To help us reverse some of the negative comments in recent “your view” topics, we are going to do a positive your view – we are going to look at which one man or woman has contributed the most to the betterment of society throughout all history. You can pick anyone from anytime or any place.
What One Person Has Done Most Good For Society?
My answer: This is a very tough question for all of us – and me especially! I am torn between a number of different people for my answer, but finally, at a push, I have chosen Alexander Fleming. It was he who discovered penicillin, for which he won a shared Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. How many countless millions of people have had their lives saved by his discovery? How many numerous diseases have been wiped out? I was tempted to pick Louis Pasteur for his earlier work in microbiotics, but he lost out because his method of pasteurization prevents me from getting great unpasteurized cheese in New Zealand!
My divorce attorney who was able to get me SOLE custody for my beautiful babies. Away from a man who was not abusive to the children, but brutally abusive to their Mother (me).
Yeah, make the jokes. Everybody hates lawyers, until you need one.
idk if anyone said this already but. i think george washington carver. he made some many things from simple beans. alot of things we take for granted. also ben franklin
k1w1taxi,
I am a big proponent of any kind of science that saves A BILLION PEOPLE from starving to death. It doesn’t matter if its genetically modified or not. All these GM-phobes are woefully ill-informed anyways.
I reiterate my vote for Norman Borlaug.
Epicurus!
For his excellent positive philosophy
I haven’t read through all of these comments, but as far as I can tell, nobody has offered a good reason why Jesus could be considered the person who did the most good, short of someone saying that he’s saved us all. So somebody please, tell me, I want to know, what do you believe that Jesus has done for you?
Forgive me anyone who finds this offensive, I’m only trying to incite intelligent conversation and debate and at the same time to gain some understanding of people’s concept of Jesus.
My opinion personally is that Jesus, quite unintentionally started a religion, one that has become very popular lately. And while I will agree that religion can give a lot of people direction, guidance and faith, I believe that if Jesus had never lived, people would have found this things somewhere else. People will ALWAYS look for someone to believe in, and let’s be honest with ourselves, things weren’t so bad before Jesus showed up.
And while I certainly know that a lot of good has been done in the name of Christianity and religion in general, I have also seen the evil it can do. It’s true, we don’t consider Christians to be particularly dangerous, in general, acts of terrorism and such are usually attributed to Muslim extremists. But on the other hand, I have seen religion lead to violence, Christianity included, don’t forget that hate groups such as the KKK and the Nazis were and are Christians. Though it’s unfair for me to judge Christianity by the worst of it’s kind, these groups do commit their actions in the name of Jesus.
I believe that if Jesus had never lived, much would be similar to how it is today, changes in the continuum of time not withstanding, as any change such as that would change the present dramatically, but I think people would go on believing in another god or savior, doing good and evil in the name of these religions, living by them, dying to defend them and doing all of the things that people do now in the name of Jesus Christ.
This turned out longer than I expected but if you wish to comment on anything I’ve said, or wish to communicate with me, just make sure that you put my name in your comment somewhere, I won’t be reading through every comment and that way I can just scan through those comments written for my eyes.
This is a very tough question and can not be answered properly, so I divided my choices in topics
Science: Leonhard Euler, a swiss mathematician who was the first person to introduce calculus properly and to spread the usage of complex numbers among many other scientific uses. He also defined many fundamental physical topics like hydrostatics etc.
I could have also taken Einstein but Euler laid down the basics to a huge generation of scientists, which is the best thing one can do.
World view: Charles Darwin. He could also run undoubtly for the best scientist but his main effect on us is to sepreate ourselves from old wives tales and to rethink about nature as a vivid process which is changing constantly.
Politics, Freedom: You can’t name a single person here because there were just too much great people in this field.
Thomas Paine, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela etc.
TicoTuanis (112) United States Marines Mmmm. Love Marines. Any man in uniform, but Marines esp.
Hippocrates? or perhaps one of the great greek doctors. as the Hippocratic oath is still used today and greek doctors were some of the first pioneers in medicine.
First off, I would like to say that this is a VERY good question! Of the many noble men and women our planet has hosted, picking the kindest and mst generous is exceedingly hard. But I gotta go with my gut and say Steven Biko – If it weren’t for that gentleman, the Western worl would never have even heard of apartheid (let alone start protesting it). He’s one of my heros, and has been since about 1979.
Too hard to pick one, because, as we can all see, depending on circumstances, different people are affected by different things.
