Do holy texts impede moral progress?

[Looncall]

If holy texts are expected to give moral guidance for all time yet contain what are now considered barbarisms (eg stoning, genocide, wife beating), does the presence of those texts prevent populations of believers who follow them from improving morally?

Do the texts imprison believers in ancient errors of thinking and acting?

 

[Father Heathen]

They indeed do. To be moral shouldn't require forgoing reason and compassion, nor should it require a blind, unthinking adherence to things that are entirely irrational, unsubstantiated and arbitrary.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If holy texts are expected to give moral guidance for all time ...

Pummel that straw man!

 

[HeartFire]

Every holy text contains a history of times past. These texts show who we once were in contrast to who we are today. They document progress also. Look at the contrast between the old testament and new. The way our forefathers viewed God in the old testament is in stark contrast to how Jesus portrayed God during his ministry.

I suppose these holy texts 'could' impede moral progress for some. Most of us, however, are wise enough to see barbarism for what it is ... detrimental to human development. Many have grown past these thinkers of yesterday. We've grown past ancient superstition. We are moving forward, our way of thinking is evolving, and we will continue to do so, despite the few who are stuck in the past.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Depends mostly on exegesis.

 

[LuisDantas]

If holy texts are expected to give moral guidance for all time yet contain what are now considered barbarisms (eg stoning, genocide, wife beating), does the presence of those texts prevent populations of believers who follow them from improving morally?

Yes. Definitely.

Do the texts imprison believers in ancient errors of thinking and acting?

Most certainly. Fortunately, people are not (often) completely enslaved by scriptures.

 

[Storm]

If holy texts are expected to give moral guidance for all time yet contain what are now considered barbarisms (eg stoning, genocide, wife beating), does the presence of those texts prevent populations of believers who follow them from improving morally?

Do the texts imprison believers in ancient errors of thinking and acting?

I'll be the voice of dissent, I guess: I really don't think they do. Believers have never had a problem ignoring passages which no longer apply, however ardently they might cherry pick their support for their own barbarism.

 

[Quintessence]

.... improving morality?

Sorry, my brain got a 404 error on that one. I don't believe in "moral progress." Humans simply change what they regard as the moral ideal over time. Supposing there can be "progress" supposes there's some sort of perfect, objective standard out there we should all be aiming for. I don't buy that. I don't buy that some group that doesn't adhere to some other group's norms is suffering from "errors of thinking" or "barbaric" either. Human cultures set their ethical norms in a fashion that is beneficial to them. Sacred texts serve a role both in preserving those norms and in upsetting them.

 

[Father Heathen]

Sorry, my brain got a 404 error on that one.

Does that happen often?

 

[LuisDantas]

.... improving morality?

Sorry, my brain got a 404 error on that one. I don't believe in "moral progress." Humans simply change what they regard as the moral ideal over time.

How is that not the same? Due to the absence of a desired goal or direction, I assume?

Supposing there can be "progress" supposes there's some sort of perfect, objective standard out there we should all be aiming for. I don't buy that. Human cultures set their ethical norms in a fashion that is beneficial to them. Sacred texts serve a role both in preserving those norms and in upsetting them.

I don't know that the standard must be perfect or even objective, but there are certainly at least general directions that aren't quite that arbitrary.

A book that I have been reading that speaks a lot about the matter is Sam Harris' "The Moral Landscape".

 

[Looncall]

.... improving morality?

Sorry, my brain got a 404 error on that one. I don't believe in "moral progress." Humans simply change what they regard as the moral ideal over time. Supposing there can be "progress" supposes there's some sort of perfect, objective standard out there we should all be aiming for. I don't buy that. I don't buy that some group that doesn't adhere to some other group's norms is suffering from "errors of thinking" or "barbaric" either. Human cultures set their ethical norms in a fashion that is beneficial to them. Sacred texts serve a role both in preserving those norms and in upsetting them.

