Chapter 28 - The Theory of Moral Deposition

Chapter 28 - The Theory of Moral Deposition

Moral Deposition - The process of where or when the moral codes are proven to be the results of social evolution through mankind’s material history. The previous statement is an affirmation of biological evolution and intellectual materialism. The term "deposition" is derived from chemistry where the process is observed materially and concluded through empirical data and epistemological methods. It also expresses the position and furthers the idea that morality is objective rather than subjective. It expresses the flow of moral objectivity throughout our history. For example, the 'Abhorrence of Murder' is universally applied throughout all societies despite its variants which is an expression of moral subjectivity. For instance, the negation of murder in society is a virtue. Its negation, applied by all societies, makes this virtue universal because it was applied and defined by various social practices.  The virtue is called the 'Abhorrence of stealing' which is also proven to be a virtue through its negation. The vices of stealing and murder are both proven to be virtues through its negation. The moral objectivity, of the previous mentioned objects, exists only when these virtues survive through social evolution. While moral subjectivity, of the mentioned virtues, exist through linking with social practices. The relationship between the two functions - the objectivity and subjectivity of morality - will be proven through the chemical process of deposition. Imagine a timeline in human history showing these principles as virtues when applied:

X0 = An earlier unknown tribe or various earlier religious affiliations or identities

X1 = Ancient Egyptian beliefs or the Babylonian belief system

X2 = Judaism

X3 = Christianity

X4 = Islam

X* = "religion" to Philosophy (the materially predicted future) without "religion".

Despite its various application of both observed principles - the 'Abhorrence of Murder' and the 'Abhorrence of stealing' - , both are still observed by all or most of the above identities. All or most of the identities recognize these virtues as socially applied and relevant principles. The different interpretations and various applications by the above participants is a moral subjective exercise but its survival through human history or through social evolution makes the principles uniquely objective. The reason of why it is objective is because of its survival through dialectical and material history.

The theory of deposition is to expressly state that these social virtues are objective because of the process of human (or sentient beings) trial and error over several years. Through the example of Human society, being the lab of experimentation, these virtues will be proven to be objective.

Here we introduce the intramolecular forces of water. Water is defined chemically as having two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. The bonds that attaches these elements of nature are known and termed to be - "covalent". These bonds are "covalent" because they are more stronger attachments that make elements into compounds or molecules rather than weaker bonds that attaches two or more compounds together. For example, compounds or molecules are a group of elements attached together by these bonds. The "deposition" is when the molecule or compounds are translated into another phase of their existence - from gas to solid. For instance, in the case of water (H2O) it exist in three phases: solid, liquid, and gas phases. Water has a triple phase where all three phases exists simultaneously together.

Before presenting the evidence, let me address an issue of concern. I am not violating the Humean philosophical observation: The error of deriving an 'ought' from an 'is'. In other words, defining a new theory from a scientific or factual observation to define a philosophical phenomena. Furthermore, that is to define an immaterial concept from a material construct or factual observation. This error has been observed to exist within the social philosophical program of Herbert Spencer, the author of 'social darwanism', where the application of such idea resulted in socially disastrous consequences. The Theory of Moral Deposition does not destroy the greatest happiness for the greatest good principle. While 'social darwanism' has committed such a flaw because of its unfilled explanations and expectations. The observation by David Hume, where the Humean dictum derives, is an observation proven true by the attempted applications of 'social darwanism'. Herbert Spencer's attempted application was an attempt to forcibly create bonds with non-related forces: natural selection(observed by Charles Darwin) and economics. In other words, biology and capitalism. The result of these attempted merging is the reason of its failure to be a reasonable philosophy. Herbert Spencer mistake and error comes from extracting a particular study of biology and then attempting to merge it with economics. In other words, the subject of 'natural selection' is more constant and not variables like economics or capitalism. The reason for the previous statement is because "economics" and/or "capitalism" has been molded or reformed over time without the usage of "natural selection". For example, through social evolution, modern secular democracy derives from the repulsion of "divine" monarchy which through its repulsion created other political systems. These other political systems created, and through consequence, ushered in socialism and other forms of economics. While natural selection is a constant concept which could not be reformed to fit with the variables of economics. For example; a person with no substansive material wealth, or background based on wealth, could become a leader of a nation. The previous observation would make 'social darwanism' contradictory. The "survival of the fittest" does not apply among sentient species who have developed, through social evolution, systems which take care of the economically weak and socially disenfrenchised.

The theory of moral deposition would present a new way of seeing the relationship between its two functions of morality - objective and subjective forms. The intramolecular forces of water would show this relationship while not violating the Humean dictum. Let us return to the previous presentation of the evolution of "religion", and some of its principles, within some segments of human society. While it is termed "human" society it could also be applied to all or most sentient beings. The previous statement or observation will be addressed much later. The above presentation shows the letter "X". Imagine that this letter is the Oxygen element of water. The "X" is the objective principle while its attachments makes it subjective.

For example, Oxygen by itself is an element but when attached by two Hydrogen atoms it transforms into a water molecule or compound. Oxygen despite its relationship with other elements is still an element of nature. Only when it is attached with other elements, described as the intramolecular force, the relationship transforms the elements into a molecule(compound) of water. Through the example of water, the "bonds" could now be identified. The existence of objective morality exists along and within of what is described as subjective morality and not as seperate concrete concepts. These "bonds" are social practices. Alasdair MacIntyre is the first doctoral scholar to have identified the importance of social practices but he has not identified the intra-relationship between objective and subjective morality. In the above examples, the numbers above or numerical values(0,1,2,3,*) are the particular social practices or a particular "religion" attached to a proven objective principle:

(X) = Objective principles like the 'Abhorrence of murder' and the 'Abhorrence of stealing'.

(0,1,2,3,*) = Social practices attached to objective principles during a particular era which temporarily transforms an objective principle into a seemingly subjective one.

The application of the Theory of Moral Deposition would present a unique view and prove the above presentation. The meaning of the theory of Moral Deposition is to convey that an idea or moral principle is no longer subjective but rather objective proven through the timeline of history. In other words, the theory is expressing something similar to a 'gas to solid' phase or transformation of an idea or moral principle into something concrete or real in the physical world. For example, 'gas to solid'(chemical deposition in nature) or 'theory to practice' or 'ideas to practical application'. In contrast, sublimation - 'solid to gas' transformation or 'practical application to theory' observation. The "attachments" to objective principles are the social practices which transforms it, temporarily, into subjective principles/practices. The survival of ideas within the marketplace of ideas is a proper example of the "survival of the fittest" in comparison to Herbert Spencer's 'social darwanism'. The ideas that survive through social evolution becomes over time social concrete principles therefore becoming objective.

Another example would be to use a political science idea from E.E. Schattschneider's political theory of "agenda universe" to illustrate another angle of the argument - the introduction of the principle from a theory area. Here is E.E. Schattschneider's theory of the evolution of an agenda:

Agenda Universe --> Systemic Agenda --> Institutional Agenda --> Decision Agenda (Legislation of a Bill that becomes law).

Let us replace "agenda" with "moral theory" then imagine the social evolution of a moral principle over several years. It started earlier as a "moral theory"(agenda universe) and then was proven to be a "moral principle". When it transforms into a "moral principle" it became a legally unsaid social contract, i.e. natural law. The social evolution of a "moral theory" would become practical when proven to be as such through social trial and error. The change of status from subjective to objective principles which are then adopted by other groups and tribes is a natural process. Therefore, it is neither a supernatural nor an ultra-natural process.

The above eliminates the idea that our laws derive from "divine" inspiration or more specifically that the law(s) of Moses are divinely inspired. The so-called ten commandments of Moses derive from natural observations which are an interpretation of the material environment. In the case of the Ten Commandments, the laws are both a product of the previous "commandments" within the previous Egyptian belief system and Moses' new laws deriving from particular new circumstances. Then Moses' circumstances developed or evolved into customs and social practices which are subjective. For example, to "follow the Sabbath" is a particular Jewish social practice and command which has nothing to do with the recently extinct ancient Egyptian custom(s). The command - "Follow the Sabbath" - is proof of the opposite observation: The eventual sublimation of some social practices attached to a particular belief structure. For instance, the growth or the increase of a particular brand of Christianity, Pauline Christianity, may make this particular Jewish observation extinct. Let us imagine if all of the stated "religions" disappear. Then only the proven objective moral principles will survive.