There are probably thousands of unnamed pioneers, who developed techniques and advances, in all fields, that we employ everyday, without giving them any thought.
I do have to question the inclusion of Jesus though. You don’t have to be a Christian (or any other religion) to advocate peace, love, friendship or kindness. I’m not saying that atheists don’t kill. Of course they do, but I doubt that they are responsible for more deaths than have occurred in the name of religion.
“And still do. China if anything has made the situation worse, with the added bonus of being controlled by an oppresseive, genocidal regime.”
The question is not who is the lesser of the two evils, but rather “Who Has Done The Most Good”. Of which Dalai Lama is far from being justified. His reign isn’t popular, neither did he done anything much outside of Free Tibet movement. But hey, I guess it’s all right to accept money from a known terrorist “Aum Shinrikyo” if you have Richard Gere and Sharon Stone as your mouth piece.
Everyone who doesn’t breed is tied for the honor.
easy this one it has got to be winston churchill him standing up to nazi germany refusing to surrender refusing to ask for peace saved a lot of people all over the world but mainly Europe imagine if there was no western front in world war 2 germany would have been able to destroy the ussr and from that they could have controlled all of Eurasia and then who would hitler turn his genocide on. so in my opinion winston churchill saved hundredes of millions of people perhaps billions
Its a tie between heidi baker and mother theresa. Both are women who have devoted their entire lives to helping the lowest of the low. There efforts are marked on the earth
What I’m finding of enormous interest, at least for those who take the question seriously, is the far ranging group of answers. Answers honor people from religious, scientific, political, and artistic worlds.
Each answer gives one a little nugget to chew on, even when it’s obvious that the named person is *not* deserving of the title…they might still have accomplished some great good.
Fascinating.
Thank you.
“Its a tie between heidi baker and mother theresa.”
You should watch the Penn & Teller episode on Mother Theresa, for starters.
Maybe from a cultural point of view:
Despite the fact of beeing a conqueror (through killing lots of people) Alexader The Great did compile cultural tresures from half the ancient world. He founded Alexandria witch was maybe the greatest cultural center ever. Unhopefully most of the richness were destroyed accidently during roman ocupation.
Marco Polo does also deserve a mention. He started the cultural dialog betwen the western medieval world and the oriental cultures. He showed both sides that other civilizations were there.
I’m supporting the “Jesus” people but I’m also surprised that no one has yet mentioned Jean Vanier, founder of L’Arche. L’arche is a world-wide community for mentally ill adults. Jean Vanier has toured the world many times giving lectures on the importance of love and saving thousands of lives from loneliness.
Thomas Alva Edison – not because he had 1 major invention that changed the world (the first long-lasting safe lightbulb – have you ever tried doing something detailed by candlelight or gaslight?), but THREE, including the phonograph & motion pictures. Then there are the more forgotten but still important inventions like the small microphone, the electric company (using DC over AC), the floroscope (early Xray machine), stock ticker, and was instrumental in the creation of the first electric train system (i.e. light rail) in the US.
Whoever invented birth control.
- John D. Rockefeller.
- Óscar Romero
- Leonardo Da Vinci
I change my mind. My pick is whoever invented beer.
Not even Mother Theresa is free from corruption. I won’t go into it, you can look up her issues.
And when I said the Dalai Lama, I didn’t necessarily mean this one. There were also 13? before him.
Craig (136) Interesting you should nominate WC. I was listening to an author interview on the radio about three weeks ago that postulated the opposite effect from Churchill’s leadership ie it made the war longer and more costly in lives than did alternative strategies.
Sorry I can’t remember either the author or his book, but I do recall that from what I heard he was using a lot of 20/20 hindsight to come to his conclusions. And even then I still think many of them were wrong.
Cheers
Lee
Wow, so many people come to mind for this(as many have pointed out in previous posts) so ill try and get one that i have not seen mentioned as of comment 146. Upton Sinclair did a lot of good with his book “The Jungle”, showing the nauseatingly filthy conditions of meat packing plants at the time and what terrible conditions the workers were under. He caused many sanitation reforms in factories all over, and if not for him, people would have taken who knows how long to discover and fix this problem so buying meat would not have been like playing the lottery. Ironically though, that wasn’t his main point, his main point was the plight of the wage workers under a capitalist rule and all the hardships and grossness they had to endure, to quote the man “I aimed at the public’s heart, and by accident I hit it in the stomach.” But because of his fame he earned by publishing “The Jungle” he went on to write many books on all sorts of social injustices in the 20th century.