So you are ok with groups that think that stoning and wife beating are good things?

Do you think that cruelty can ever be a good thing? If not, you refute your own argument.

 

[Jainarayan]

So you are ok with groups that think that stoning and wife beating are good things?

Do you think that cruelty can ever be a good thing? If not, you refute your own argument.

You're working from the assumption that the "holy texts" you are referring to represent the bulk of the world's major religious texts. Moreover, laws change and evolve with the times, including those in holy books. If laws didn't evolve, the US would still have slavery and women would not be allowed to vote.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't see that assumption in the OP, myself.

The drawbacks may be avoided and overcome, but they do exist.

 

[Father Heathen]

Of course morality progresses. Our knowledge and understanding clearly grows with time, so it follows to reason that so too does our morality.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I'd argue that in absolutes our morality has gotten worse.

Consider for a moment how we express our moralities; generally with double (or multiple) standards due to distinctions drawn in either ignorance or antipathy.

Example 1: A mafia enforcer. Ruthlessly obedient to his even more ruthless boss. Kills for money and personal satisfaction. Given to fits of cruelty. Loves his family. Is kind, gentle, compassionate, supportive. Genuinely cares for their well-being. Chastises his son for fighting at school. Always shows up at baseball games. Makes sure they get the best schools and private tutors and enough extracurricular activities. Is always supportive, but critical when need-be. Within the circle of his family, he might be a highly ethical person, a model father. In society in general even, he might be a nice man - good relationships with the neighbors, tips serving staff well because he knows how hard it is, etc., etc. But in at least one sphere of his life, he's a very bad man with very serious consequences for other people. Here the lines are drawn in antipathy.

Example 2: Our civilization, and everyone in it. Many of us are nice people, even wonderful people. We kindle and cherish moments of joy in our private lives - even sometimes, sharing such moments with strangers. We're considerate of others feelings and needs, and don't hesitate to do the right thing when called for. But, as it so turns out, we're also an accomplice in the greatest crime ever committed: the anthropocene mass-extinction whereby each one of us, by their daily activities working and consuming as tiny cogs in a vast, soulless machine, devours 30,000 to 140,000 species per day wholesale to say nothing of the irreparable harm done to others and environments as a whole which, one day not far from now, will culminate in the collapse of our life support mechanism and our death as a civilization if not species.

Here the lines are drawn in ignorance or apathy.

Our problem is that our means to effect change - positive or negative, have grown disproportionately with our ethical sense. And ethically, standing still on a treadmill is moving backwards.

I'm not by the way, saying that "barbarous" behavior one sees divinely sanctioned in the OT and such is, at all, morally positive and should be returned to.

 

[Me Myself]

I think the problem is the "hollyness" of the text and the way such holliness is interpreted.

If it was regarded similarly than the Grimm fairy tales stories there wouldn´t be a problem. If those texts were not regarded as binding for all times then there wouldn´t be a problem.

I think the attitudes that people have around those texts that are the real problem.

 

[Jainarayan]

I don't see that assumption in the OP, myself.

The drawbacks may be avoided and overcome, but they do exist.

I inferred it because there are only two holy texts I know of that prescribe death and violence as punishment for offenses, and genocide.

 

[Looncall]

I think the problem is the "hollyness" of the text and the way such holliness is interpreted.

If it was regarded similarly than the Grimm fairy tales stories there wouldn´t be a problem. If those texts were not regarded as binding for all times then there wouldn´t be a problem.

I think the attitudes that people have around those texts that are the real problem.

Yes, I agree with your comments.

I think observation supports this. I see that those societies that are most wedded to their texts (that riot if a book is damaged, for instance) are most supportive of cruelties such as beatings and stonings.

 

[Badran]

Whether religious texts are a positive or a negative influence is something i believe to be dependent on what is said in those texts and how the believer approaches said text.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I believe the Torah served to constrain barbarism.