The last part of the equation presented above is noted as - (X*) - , a dialectical and historical material prediction, when the increase of technology followed by new discoveries results in the gradual sublimation of "religion". In other words, any type of "religion" is sublimated through the historical material timeline. Furthermore, only the proven objective moral codes are deposited in the historical material timeline. Moreover, the last segment of the equation represents a variable which is all around us presently and also a prediction of the eventual triumph of materialism. The question is would this materialism be molded to conform to material justice or material injustice? Moreover, it represents the variable of infinity and also the eventual sublimation of "religion". In other words; the other numerical values, within the presentation above represents "religions", and the absence of it, with the complimentary social practices. Therefore, what is the relationship between "religions" and philosophies? "religions" are philosophies but not all philosophies are "religions". For example, the philosophy of social darwanism and the philosophy of communism are both derived from philosophical materialism. Hence, the reason why general moral objective principles outlive their shells called "religion" and even philosophies.

The problem of social darwanism is not that it derives from philosophical materialism but that it violates material development of society and therefore material justice. The material philosophy of communism has been proven to be flawed because it concentrates power unjustly into one important segment of society - the state. The achievement of material justice in society is the democratic possession of wealth, and the flow of materials in society, between three important segments - the worker (or the people), the state and the corporation entity. The new forms of socialism, recent interpretations of Karl Marx ideas developed after world war two, have tried to achieve the balance of material flow in society and therefore material justice. The two individuals, within the human timeline which are well known, developed two outcomes with precise and accurate predictions: Adam Smith and Karl Marx. These are the two outcomes combined with my own observations in order: (1) The existence of material justice creates the mechanism for material circulation. (2) The existence of material injustices creates the peripherals of social tensions.

Are materialists generally without moral principles? This is an unfair question because of the known social evolution within human history. Let me present, as an example, W.D. Ross' six Prima Facie duties: Duties of Fidelity, Duties of Gratitude, Duties of Justice, Duties of Beneficence, Duties of Self-Improvement, and Duties of Non-Maleficience. All of the previous "duties" were simply natural observations and could be followed without a "divine" command. The question is given and followed by an obvious answer: Is there morality without god or a creator? Yes.

 The Theory of Moral Deposition is simply a statement that morality could be derived naturally through material history or social evolution. The fallacy of each "religion" proves that morality is most importantly universal and therefore its source of "morality" derives from natural observations and material interactions.

 The possible existence of other sentient beings was noted by Thomas Paine in his treatise - The Age of Reason (1793-1794). The existence of other technologies proves that morality plays an indirect role in the furtherance of a species to explore and survive. The most direct proofs are tribal instincts or tribal allegiances. For example, the empirical rule or moral code of not killing a fellow tribe member when competing with other tribes. This type of thinking could not only be applied between sentient humans on earth but also elsewhere like other beings, i.e. space tribes.

Another colonial revolutionary, also known importantly, as one of the American founding fathers was Thomas Jefferson. The founding father was known to say relevant opinions during his time. Many of his quotes could be found in the founding document concerning the foundation of the United States. One of his quotes reflected his opinion concerning Christianity:

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills" -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814.

"To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, god, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no god, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise: but I believe I am supported in my creed of materialism by Locke, Tracy, and Stewart. At what age of the Christian church this heresy of immaterialism, this masked atheism, crept in, I do not know. But heresy it certainly is" -Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820.

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law" 
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814.

The previous statement was meant and intentional to create a separation of powers which was earlier expressed by Baron De Montesquieu in The Spirit of Laws. The previous statement also expresses the separation of history between Christianity and the legal codes.

"If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God"  -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814.

"As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us" -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819.

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors" -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823.

The previous volumes of quotes from one of the founding fathers gives us all hope that the future will be bright for humanity as it clears away superstitious beliefs and so-called supernatural events with rational explanations with the tools of science and reason.

Unfortunately, there are too many indoctrinated human beings on Earth and the followings of irrational belief systems will only lead to the complete destruction of the human race because of new destructive weapons.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the most important American founding fathers, left us a quote through history concerning his opinion of the Book of Revelation:

"It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams" -Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825.

Furthermore, not only has Thomas Jefferson refuted the Gospels but also the Book of Revelation which leaves us wondering if he foresaw and envisioned the collapse of the Abrahamic belief system?

Thomas Jefferson has been misquoted out of context by radical cultural demagogues. Thomas Jefferson was a patriot but for non-Christian expressions within society:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

"May it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God" 
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)

Is it possible that such sayings could come from an American founding father? It has been documented and saved for all to see and observe.

The foundations of Christianity is weak and unsound without concrete proof and evidence. The last quote will end this book to present the future as laissez-faire liberalism of Thomas Jefferson which partly as important as laissez-faire market mechanism and its twin laissez-faire constitutionalism. The evidence that is plentiful is the behavior of those who call themselves Christians:

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity"  
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

Chapter 27 - Utilitarianism and its historical manifestations

Chapter 27 - Utilitarianism and its historical manifestations

 

 

 

Utilitarianism is defined as: "The creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure ". (Chapter 2 - What Utilitarianism Is, The Principle of Utility, Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill)

 

It has been proven throughout the material timeline where societies have attempted the above observation but later fall short of maintaining such a society, at times, defined as utopian. In an earlier chapter, the concept was introduced: 'Roman Material Theory' which presents the introduction of the over-all material unhappiness of society which was initiated by the imposition of cheap or "slave" labor. The reader would first have to follow through in understanding the Greatest Happiness Principle presented by the previous renown scholar of the 1800's:

 

" actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness."(Chapter 2 - What Utilitarianism Is, The Principle of Utility, Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill)

 

The first issue which must be presented is the description of the U.S. Constitution as a Utilitarian document. The Declaration of Independence of July 4th, 1776 states:

 

" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

 

The previous example existed in A.D. 313 when the Edict of Milan, co-authored by Emperor Constantine, allowed freedom of worship to the Christian population. The Edict of Milan is an early form of utilitarianism in interaction with Christianity. However, this interaction in the mankind’s material timeline, exposes the fallacy of John's "prophecy" or prediction. The Reductio ad Absurdum supposition is given:

 

1.      The Book of Revelation mentioned the physical return of Jesus (Revelation 1:7, The Gospel of John 19:34, and Zechariah 12:10).

2.      The Edict of Milan ended the persecution(s) at the marketplace (1^st John 5:21, Revelation 2:14, 2:20, 9:11, 9:20, 13:16-17, 18:11-13, 18:22).

3.      Jesus of Nazareth did not return, as predicted by John, to end the persecutions (Revelation 19:11 and 21:4).

4.      Therefore the machinations of human beings ended the persecution not a supernatural deity.

5.      The historical manifestations of Utilitarianism ended the persecutions of Christians throughout the Roman Empire in 313 A.D., years past John’s marker prediction(s) – “wormwood”,i.e. seventy years captivity.

6.      The predictions by John and other New Testament writers are proven false through mankind’s material history.

 

 

The evidence below is a copy from a previous chapter.

 

The Edict of Milan:

 

“ When we, Constantine and Licinius, emperors, had an interview at Milan, and conferred together with respect to the good and security of the commonweal, it seemed to us that, amongst those things that are profitable to mankind in general, the reverence paid to the Divinity merited our first and chief attention, and that it was proper that the Christians and all others should have liberty to follow that mode of religion which to each of them appeared best; so that that God, who is seated in heaven, might be benign and propitious to us, and to every one under our government. And therefore we judged it a salutary measure, and one highly consonant to right reason, that no man should be denied leave of attaching himself to the rites of the Christians, or to whatever other religion his mind directed him, that thus the supreme Divinity, to whose worship we freely devote ourselves, might continue to vouchsafe His favour and beneficence to us. And accordingly we give you to know that, without regard to any provisos in our former orders to you concerning the Christians, all who choose that religion are to be permitted, freely and absolutely, to remain in it, and not to be disturbed any ways, or molested. And we thought fit to be thus special in the things committed to your charge, that you might understand that the indulgence which we have granted in matters of religion to the Christians is ample and unconditional; and perceive at the same time that the open and free exercise of their respective religions is granted to all others, as well as to the Christians. For it befits the well-ordered state and the tranquillity of our times that each individual be allowed, according to his own choice, to worship the Divinity; and we mean not to derogate aught from the honour due to any religion or its votaries. Moreover, with respect to the Christians, we formerly gave certain orders concerning the places appropriated for their religious assemblies; but now we will that all persons who have purchased such places, either from our exchequer or from any one else, do restore them to the Christians, without money demanded or price claimed, and that this be performed peremptorily and unambiguously; and we will also, that they who have obtained any right to such places by form of gift do forthwith restore them to the Christians: reserving always to such persons, who have either purchased for a price, or gratuitously acquired them, to make application to the judge of the district, if they look on themselves as entitled to any equivalent from our beneficence.

All those places are, by your intervention, to be immediately restored to the Christians. And because it appears that, besides the places appropriated to religious worship, the Christians did possess other places, which belonged not to individuals, but to their society in general, that is, to their churches, we comprehend all such within the regulation aforesaid, and we will that you cause them all to be restored to the society or churches, and that without hesitation or controversy: Provided always, that the persons making restitution without a price paid shall be at liberty to seek indemnification from our bounty. In furthering all which things for the behoof of the Christians, you are to use your utmost diligence, to the end that our orders be speedily obeyed, and our gracious purpose in securing the public tranquillity promoted. So shall that divine favour which, in affairs of the mightiest importance, we have already experienced, continue to give success to us, and in our successes make the commonweal happy. And that the tenor of this our gracious ordinance may be made known unto all, we will that you cause it by your authority to be published everywhere.”

 

The above is also expressed in the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,..."

 

The concept is also expressed in Article VI(6) of the U.S. Constitution: " ...but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Even if the religious errors have been corrected by a secular methodology the previous method also corrects other secular doctrines. Mathematics seems to be a fair judge in the material timeline and is partly an ingredient to unbiased empirical data. There is one individual which composes the previous expression and his name is Francis Hutcheson. Francis Hutcheson died in 1746 and influenced David Hume and Adam Smith. The importance of the date, 1746, is important to note knowing that the said philosopher influenced Adam Smith and his writings. Francis Hutcheson is credited for the saying:  The Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number . The previous observation or saying is from the mathematical models researched by Francis Hutcheson and through his observation of the material timeline of humanity concluded with the said observation. Reading through the last treatise by Adam Smith, the so-called founder of classical capitalism, the pages of Smith's celebrated treatise the residue of utilitarianism could be seen. David Hume takes the negation of a creator and Adam Smith embracing the materialistic ethos of such a creed.

Most importantly, Francis Hutcheson's writings were before the initiation of the American and French revolutions which brought about change in the political character of the said nations. Adam Smith also composed his well-known treatise in 1776 at the time when the American revolution was commencing. In Smith's treatise, the idea of revolting against the British crown over excessive taxation was brought forward by the author because the taxation was used for war industry while neglecting the health and wellfare of the populace. The previous is an example of positive utilitarianism and collective utilitarianism - the very themes adapted from the previous writings of Francis Hutcheson.

The previous paragraph explains the meaning and application of utilitarianism. The meaning is not individualistic application of such a creed but rather its collective nature expressed in the previous calculation: The Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number. The very idea of individualistic satisfaction is not the intention of the previous scholars and writers. Jeremy Bentham, who lived between 1748-1832, explains the moral theory of utilitarianism by refuting attacks against individualistic utilitarianism or psychological hedonism. Psychological Hedonism was expressed by the Roman philosopher, Epicurus, who defined such a theory as an action which is right if and only if it maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain. The very notion of the "pig satisfaction" or simply individualistic satisfaction were both refuted throughout both the writings of Epicurus and later Jeremy Bentham. Hence, there is a difference between individualistic utilitarianism and individualistic satisfaction or "pig satisfaction". The previous is an expression of the Moral Principle of Utility which refutes the notion of such "pig satisfaction" individualism. Pleasure may not be sufficient for happiness but it is a crucial ingredient for happiness and tranquility in society. The meaning of the term - pleasure - is actually describing tranquility within society rather than its "grossest form". Hence, the importance of the mention of the U.S. Constitution as an utilitarian document.

Jeremy Bentham did not conjure up the mathematical expression: The Greatest Happiness for the Greatest Number. Francis Hutcheson derive the phrase first through his observation of collective utilitarianism with his proposed mathematical models in his treatise - An inquiry concerning the original of our Ideas of virtue or Moral Good, section 3, part 8 :

" . In comparing the moral Qualitys of Actions, in order to regulate our Election among various Actions propos'd, or to find which of them has the greatest moral Excellency, we are led by our moral Sense of Virtue to judge thus; that in equal Degrees of Happiness, expected to proceed from the Action, the Virtue is in proportion to the Number of Persons to whom the Happiness shall extend; (and here the Dignity, or moral Importance of Persons, may compensate Numbers) and in equal Numbers, the Virtue is as the Quantity of the Happiness, or natural Good; or that the Virtue is in a compound Ratio of the Quantity of Good, and Number of Enjoyers. In the same manner, the moral Evil, or Vice, is as the Degree of Misery, and Number of Sufferers; so that, that Action is best, which procures the greatest Happiness for the greatest Numbers; and that, worst, which, in like manner, occasions Misery. "

For the above evidence is proof of positive and collective utilitarianism expressed by Francis Hutcheson years before Jeremy Bentham's own words expressing the same phrase. Francis Hutcheson, it is fair to suggest, not only influence David Hume and Adam Smith but also Jeremy Bentham. Jeremy Bentham expresses the previous mathematical expression and even proposes mathematical models within his 1776 treatise titled: A Fragment on Government

" Correspondent to discovery and improvement in the natural world, is reformation in the moral; if that which seems a common notion be, indeed, a true one, that in the moral world there no longer remains any matter for discovery. Perhaps, however, this may not be the case: perhaps among such observations as would be best calculated to serve as grounds for reformation, are some which, being observations of matters of fact hitherto either incompletely noticed, or not at all would, when produced, appear capable of bearing the name of discoveries: with so little method and precision have the consequences of this fundamental axiom, it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong, been as yet developed. " ( The preface of A Fragment on Government )

For the above reference is presenting that the origin of the phrase is a mathematical construct deriving from Francis Hutcheson which later was borrowed by Jeremy Bentham. In the treatise of A Fragment on Government , Jeremy Bentham employs mathematical expressions with words and phrases to conduct an observation and conclusion concerning the British government. In chapter three of his 1776 treatise he presents a proposition theory in chapter three - British Constitution section 20 Proposition Theorem, in which he proposed a false construct concerning the perfection of the British government based on the observation of others. Or is it that Jeremy Bentham presented the fallacy of any government being perfect? despite that many governments are based on the collective utilitarian ethic. The perfectness of any government is surely a subjective condition rather than its perceived objective principle.

The fallacy of perfectness concerning any and all collective utilitarian society has been presented by Jeremy Bentham through the Francis Hutcheson's original mathematical observation. The imperfectness, deducted and concluded by these two past scholars, of any said government creates the obvious conclusion: the existence throughout the ages of negative and positive collective utilitarian societies. The default notion is to suggest all nations and tribes from beginning of time were either negative or positive collective utilitarian manifestations. Nevertheless, collective utilitarian manifestations.

Throughout the years of the human timeline, the human race experiences the rise of negative collective counsciousness which results in the formation of negative collective utilitarian manifestations. During these phases of society, there arises one or several brave individuals called moral agents. These positive moral agents are change agents in the midst of negative collective counsciousness deriving from flawed beliefs and false social constructs. It may be the case, that these flawed social constructs started out and derived from moral codes. Yet, these very moral codes evolved into obselete moral codes or outdated social codes.


 



 

Chapter 26 - Divine Command Theory and The Problem of Evil

 

Chapter 26 - Divine Command Theory and The Problem of Evil

 

After decoding the various symbols within the Book of Revelation with sufficient evidence throughout, it presents the dilemma that a creator is not the author of such a document. Rather, the author being very human and conscious of the possibility of failure concerning the nascent Christian community composed a document expressing his fears. Therefore, the Book of Revelation is a motivational document addressed to the oppressed early Christian community facing the brute force of the Roman Empire's onslaught while competing with various early Jewish messianic movements.
The exposure of such a document presents the obvious conclusion that this document was intended to be addressed and fulfilled during the era of the early Christian community. The chronology of events are shown throughout its decoding and concludes with the controversial verdict of a false human prediction. In other words, a clear false prophecy. The prediction given by an all-too-human author gives the conclusion that an error exists within the book of Revelation and the rest of the New Testament canon. Finally, concluding within the text, the error of the supposed return of a superhuman Jesus.

