Previously UK's Chief Rabbi, Sir Jonathan Sacks, in A History of the World in 100 Objects. Neil macGregor. The British Museum 2012.
Sacks was discussing the discovery in 1872 of the story of the flood (Noah story but under an entirely different personage, Atrahasis.)As the details are exactly the same, the conclusion has to be that the Hebrews copied the flood story.
Clearly there is a core event behind both narratives.....................................What the ancient texts that tell flood stories do is talk essentially of the great forces of nature being controlled by deities who don't like human beings very much, and for whom 'might makes right'. Now the Bible comes along and retells the story, but does so in a unique way-God brings the flood because the world was filled with violence, and the result is that the story becomes moralised, and that is part of the Bible's programme. This is the radical step from polytheism to monotheism -from a world in which people worshipped power, to the Bible's insistence that power must be just and compassionate, and from a world in which their are many forces, many gods, fighting with one another, to this world in which the whole universe is the result of a single rational creative will. So the more we understand what the Bible is arguing against, the deeper we understand the Bible.
Sacks re-positions the flood as a literary trope, which it is, although possibly true. In the above he makes several historical errors, besides intellectual ones:
1) He claims that the polytheistic gods were continously fighting each other, but such fighting as there was reflected the in-fighting of ancient dynasties. Monotheism reflects Empire institutions, a single stable entity based upon an individual of immense power who has the right of life and death over his subjects. See Book of Job (and feel frightened). Cheerfully, the ancient gods dealt with the cosmos and left humans alone-they were after all the ones sustaining the god's/goddesses' existence through ritual, prayer, and sacrifice.
2) The Epic of Atrahasis shows human-kind were created to help the younger gods, morphing later into angels, with agricultural and building work. In the creation process, the god We-illu is sacrifised and his intelligence, blood, and flesh is added to human beings-infusing thereby divinity within human-beings, creating semi-independent status. Unfortunately, as the human population expands, their chatter and general noise annoy Enlil (in this the chief god) who decides to destroy them. He decides to send a devastating flood to kill them all. Ea or Enki (the clever god) sets out to help them. He tells the wise and good Atrahasis to build an ark, in which are the seeds of life, to save himself, his kin and material creation. Enkil regrets his actions, but is partly angry and relieved when Atrahasis emerges to make a sacrifice. The story reflects on human mortality, but also encourages a new relationship between gods and humankind whereby the gods value human kind more. In the story of Noah, human evil promotes god's decision to send a flood, aiming for a restart or a re-creation. In the first, the fault lies with the gods, in the other with humankind -this Sacks identifies as morality.
This change Sacks considers morality when in fact it serves to redefine power and establish the idea that god can do no wrong. It is a change from multivarious human powers, to one great emperor. It does not concern morality, but power. The story also reinforces the status and power of priests, who interpret god.
Sacks holds that in polytheistic religions the gods worshipped power, but this is far from the case. They worshipped life, acknowledging the fragility of life, and the mutual need of god for human, human for god. The radical leap Sacks sees is one of power, not of justice and compassion-more fully exampled by Enki.
Sack's understanding of polytheism is at fault here; he sees it as many monotheists do, as lacking morality, compassion (surely this is what YHWH lacks, not gods like El?), and fails to see the sheer monstrousness of YHWH's actions-what about persausion, eh? Too complex? Although Sacks underlines god's morality, destroying a violent race, he uses violence himself, thereby insinuating violence into monotheism.
Polytheistic religions had well considered morality and ethical beliefs, of far greater clarity than those of monotheism, which in the end are power-based.
Dear Stanley,
The sole example you indicated cannot be evidence for your question statement. Can it?
Well, its a beginning. In fact there are several examples there, each of which can be built on and examined. I refuse to necessarily answer in depth my own questions, as surely the fun is lost?
My example analyses a perception of the Judaic god as being different from the panoply of previous gods in respect of exhibiting morality, which Sacks sees as the essence of Monotheism, this I have contested. As I said, it represents a beginning.
Hi Stanley,
As a linguist with deep interest in (and research on) morality, my reflexive question would be how morality itself should be interpreted in your question. I mean, morality can be understood as an etic construct, which reflects one's own outsider stance, or as an emic one, which reflects on how religious texts interpret moral values and position linguistic equivalents of 'morality'.
It seems to me that by comparing the moral nature of various religions across space and time one unavoidably tries to compare an apple with a pear, since one's own etic understanding of morality may be entirely different from how morality occurs/occurred to others in a different culture in a different time.
