Delight Springs

Tuesday, May 25, 2021

Jefferson's Bible, Hume's Guide, Emerson's Address

LISTEN. In our Enlightenment Now course, zooming again this evening, we take up a number of questions prompted by Robertson's Very Short Introduction. Two in particular interest me:

  • The "Enlightenment Bible" may not have undermined revelation (30), but what about the Jefferson Bible?
  • What do you think of David Hume's view that Christians "supported their elevation of the next world above the present with a morality of self-denial," and that this is antithetical to what is naturally "useful and agreeable"?
Jefferson thought Jesus naturalized was a "sublime" moral teacher: "To the corruptions of christianity I am indeed opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."

Bertrand Russell famously rejected the notion of Jesus as among the "best and wisest" moral teachers.
I now want to say a few words upon a topic which I often think is not quite sufficiently dealt with by Rationalists, and that is the question whether Christ was the best and the wisest of men. It is generally taken for granted that we shall all agree that that was so. I do not myself. I think that there are a good many points upon which I agree with Christ a great deal more than the professing Christians do. I do not know that I could go with Him all the way, but I could go with Him much farther than most professing Christians can. You will remember that He said: ‘Resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.’ That is not a new precept or a new principle. It was used by Lao-Tze and Buddha some five or six hundred years before Christ, but it is not a principle which as a matter of fact Christians accept... (continues)

Russell's major and most serious indictment is against the teaching of a punitive afterlife for those who've "committed the sin against the Holy Ghost" and must thus anticipate an eternity of torturous hellfire. "I really do not think that a person with a proper degree of kindliness in his nature would have put fears and terrors of that sort into the world."

And then "there is the curious story of the fig-tree" Jesus cursed to death even though "it was not the right time of year for figs, and you really could not blame the tree." Buddha and Socrates would not have been so intemperate, nor would they ever have invoked supernatural powers to punish the innocent. And that's why Russell was not a Christian. He did not think Christ was the best and wisest, let alone divine. And, btw, he did not believe in God or immortality. 

Julian Baggini's new book on Hume is out today. We've noted in previous classes (particularly Democracy in America, last semester) that the best defense of Hume against the charge of racism is to be found in his own philosophical skepticism: had he taken it truly to heart, he'd not have penned those odious sentiments in the first place. That's Baggini's line, anyway.

"Hume's philosophy is grounded in an honest assessment of nature--human nature in particular... [The Great Guide] follows Hume on his life's journey, literally walking in the great philosopher's footsteps as Baggini takes readers to the places that inspired Hume the most, from his family estate near the Scottish border to Paris, where, as an older man, he was warmly embraced by French society. Baggini shows how Hume put his philosophy into practice in a life that blended reason and passion, study and leisure, and relaxation and enjoyment. The Great Guide includes 145 Humean maxims for living well, on topics ranging from the meaning of success and the value of travel to friendship, facing death, identity, and the importance of leisure." g'r

We'll see if Hume's assessment of human nature is honest, accurate, and adequately inclusive. What we can be sure of, in advance, is that it's thoroughly naturalistic. It may not be "sublime," but is it enlightened? 

And was our University president's decision, announced yesterday?

"Effective immediately, and in accordance with guidance from federal and state public health officials, I am removing campus mandates for the wearing of masks, maintaining social distancing and observing modified COVID-19 room capacities..."
==
Postscript. Just learned it's Emerson's birthday...




No comments:

Post a Comment