The two main examples, which are apparent clashing contradictions, are given: John's Millennialism model versus Paul's Dispensationalism model. The two models previously stated are expressed within and throughout the New Testament canon. Furthermore, the New Testament canon is complimented away by the last book added historically by Augustine of Hippo: The book of Revelation.
The human errors given above ensures the validity of the Divine Command Theory at least to the Abrahamic faiths. A theory which states that if a creator, the source of divine command, supposedly gives a command then this 'command' is universal and valid for all times and for all societies. The inventor of the term: 'Divine Command Theory' is James Rachels. Rachels states in his treatise - God and Moral Autonomy (1997):

 

1. First, we might mean that right conduct is right because God commands it. For example, according to Exodus 20:16, God commands us to be truthful. On this option, the reason we should be truthful is simply that God requires it. Apart from the divine command, truth telling is neither good nor bad. It is God’s command that makes truthfulness right.

Divine Command Theory is actually a model or theory which exposes the flaw in 'religion' because it forces the question of where 'good', 'goodness' or 'morality' originates? In other words, does it originate from 'religion' or the absence of it? The proposal is that 'good', goodness' or 'morality' in general derives from the absence of religion. Therefore, our moral actions are either innate or acquired.

The Theorem is produced in relation to the Problem of Evil:

1) Good produces Good.
2) Good produces Evil.
3) Evil produces Good.
4) Evil produces Evil.

These four categories could be deducted by reading through and summarizing the theories contained in the books of Immanuel Kant. The German philosopher did not invent such categories but observed these inherit categories through the actions of human beings. He developed the imperatives which already existed throughout human history. Many social examples or settings he gave, throughout his books, has shown that the theorem above is valid. Kant and later philosophers like James Rachels, noted the problem of the autonomy of a moral agent and the general problem of anthropomorphism among humanity. Point 1) is Kant's categorical imperative, points 2) the negation of the hypothetical imperative and 3) the hypothetical imperative, and point 4) is the negation of the categorical imperative.

The previous four categories could be best illustrated by the interaction of three agents: The acting agent, reacting agents and the projected agent. The acting agent is the sole individual who peforms an act or actions into the physical world. The role of the reacting agents, or other individuals within society, is to interpret such actions as either good or evil. In other words, the acting agent and the reacting agents interact in the physical world or material realm. The interaction, the source of the categorical imperative, will result in a good or evil act. The last agent, the projected agent, exists in the immaterial realm or the mind of the acting agent or the sole individual. The projected agent is a product of the mind of the acting agent even if the projected agent is proven to be based on truth or facts. Nevertheless, some projected agents are proven to also be based on false assumptions and absurdities.

For example, the acting agent performs a good act which is universally accepted as good by the reacting agents which is rule #1. Next, the acting agent performs an act which seems good but resulted in an evil result. In other words, some good effort was put into the act which was neutralized by an evil result, which is rule #2. The evil act of the acting agent resulted in a good result which is rule #3. Finally, the evil act of an acting agent resulted in an evil result which is rule #4.

The evidence of this within the Book of Revelation is given in Revelation 6:8 where God commands and allows an 'evil' action to occur resulting in an eventual 'good' result. The previous is classified as (#3) among the four categories mentioned previously. However, this is an example of a metaphysical example, or symbolic and non-physical evidence copying the verse in Ezekiel 9:4-7. If we are to believe that the book of Revelation is a 'divine' text then God has proven to be both 'good' and 'evil' which is also expressed in the book of Isaiah 45:7 where God or the creator admits of producing or creating 'evil'. James Rachels above presented a verse from Exodus 20:16 which is an example that the action, of truth telling, could be done without a 'divine' command and it could be proven to be both 'good' and 'evil' therefore validating an earlier observation by Immanuel Kant.

Kant's observation is deontological or an inner description of actions by individuals. In the previous case, the christian's projected agent is the acting agent as told by John while the characters within the Book of Revelation are the reacting agents. To further understand the illustration of the four given imperatives, the first result was derived from the acting agent then the "production" is interpreted by the reacting agents in nature. For instance, "evil produces good" which is an example of Kant's hypothetical imperative. Both imperatives by Kant, categorical and hypothetical, resulted in a good condition. While both negations of the two previous imperatives resulted in an evil condition.

Nevertheless, the obvious historical answer is that these commands derive from earlier documents from ancient Egypt where these commands were common and attributed to the various gods among the ancient "pagan" Egyptians. So, the question arises which god or gods deserves to be worshipped? The various sources negate each other therefore proving that these commands do not derive from a divine source but rather through natural biological altruism. In other words, deriving through the absence of religion. It also means that the above verses are from the human imagination and natural desires which is a reflection of the cultural environment. In other words, an example of relative or subjective morality.

The defining result is that the book of Revelation was proven flawed by showing contradictions in the competing doctrines through Paul's earlier Dispensationalism and John's later Millennialism.
These are both doctrines which are contradictory, as was proven in an earlier chapter, because these two are false expectations. Therefore, a clear false prediction of Jesus' physical return. Most importantly, both claim to have received commands from a divine source: Paul's Dispensationalism (Jesus' return BEFORE the Temple's destruction and desecration of the Temple copying the language noted in the book of Daniel) was explained away and covered by the later doctrine of John's Millennialism (Jesus' return AFTER the A.D.70 focus event because of the Roman destruction of the Temple in the book of Revelation). If John's millennialism was proven flawed then Paul's Dispensationalism is also flawed and therefore both are in error. Furthermore; it proves clearly, without a doubt, the two of the so-called Abrahamic faiths (Christianity and Islam) are clearly false. Furthermore, the earlier or previous faith (Judaism) is also flawed because of borrowing from an earlier belief system (ancient Egypt's various belief systems). In other words, all three previous so-called Abrahamic belief systems have problems and flaws. If this is the case then the so-called Abrahamic faiths are proven fallible. Nevertheless, the stated previous evidence does not prove nor disprove the absence of a neutral creator in the universe (this is discussed in a previous chapter). The author, James Rachel, in several of his books gives plenty of evidence against the other non-Abrahamic faiths in general. His books present the idea that 'religion' in general is flawed and that morality derives from a non-divine source. However, all the previous evidence given does not mean that we as humans remove actions of 'goodness' and acts of kindness from our lives. The evidence given proves that kindness or 'goodness' is universal without any doubts.

Therefore, the creation of 'religion' is a political by-product enforced by tribal elites to preserve the local tribal allegiances. The reason is because the rational agent creates the categorical imperative. Or rather, the rational agent redefines the social moral codes by reapplying the catgorical imperative. The main question is where does the rational agent derive the imperative? It obviously derives from biological evolution. The scholars to mention in this field are Charles Darwin and Peter Singer. The latter being a scholar who has introduced the idea, through historical observation, of an 'expanding (tribal) circle' where the concerns of the local tribe expands into the realm and inclusion of other external tribes. The previous a well-known researcher and scholar to have presented 'the theory of evolution' which today could be proven without a doubt.

Through social evolution, the human race has expanded the tribal circle to include other tribes which is noted by Peter Singer. The previous example was noted by Paul himself in the Book of Romans (Romans Chapter eleven) where this social evolutionary example was applied "religiously" but evidently resulted in a material benefit of the message and expansion of the initial local tribe. There is also evidence that Paul and John borrowed, not only religious expressions from the Old Testament canon, and also from the Greek philosophy disciplines and Caesar's enactments to expand roman citizenship, i.e. expanding the tribal circle. The previous example is not evidence of a creator but rather evidence of social human evolution to expand and include external tribes outside its immediate circle. Therefore, the writings within the New Testament canon or texts are actually the result of natural social evolution rather than a 'divine command'. The previous controversial conclusion results in the fact that the religion of Christianity is part of the timeline of the dialectical material history of the human race. Furthermore, if it is part of the dialectical history of the human race then the Abrahamic religions and/or most religions are prone to be replaced and discarded by thinking sentient beings.