Just my 2 cents...
Best wishes,
Daniel
A good point, but not my comparison. The point is, Daniel, such comparisons are employed by representatives of monotheistic religions to clarify their own. They constantly use such comparisons, or people such as Sack's do, to show how superior monotheism is.
I see where you are heading, Stanley, and I agree with your train of thought. I guess ultimately, when we align ourselves with things, we tend to engage in comparison work.
It seems to me that what is of interest here is the fact that Sack's above-cited work approaches this comparison from a seemingly 'objective' angle...
As I've said in the piece above, I believe monotheism does not represent morality as they claim all through Researchgate-its a common theme-but a power base, one in which the god is always right, and human beings are always naughty children.
Sorry, I am a bit lagged behind (haven't really followed up discussions): do many people on Researchgate make such a claim? I guess there may be some, but ultimately Researchgate is a research forum, which implies that religion and related morality are up to various interpretations: and yours is certainly valid.
It would be fun to see how theology and philosophy experts see this thing (my views are rather limited and modest, due to the boundaries of my field).
Daniel, your views are valid. My point here was to analyse claims for the morality of monotheism, which I have tended to reject.
But, please, put in your own views whenever you can.
Stanley - as you are aware, the flood story was written by the Sumerian who were polytheist. Actually the clay tablet containing references to Atrahaiss (our modern day Noah) is available at the British museum (3rd floor). What is your explanation for having the Hebrew (monotheist) copying a story from the polytheist sumerian and using this story to question the morality of monotheistic religions? Also, the flood story is common in many polytheist and montheist religions. Just wondering about the basis for your question. Amir
1) The reason scribal Hebrew/Judaic priests copied the Flood story concerns the return from exile and the need to appropriate stories found there within an older culture. Monotheism, as I suggested, assumes a different approach to polytheism, suggesting any destructive godly act was the responsibility of human kind.
When an exiled elite returned to Yehuda charged by the Persians with assuming control this aristocratic top-down appeoach to control of the population must have appealed. We have no reason to believe at the time that Yehuda and its surrounds was exclusively monotheistic.
2) I think you meant 'question the morality of polytheistic religions'. I doubt the original exiles were doing that, just establishing a form of rule and control. Many aspects of Jewish, opposed to earlier Hebrew ideas, appear to reflect Persian and Assyrian ruling concepts. As I referenced there, rule of an emperor, not competing kings.
The morality and habitual contesting of that morality comes from Sacks, Islam, and Christianity during periods of colonial rule of cultures , such as India, with apparently polytheistic religion. References are still often made to polytheistc religions as intrinsically inferior to 'moral' monotheistic ones. On Research Gate morality as a religious imperative is often used to prefix a question or end it.
3) Sacks employed the idea that polytheistic religions, in the context of the Flood story, were power/will based and without compassion, and the monotheistic religion(s) had a compassionate god (s). This is simply not true, but a common trope by believers in monotheistic gods. My point here is, that in the monotheistic tale humankind are presented as wicked and need to be destroyed violently, creation has gone wrong (whose responsibility of course was that, but YHWHs), humankind are wicked, while in the polytheistic stories gods realise they made a mistake, many grieve for lost human kind, thereby the responsibility is the gods. Humankind are virtuous-to an extent. Surely, Amir this is a completely different view of the cosmos.
With regards to the above final point, such a viewpoint allows for intensive, intrusive priestly control, weeding out human badness and/or evil. This god surely is a despo?. God can never err (YHWH, Jesus' Father/Lord, and Allahok not quite like that for the Judaic religion )
4) The importance of question? Immense. Are monotheistic gods moral? No. Do monotheistic religions practise morality, no-it is to do with top-down power tropes. The ideas behind monotheistic religion is personified by Sacks
This is an analysis of the nature of morality, at least for montheistic religions and those who believe in them.
Stanley - I appreciate your detailed response. Let's examine a polytheist region such as Hinduism and compare it with a monotheist religion such as Judaism, then will you explain in what ways Judaism is morally inferior? Amir
Amir, for the reason I have given, Also, I have stressed it is not really morality but a power trope.
Anyway, in the end this is not necessarily about comparisons but about the nature of morality, that is within religion-which I dispute.
You may want to revise your question! Are monotheistic religions really moral?
A question I constantly put.
Sometimes people regurgitate what they've been told.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology