rather than "getting over the need for God"? Would all of these things happen anyway, or does the anthropomorphism of Jesus Christ influence their happening?

My apologies for inflictin' on you, Jay, these hugely speculative questions that have been perculating up in me since first reading this thread. I would appreciate any guidance you can give me on them.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Forgive me, but it is too late for me to do credit to your post. I will try to address some of it tomorrow ...

Shabbat Shalom