The above evidence presented explains the flaw of the so-called Abrahamic faiths. Therefore; Paul introduced, intentionally, the possible concept of the 'universal tribe' with its complimentary component of a particular cultural subjective morality. Nevertheless, what Paul has done is to express the eventual dialectical material revolution of the Judeo-Christian community or society through an immaterial expression and language through the tools of a specified 'religion'. However, Paul's expression throughout the New Testament makes it possible also to eventually discard Christianity because it is now categorically made part of the cycle of the dialectical material timeline where ideas are constantly replaced with better ideas through social evolution and revolution. The previous decoding of the book of Revelation makes it possible for the previous event to occur. The event of moving or shifting Christianity from an absolute belief system of infallibility into the category of fallibility, makes it a replaceable part of the machine - general human history and society. Therefore, the realm of fallibility makes a belief system a product and by-product of the desires and imagination of mankind. A realm where systems are constantly replaced by mankind for a better system when new conditions arrive or presents itself for renewal. Furthermore; the only concept that is infallible is a natural, evolutionary, and a universal concept. This concept which surpasses any subjective 'religion' is called objective morality.

The ultimate observation arrives: the book of Revelation; written by John, is rather a natural book introducing into the human material dialectical timeline, a non-violent social 'revolution' propagated through the minds of various individuals. The non-violent revolution, Christianity, has outlived its Jewish messianic counterparts to simply replace an outdated locally tribal and Judaic belief system. The old tribal system was replaced with something better like the introduction of the 'universal tribe',i.e. universi. However; the new revolutionary Pauline system did not directly address the problem of evil but rather masked it, or attempt to solve it, with a humanly flawed 'divine command'.
The issue concerning morality was addressed by Immanuel Kant in several of his books or treatises. His theories has proven that morality in general is objective. For example, 'Thou shall not Kill or murder' is a universal code among humanity despite cultural differences. Even though; several scholars later, including Rachels, developed an idea that each culture varies in their understanding of moral codes, i.e. subjective morality. Despite these differences each culture had a 'Law giver' who tried to achieve or pursue objective morality within their unique cultural environment. Therefore, proving that morality is objective when introduced into the dialectic material timeline. The previous observation presents the current issue facing philosophical scholars. The issue of where objective morality derives from is debated constantly but solved through social evolution. Therefore, the only immaterial idea that is infallible is objective morality observed through social and biological evolution. Furthermore, the only fallible ideas are: 1) 'religion', 2) cultural based laws and, 3) proven flawed economic theories. This process naturally happens through social evolution when these immaterial ideas are evaluated and eventually discarded through refutation. The prime example of this are old religions which are no longer followed. For example, the religion by the name of Zoroastrianism was slowly abandoned by the Persian people over several years. This historical example is not an anomaly but rather a historical trend. Another obvious example is the complete disappearance of the ancient Egyptian religions. The eventual evolution happens because 'religion' in general is based on subjective morality. Paul's Christian 'religion' is also based on subjective morality. There are variables within Christianity which are categorically proven to be based on objective morality because these flaws or factors were already shared among pre-Abrahamic tribes and other belief systems.

Therefore, Paul's ideas are based on a cultural bias and based on a flawed subjective morality. There are several evidences or examples to prove this hypothesis. First, the issue of slavery within the New Testament canon would be presented in two parts: directly and indirectly. The evidence is the direct order by Paul to tell "slaves" to be loyal to masters (Ephesians 6:5-9). The next evidence is the indirect order expressed by Paul in the letter to Philemon, which is an example of condoning slavery, where he does not say emphatically to stop the practice. This is primarily troubling for anyone who is following the current moral codes. The practice of slavery is even mentioned by the gospel writers in Matthew 18:25 and Luke 12:45-48. It is also reflected in the Old Testament canon in Deuteronomy 23:15-16. Even if we are to pretend that these commands and regulations are temporary then why Paul did not openly oppose the practice of slavery amongst his followers? Another important question arises concerning the Book of Revelation, why has John did not mention the removal of slavery? The reason is because John, Paul and the New Testament writers all expected the return of Jesus to be during their lifetime or two to three generations afterwards! Which is also another proof of a false prophecy and a flawed human prediction! The example is given in the Book of Revelation, the very treatise which predicted not only the physical return of Jesus but also the termination of the material timeline of history. John, in the Book of Revelation, commits the same error in Revelation 13:16 by describing "slaves" receiving the mark of the beast. This example and verse is an indirect reference to the Roman empire itself. Therefore, identifying Nero as the man of "666". However, even today at this modern time, it is now proven that the abhorrence of slavery is a universal moral imperative as much as 'Thou shall not kill or murder'. This has been proven empirical and philosophically abhorrent among sentient beings over time. The evolution of this particular moral code has transformed it into a universal moral imperative proving the existence of an objective moral code evolving through time. Therefore, this transformation or social evolution was enacted without the direct command from God which was clearly missing from Paul's letters to his followers. Furthermore, the most important question manifests itself, where was God to tell Paul that slavery is wrong and immoral?

The next evidence is when Paul tells females or women to be keep silent in the congregation (1st Corinthians 14:34). These orders despite being minor issues during Paul's era, have been disregarded by most followers of Christianity today or during the modern era, proving that the "Law" stated by Paul is not an expression of a universal objective morality nor deriving from a creator. If the "Law" stated by Paul in 1st Corinthians was from God, then the "Law" would have been proven universal and infallible over the course of human history after Paul's lifetime. In other words, God would have presented an infallible law which would have never been violated by fallible human beings. Most importantly, even if not addressed directly then why God did not correct Paul concerning slavery or females speaking in front of a congregation? If there was ever a correction by his God, within the New Testament text, then this correction or command would have proven that his God existed. Has his God forgot to address to Paul the future fallibility of his Christian tribe? To include; why has John, in the book of Revelation, did not address the issue in the litany of "sins" in Revelation 21:8 or in the beginning addressing the seven churches? Of course, John points out "Jezebel" or a "Jezebel"(comparing 2nd Kings 9:10 and 2nd Kings 9:36-37) in addressing the "sin" of the Pergamos congregation or church in Revelation 2:12-23 but this addresses the "sin" of eating foods sacrificed to idols. The term "fornication" is either the problem concerning eating foods sacrificed to idols or the actual act of fornication or giving loyalty to the Roman Empire or all of the above? In the previous example, it presents the problem of disagreement between John and Paul therefore who is receiving the true message from Jesus their God? If they agreed about women not speaking in front of congregations then why is not the issue stated by John in the Book of Revelation specifically pointing out this particular "sin" in Revelation 21:8?

The previous evidence proves that the New Testament is not from a creator but rather a reflection of the previous cultural moral codes. It even proves that these cultural codes derive from the previous Jewish moral codes. The Christian moral code (and even the Jewish moral code) has in its core some of the general objective moral codes. However, the objective moral code derives from human understanding through social biological evolution and not from an infallible creator. Rather, Paul's directives and even his supposed 'divine command' derives from a flawed relativistic or subjective moral code. If it is culturally relativistic then the New Testament writers are not receiving their commands from a god nor a creator but from their cultural environment. Therefore, if it is from a cultural environment then the laws or commands are not from a creator. The very process presented previously is not completed without further evidence. Let us evaluate the original Ten commandments by Moses. It is known historically that Moses was influenced, philosophically, by the actions and belief of a previous pharaoh during his era. The name of this pharaoh is Akhenaton who instituted the worship of one god or creator - the sun god of Egypt. Nevertheless, Moses observed the various ancient Egyptian moral codes but made ten, out of the thirty ancient Egyptian commands, the guidance of the Jewish tribe. Let us be rational on this subject. If the Law of Moses was universal and completely infallible then there should be neither redundancy nor subjective commands. If there are redundancy or repeats and also subjective commands then Moses never received a 'divine command'. However, there are at least two clear examples noted: 1) The regulation to follow the Sabbath is subjective because it does not cover non-Jews. 2) The order not to 'steal' and not to 'covet' or 'desire' your neighbor's property. These two commands, 'steal' and 'covet', are also related with 'love thy neighbor'. The previous is an example of redundancy.

Paul's reaction to the above problem was to revise it. The revision forced the idea of Paul's 'universal tribe' through 'grafting'(or adopting) non-Jews stated in Romans chapter eleven. The revision or change allowed the two previous problems to be non-factors between the members of the new Pauline tribe. These factors were the Sabbath day and property related commands instituted by Moses. The Sabbath day actually was related to working and simply a day of remembrance. The Sabbath was redefined by the leadership of the Jesus movement (Paul, James and others) and the property commands were simplified. The problem is that if the god of Moses was perfect then why institute these commands when they were intended to be broken in the future? Or is this yet another example of social evolution?

Another example is the economic absurdity of Paul's evaluation of an economic observation when he states in 2nd Thessalonians 3:10 an economic directive. This could be disproven for obvious historical reasons. For instance, if a company decides to hire or not hire it is based on market forces and not the individual's willingness to work. The previous sentence is an observation of the introduction of the industrial revolution and industrial age where the phenomenon of long unemployment is observed by an epistemological reality. In other words, based on empirical data and facts. Furthermore, the transformation of the industrial revolution shifted the human mass from mostly occupations in the agricultural realm into industrial occupations. The main question: if the message(s) of Paul, and the later convenient Millennialist John in the book of Revelation, was meant to be fulfilled after their generation then why did God omit to mention the industrial revolution? There is not even a hint of any social transformation from a mostly agricultural economy into an industrial one. The economic flaw acted upon by Paul, and other New Testament writers, was their negation of this universal social transformation. The next example is very convincing of John's false predictions. Why did John fail to mention the "sin" of usury? Which was one of the causes that lead to the destruction of the Temple in B.C. 587 by the Babylonians (Ezekiel chapter eighteen). Why did John fail to mention the causes of unemployment in the Roman empire? The reason of the previous observation is based on the fact that the rise of slave labor contributed to the many riots within the Roman empire because it lead to high unemployment among the Roman citizenry. Therefore, the composition of Revelation is based on material issues and self-interest to preserve the nascent Christian community against the material chaos within the Roman empire. The writer of the Book of Revelation has clearly employed a political tactic using 'religious' symbolism. The writer of the Book of Revelation, John, has employed the 'window of opportunity' tactic and 'the expansion of the scope of conflict' tool, a political phenomenon noted by E.E. Schattschneider.

Paul's predictions is all-too-human and exposes his message as a flawed 'divine command'. Clearly, the omissions of the economic 'divine commands' within the Bible itself is proof of fallibility. Again, the book of Revelation and the rest of the New Testament canon failed to mention the importance of forbidding 'usury'. Furthermore, failed to predict the introduction and invention of the modern banking system. Of course, the only religious figure to mention such regulation was "prophet" Muhammad within the Islamic texts. It leads to the absurdity that Islam is a valid faith, among Christians and Jews, especially when Muhammad is fairly noted by attempting to apply such regulation - (Deuteronomy 15:11, Ezekiel 18:5-13, Nehemiah 5:7 and Galatians 2:10). What happened? A later 'religion' outperformed the Judeo-Christian standard and community? Muhammad, the Arab social revolutionary, by applying the very regulations which has been missing among the new tribe(Christian) and old tribe(Jewish) since after A.D.70 has presented a dilemma. Why has John, the author of the book of Revelation, omitted such an important regulation? Since the "sin" of usury contributed to the destruction, according to Ezekiel(Ezekiel chapter eighteen), of the previous Temple by the Babylonians and then repeated by the new Babylonians, i.e. the Roman empire (Revelation 18:2 and 18:10). It is obvious, the book of Revelation is not a book of a divine source but rather the product of the natural heart and mind. Why has Paul not received a command concerning the dangers of the modern banking system like something similar in Ezekiel 18:5-13? The reason is because Paul predicted falsely the physical return of Jesus before the Temple's destruction by the Romans. The next false prediction was then formed after the execution of Paul by the Romans and Nero - The Book of Revelation. Therefore, John also predicted falsely the physical return of Jesus after the Roman's empire destruction of the Temple in A.D.70. These are the facts: Usury is necessary for the capitalist profit system to survive and this has been proven through social evolution. The imposition of usury or financial interest allows the introduction of privatization in the modern era of financial exchanges and economics. Therefore, all three faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam are proven flawed and fallible. The point is that the transformation of society from a mostly agricultural economy into an industrial one was complimented with the growth of the "usury" or financial interest system.

Another example is the term: "Amen" which is shared with the followers of Islam(opening prayers in Islam). This term is rooted within the ancient 'religion' of the ancient Egyptians especially among the followers of pharaohs Akhenaton and Amenhotep. In the ancient Egyptian religion, the term "amen", means the "concealed one". This is explained in depth, on page 85, by the scholar - Anthony T. Browder - in his book Exploding the myths Volume 1: Nile Valley contributions to Civilization. Moses then repeated this pattern of worship stated in Deuteronomy chapter 27:15-26 by also mentioning the term "amen" in a ceremonial mass proclamation after repeating the moral codes.
The previous various examples proves the absurdity of the 'divine command' within the New Testament canon. Furthermore, the physical return of Jesus during Paul's or John's generation is also proven to be false by the very words of Paul himself (1st Corinthians 7:26-29).


Another evidence is the attempt by James, the supposed half-brother of Jesus, to state in his own manner that the Christian subjective morality is infallible. However, by mixing obviously the generally observed and derived objective morality or the mixing of the two is actually evidence that the words within his book and the rest of the New Testament are not the actual words of God but a human manifesto. If we read through the book of James, a book attributed to his authorship, we could see he recognized an objective moral code (James 2:8, 2:10-12) which was derived from the texts of Moses. Moses derived his codes from the Egyptian religious moral codes which contains at least thirty moral codes. James; through the book of James attributed to him, added specific Christian subjective moral codes (James 2:12, 2:17-20), which are products of his social environment, along with the objective moral codes mentioned previously. It is obvious, Christianity as a 'religion', survived based on its non-violent emphasis and an attachment to the universal and naturally derived objective moral codes. However, is this the case? After the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Christian community took the reigns of leadership. The Christian leadership then went aggressive to eliminate the 'Gnostic' followers and other minorities. The pursuit to eliminate and purge out certain elements counters the initial message of the founders of the said belief system. Is it moral or ethical to "purge" or eliminate certain segments of the previous peaceful movement which have a different "gospel"? The previous particular case in history where the oppressed becomes the oppressors as is explained through the words of the recent modern existentialist Albert Camus in his book - The Rebel - is evident in the case of Christianity. The behaviour of the movement proves, even in this case, that Christianity is a natural product of human beings rather than a supernatural creation.


The attainment or pursuit of objective morality is the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, morality is objective and it does not derive from a creator. Rather; it is based on the actions and understanding of sentient beings,through natural biological altruism, by observing the prime goal of ultimate justice and happiness,i.e. objective morality.

The subject of 'Rule Utilitarianism' and 'Act Utilitarianism' comes up when doubtful circumstances arises concerning the manifestation of 'evil' in society. The examples will be given and then a response:

"where do you put your money? Apart from ethical considerations (do you lend to a liquor store that provides good income to a family, do you invest in a business that is run by a polygamist, and will feed all his wives and children etc. etc.) one could also take a more economic view: what will help a country grow?"

The response: The issue of each example could be answered to the current laws within each economic case. If there are no stated laws concerning each case than it is permissible because "evil" has not been enacted by the one giving money because the individual has not violated any standing law within that particular society. The formation of a law is a common agreement between the ruled and the ruler(s) of a society. In other words, an agreement between the acting agent(individual) and reacting agents(community or society). If there is a standing law against giving money to any circumstance or examples given above then it violates the utilitarian ethic.

There are also cases which were not imagined and this is where Immanuel Kant's observation comes into the picture. The categorical imperative has been summarized earlier as:"Good producing Good". However, it is really a statement suggesting that morality is absolutely objective. The statement by Immanuel Kant is stating that individuals knows what is right and wrong without knowledge of agreed upon laws. For instance; the individuals(moral acting agents) who oppose unjust current laws, agreed upon laws, are following and recognizing the feeling of Kant's absolutely objective morality. There are hints within Kant's writings which suggest that these "feelings" of knowing absolute objective morality derive from a supposed supernatural source. However, as will be proven these "feelings" are actually derived from biological evolution and therefore social environments. Morality is not absolutely objective because it will be proven not to be so.

Therefore, an extension of the utilitarian ethic has already been elaborated by current utilitarian philosophers to include the "feelings" of natural rights expressed through Immanuel Kant's categorical and hypothetical imperatives.

 



Chapter 25 - Christianity: The answer to the spiritual Alienation to the Temple

Chapter 25 - Christianity: The answer to the spiritual alienation to the Temple

 

The removal of the Temple as a significant symbol has been expressed by John within the Book of Revelation. Therefore; Revelation 21:3 and 21:22 expresses the intent of the writer to remove the "curse" of the Temple because it impeded another important concept which Paul and some of the New Testament writers agreed upon or had consensus. The consensus was the "grafting" of the Gentiles into the fold of Christianity. The previous statement is supported by the existence of the Jewish-Christians and then Paul's critique of James' behavior (Galatians 2:12-17 and Ephesians 2:11-15) and Paul's doctrine (Romans chapter eleven) which agrees with Revelation chapters seven, eleven, fourteen, and twenty-two. The explicit expressions through the writings of the New Testament tells the reader the significance of a change which occurred through Paul's earlier Dispensationalist doctrine.

 

Ludwig Andreas von Feuerbach (1804-1872) wrote a book titled: Essence of Christianity (1841). The book explains the "alienation" concept to be the separation of individuals or self from humanity and nature because of the unrealistic goal in attaining the pleasure of a specific object ("God"). The previous chapters which contains the previous arguments against Christianity has been proven valid. Therefore, the contents of Ludwig Feuerbach's arguments and presentation will now be evaluated and discussed.

 

Ludwig's earlier works, Pierre Bayle (1838) and Philosophie und Christentum (1839), says about Christianity: "that Christianity has in fact long vanished not only from the reason but from the life of mankind, that it is nothing more than a fixed idea."

 

Overall reading and meaning of Ludwig's alienation principle as it pertains to "religion" in general and "gods" or a creator in particular are in three:

 

( 1 ) Acting Agent (Self Projection or the Ego)

 

( 2 ) Reacting Agents (Group Projection)

 

( 3 ) Projected Agent (Creators,Creator,God, Gods or no "god" or the "Ego")

 

All three projections are derived from the acting agent(the sole individual). The term of "Ego" is a borrowing from the philosophy of individualism, philosophy of Max Stirner - the opposer of Ludwig Feuerbach, Karl Marx, Freiedrich Engels, and the collectivistic materialists in general. Max Stirner was more extreme because he came up with the idea that individuals are alienated from themselves by the objects of "God", humanity, nationalism, and every ideology. While Karl Marx and Freiedrich Engels saw the role of the state in the liberation of mankind from their alienation. Marxism saw the state's role in bringing the family, money or material substance to the individual.

 

There are several problems with the philosophies of individualism and Marxism(collectivism). Atheistic materialism, even expressed by Max Stirner, totally reject the possibility of a (neutral)creator. The recognition of the possibility of a neutral creator and the proven dialectical material history of Marx creates two new groups: Agnostic materialists and Deist materialists. The previous formed on the idea that there is not enough data to formulate an opinion on the matter and the later formed on the acceptance of a neutral creator. The 50% probability principle, from a previous chapter, makes a statement of the possibility of a neutral creator. Therefore, the unknown Projected Agent may exist even if the Acting Agent is not projecting such an object. Furthermore, an Acting Agent who is an Atheist materialist still has a "Projecting Agent" which is the furtherance of "good" acts.

 

Furthermore, the idea of the corporate entity has already been introduced into the consciousness of human beings. Moreover, both individualism and sole state collectivism could not prevail against this particular entity. In other words, the corporate entity is a form of collectivism which is part of the reacting agent(Group Projection). Individualism fails on this main issue. Th group of individuals interacting with the sole individual invalidates the individualism of Max Stirner. The existence of "culture" and first learned language refutes individualism. The reason is because an individual learns the two previous objects from other individuals existing in Group Projection(reacting agents).

 

The problem, as it is being explained through the Essence of Christianity, are the acts committed under the name of "religion" which creates doubt to the validity of the said "religion". The Hegelians, name deriving from Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770 – 1831), had two main problems in Germany towards the Prussian authorities: The state structure and the religious class. The founding members, which Ludwig Feuerbach was part of, critiqued the validity of the "religion". Then years later the young Hegelians, which Karl Marx was part of, critiqued the Prussian state structure itself.

David Strauss, one of the main members of the Hegelians, also wrote an earlier treatise presenting Jesus as simply as a human being: The Life of Jesus. The main issue or subject is the importance of "acts" which is an outward expression of the projection. In other words, there are problems between the definition of the Christian faith and the various "acts" attributed to Jesus.

 

The errors within the New Testament were already presented and the religious philosophers defending the Christian faith were refuted. David Strauss and Ludwig Feuerbach both have already written volumes concerning the historical errors and philosophical flaws of the belief system of Christianity. However, they have not presented a refutation against a possible neutral creator. Nor have they thoroughly investigated the connections between the inter-relationship of all the books within the New Testament canon.

 

If the neutral creator exist then the object is separated from nature because of causality or 'cause and effect'. In other words, the neutral creator would not be part of the 'cause and effect' mechanism of the universe or the universal timeline which started at a supposed 'big bang'. Therefore, the natural realm is the mirror of the said object. In comparison, to how we see ourselves as mirrors of others. In other words, the neutral creator would be the acting agent and nature would be the reacting agent. The nature described is the whole universe and its materials as it relates to us as a neutral substance. We, as human beings, derive from the neutral substance(please; refer back to Rene Descartes' classification of the three objects or substances in the universe, however, the "eternal" substance describing "God" would no longer exist because it refers back to "fixed" or first cause of Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas' formulae).

 

As human beings, our self-awareness of "good" and "evil" forms our actions. Our actions towards each other is what defines "good" and "evil". In other words, our total understanding of an objective moral imperative is limited by the social conditions which create a relative or imperfect understanding of morality unless subjected to natural evolution. Therefore, what is needed are "good" individuals, "good" corporations, and "good" state governance. The "good" is within the definition of natural rights and its preservation. Furthermore, a possible neutral creator would not be subjected to these conditions because "good" and "evil" derive from the understanding of a sentient being. Therefore, we are alienated from a proven probability: Our positive attributes which derive from our good acts or good works. The first principle of Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative expresses this possibility: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

 

The foundation of Christianity derives from its alienation of Jesus himself (Revelation 21:3, Revelation 21:22 and the Gospel of John 2:19-21) . In other words; the missing input from Jesus, concerning new issues, created the impetus for the formation of Christianity. In comparison to the three previous paragraphs, we witness the three errors: (1) The lack of historical verification because it is known Matthew, the first writer of the first Gospel, wrote his Gospel when Paul was an active member of the community years after Jesus' death. (2) Hence, there are no actual words of Jesus himself then there would be no reason for the four Gospels. The very fact that there is a 'cause and effect' mechanism like the 'focusing events' mentioned earlier invalidates the Gospels. (3) Anyone with any belief could do "good" and forbid "evil" which is universal. James even challenges the early Christians: "But you know, vain man, that faith without (good) works is dead?" (James 2:20)

 

Christianity was formed from the spiritual alienation to Jesus the spiritual Temple or their object. The first error was already presented through the acts and words of James himself. James 2:20 creates two impossibilities: (1) What is the definition of "good" works? (2) What is "good" faith for a Christian believer? Remember the Book of James was composed to address the various problems and confusions within the Christian movement and community during this early stage of development.

 

 

The thesis: The impossibility to emulate Jesus and therefore it is impossible to objectify(worship) Jesus.

 

* Jesus actions, "good works" to emulate, are limited to a specific era on the historical timeline. However, the "Golden Rule" is expressed in Matthew 7:12 (There is a possibility that Kant's idea derived from this specific verse and other verses in the New Testament canon). However, there are other "acts" of Jesus which limits the universalizability of the said "acts".

The verse which describes the 'objectification of Jesus' rule - The Gospel of John 14:23.

The verses which describes the 'historical limitation' of the above rule - Matthew 5:38-48, Matthew 6:19, Matthew 6:24, Matthew 18:16-18, and Matthew 19:21-30. This should not be a surprise all of the evidence derive from the first "gospel" as the next proceding "gospels" seem to repeat or edit out the presented verses.

 

* The next problem becomes apparent: the revision of the "gospel", by Paul, as he introduces new terms and phrases to initiate dialogue and corrections.

 

The terms: "dispensation" and "mystery" were often used by Paul to introduce a "new doctrine" into the collective "gospel".

 

The verses: Colossians 1:25-27, Ephesians 1:9-10, Ephesians 3:1-3, 1st Corinthians 9:17, 1st Corinthians 15:51, Romans 2:16, Romans 11:25, Romans 16:17, and Romans 16:25, 2nd Timothy 2:8, and 2nd Timothy 3:10.

 

Observation: If Jesus' actual "acts" and words are not completely followed then why worship Jesus? Why revise? Why edit? Why not follow his actual words? Jesus is supposed to be supernatural.

 

* A dialectical interaction should then never exist within the New Testament canon. "Dialectical" is meant as opposing opinions or forces creating a new synthesis or formation.

The verse which exposes the dialectical contradiction, the dialectical primer, within the New Testament canon: 2nd Timothy 3:16-17.

 

The dialectical contradictions: 1st Corinthian 8:1-13, Acts 15:19-20, Acts 21:18-25, Revelation 2:14 and Revelation 2:20.

 

The dialectical evidence of conflict between two forces concerning the consumption of foods sacrificed to idols: James 4:1, James 4:11-12, Titus 1:10-16, Galatians 2:12, and 1st Corinthians 15:32.

 

Observation: The absence of Jesus' opinion and advice concerning the 'foods sacrificed to idols' is evidence of a flaw concerning this particular Projected Agent.

 

* The last evidence is a historical manifestation flaw of the objectification concerning the Projected Agent called Jesus of Nazareth.

 

The fallacy of slavery: Ephesians 6:5-9, Colossians 4:1, 1st Timothy 6:1-3, and Luke 12:45-48.

 

Observation: Not only have humanity witnessed slavery by Christians but also the crusades. "Usury" or financial interest was also followed(Revelation 18:6). There is an absence of Jesus' words against slavery and its mandate for its complete removal. What happened? Why hasn't Paul received a 'divine command' from Jesus concerning this issue? Why hasn't Paul foreseen the removal of such a practice? Why hasn't Paul forced the issue for its complete removal? The reason is because Paul had falsely predicted the return of Jesus(1st Corinthians 7:26-29).

 

Conclusion: The objectification(worship) of Jesus has led to disastrous consequences throughout the history of Christianity rather than the obeying of the literal words or 'divine commands' by Jesus of Nazareth. The experience of Christians and Christianity to the Alienation of Jesus has exposed several contradictions and absurdities. There is an absence of Jesus concerning early and future issues concerning the Christian community.

 

The above has lead to three obvious results:

 

( 1 ) It is impossible to emulate Jesus of Nazareth.

 

( 2 ) It is impossible to objectify Jesus because he is proven to be 'Human' rather than "divine".

 

( 3 ) Jesus of Nazareth never resurrected and will not return. The Edict of Milan has sealed such a return.

( 4 ) Jesus of Nazareth was a social revolutionary who was executed by Roman authorities. Paul, James, and many others decided years later to create a fictional Jesus with supernatural qualities towards the Gentile population.

 

*( 3 ) The third result could be confirmed concerning the role of the 'foods sacrificed to idols in the Roman marketplace' as this issue was resolved by human beings years later.

 

If a neutral creator exist it will be because of the neutral creator's attribute of being an unknown Projected Agent. Therefore, sentient beings throughout the universe would be classified in the opposite spectrum as "known" Projected Agents because they exert "positive" and "negative" forces. The neutral creator is "unknown" because there is a 50% probability of the creator's existence and the neutral creator is "neutral". Even the words of Paul himself has shown that many during his era may have thought of the previous proposed hypothesis in a different manner - Acts 17:22-24.

The possible existence of a neutral creator as an acting agent and the universe(nature) as being a reacting agent refutes the notion of First (Fixed) Cause and all of Thomas Aquinas' five cosmological arguments: 1. Unmoved Mover, 2. First (Fixed) Cause, 3. Contingency, 4. Excellency, and 5. The Harmony of Nature.

The above formulae by St. Thomas Aquinas is not 100% proven because of the refutation concerning the New Testament canon. This is the reason why it is flawed. Furthermore, the only substance existing in or on the timeline of 'cause and effect' would be the universe(nature) itself and not the possible Projected Agent called the 'Neutral Creator'. In other words; the creator, as a neutral acting agent, exist alongside the universe(nature). Moreover, the neutral creator and the universe(nature) are both neutral.

The Anthropomorphism of a possible Creator:

*(4) The fourth result explains the creation of a supernatural or superman Jesus. The result was enacted by the Christian leadership for the survival of the Christian movement among the other various Jewish-Messianic movements. It was Paul, as a catalyst of change, which introduced a new doctrine for the expansion of membership expressed through the book of Romans - Romans chapter eleven. There is evidence through the Gospel of Matthew showing "dialectical" conflict through Matthew 10:6 vs. Matthew 26:13. It is highly probable that Matthew added the later verse, Matthew 26:13, when Paul introduced the new doctrine:

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church." - Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 3.1.1

The definition of Anthropomorphism is to humanize projected objects impossible to acquire and attempt to establish an interaction with the said projected object. In the previous setting of the proposed definition, Christianity has anthropormorphized two things: The Temple and Jesus (Revelation 21:22).

What is the historical evidence of the previous proposition?

The author, Rebecca Gray in Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus says:

" Finally, we shall see that one or two of the purity practices mentioned by Josephus were observed by priests and lay-persons alike; even these practices, however, suggest that the stricter group of Essenes treated their community, in some respects, as if it were the temple.
   Priests on duty in the Jerusalem temple wore linen breeches and, on special occasions, white vestments, also made of linen. The linen loin-cloths worn by the Essenes may not have been exactly like the breeches worn by priests, but they are similar enough, and unusual enough, to suggest that the Essenes were imitating, priestly dress in this respect. (pg. 87)

To understand further the phenomenon of anthropomorphism imagine that "evil" derives from the fallen angel of Satan. The previous is an issue with Judaism and as much with Christianity. As for Islam, there is a bit of a difference. "Satan" is not a fallen angel but a Jinn(spiritual being) from Earth and parts of the Qu'ran, the holy book for Muslims, speaks of "evil" deriving from the actions of individuals themselves. The previous two are incorrect concerning the personification of "evil" and the later imitated several fallacies deriving from the previous two.

The Biblical evidence in agreement with Rebecca Gray's research is located in Acts 2:46 and Ephesians 2:21. There are also examples in the book of Acts which presents a form of communistic idealism which was later expressed by Karl Marx: Acts 4:32-37, Acts 5:1-11, and Acts 6:1-3. Paul's creation of the Christian projected agent - Jesus(Christ) of Nazareth - transformed the relationship between Jews and Gentiles(non-Jews). It was Paul's introduction of a transformative figure which united the previous factions into one new entity(Ephesians 2:15). Of course, explained with the soon appearing projected agent which never occured(1st Corinthians 7:16-31). Again, the reason why Paul had done this was to eliminate the years of antagonism between Jews and non-Jews in the region therefore removing the need for a physical Temple. In the case of Karl Marx, the projected image or agent is the state. Marx' thought was a copying of Hegel's concept of the transformative role of the state entity. Karl Marx presented a material projected agent which could interact with the individual(acting agent). While Paul, earlier introduced a "spiritual" or immaterial projected agent. The former highly probable with imperfect results and the later impossible to produce or emulate. Furthermore, both are flawed projected agents. However, there is a difference between the said two. Marx' doctrine was more realistic in contrast to Paul's doctrine because Paul's doctrine has to be believed without question while Marx' was based on trial and error which leaves room for change or evolution.

The spiritual alienation to the Temple is given:

( 1 ) To remove the "cycle"(wormwood) of purification for the physical Temple, everytime it is destroyed, the new doctrines were created by Paul and then embraced by the rest of the Christian leadership.
( 2 ) The Temple is no longer relevant because its relevance negates Christianity.
( 3 ) The Temple and Jesus are objects, immaterial or "spiritual", which no longer could be physically destroyed.
( 4 ) The Temple and Jesus are both preserved, "spiritually", through the Pauline doctrines of "Body of Christ" and the supposed resurrection of Jesus.

The proposed model which expresses the previous notion of christian 'alienation':

Christians(physical material existence) <--> Jesus(physical then "spiritual") <--> Temple("spiritual" immaterial existence).

If we separate and form the common denominator then the pursuit of happiness is universal among all mankind and sentient beings(James 2:17). The pursuit of happiness is to remove the alienation from our positive attributes which resides in all of our projected agents and only through "good" acts and "good" works its liberation is highly probable. The previous variable or factor exist within the Christian's projected agent.