David (144)
Da Vinci I understand but would you care to elucidate on the other two?
Cheers
Lee
I’m gonna go with Buddha, as he has made the most difference in my life. Jesus could be there too, but Buddha’s message simply makes more sense to me.
Jesus did the most good. his followers in his name probably have done the most harm….following Jesus’s teaching’s we would all live better lives. There are too many arguments either way to defend all. I know i am a better person for trying to follow his teaching’s.
If we don’t get side tracked by “who killed in who’s name”. The historical impact of belief in Jesus and being a “good Christian” is the foundation for most other names in this list.
The foundation of Medical treatment comes from a Christian obligation to care for the suffering. Monks and scribes gave purpose to kept the western written word taught. Gutenberg’s printing press printed the bible to spread it among the people. There would have been wars regardless who believed in what – but day to day Christian morality and ethics among the common folk inspired everything we hold dear in civilization, from human rights to health care.
Now, I mite sound a little biased when I say this, but probably the guy who invented bacon… Yeah…
Wafa Sultan – google her speech.
Most people who save the world – you’ll never even know their name.
its funny, Jamie posts a friendly “your view” and it gets less attention. That says a lot.
Interesting isn’t it?
Jesus… Maybe. He seemed cool- I mean, condemning the rich to hell, championing the poor, a regular little Marx.
Plus, people always like the guy but condemn the results of the religion- ignoring all of the schools, hospitals, charities etc. All the stuff funded by the church, back before it was disengaged and the government picked up where it left off.
So yeah… Jesus. But Jesus the bloke, Jesus the pedagogue- not Jesus the son of God.
LooLoo, Thomas Edison did not invent the lightbulb. His assisstant did. Thomas Edison did, however, patent the first lightbulb. This act I believe basically precludes him from the arena of discussion in this topic, but hey, what do I know.
Massoluk, I didn’t suggest the Dalai Lama, but discussing his shortcomings as a leader and a person in the face of China’s disgusting seizure of his country is not big and not clever. Furthermore, Tibet as an overwhelmingly Buddhist country makes his absolute monarchy no more of a crime than the Pope’s rule of the Vatican. I don’t recall any ‘Free Tibet’ protests while he was still in control.
DDRM: “The foundation of Medical treatment comes from a Christian obligation to care for the suffering.”
While disease, violence and war are spread by demonic Atheists. Yeah yeah. Ever heard of Hippocrates, AKA ‘the father of modern medicine’?
“There would have been wars regardless who believed in what” So one more cause for war is OK because there are already plenty? If people are going to fight and die for something I would personally rather it was something rather more important than ‘who has the best God’. Remove the cause, remove the problem.
“but day to day Christian morality and ethics among the common folk inspired everything we hold dear in civilization, from human rights to health care.”
I’m sorry if my entire comment has come across as rude, but I simply cannot comprehend these totally spurious assertions, particularly the one above – I mean, in all serious, do you actually believe that?
Saith Jamie in the intro:
“To help us reverse some of the negative comments in recent “your view” topics, we are going to do a positive your view – we are going to look at which one man or woman has contributed the most to the betterment of society throughout all history. You can pick anyone from anytime or any place.”
I think we can all guess the genesis of this comment. Things got out of hand. Let’s try, for Jamie’s sake, for our sake, to respond to this, and all lists, as the intelligent people we are.
Santa Clause!
… but in earnest I’m still lobbying for Jean Vanier, founder of L’Arche.
I still lend my vote to Borlaug in this thing (with Jacques Cousteau as honorable mention) but I’m prompted to say something about this argument that persists here, about Jesus.
It’s perhaps easier, one might argue, to confuse Jesus with the religion of his followers than it is to confuse the Buddha with the religion or philosophy that grew up in his wake… Buddhism is not a bureaucratic, hierarchic religion, largely, and so lacking the sense of an outward “central authority” (other than the dalai lama and such) it perhaps seems easier to mentally divorce Buddhism from its “founder.” Nevertheless, it’s a mistake, it seems to me, to discount Jesus from this list because of the injustices committed in his name.
Jesus (and the Buddha) introduced an entirely new paradigm into the human consciousness, which in point of fact had simply not existed previously. Prior to Jesus there was an overwhelming sense of fatalism in the notion of human existence, as well as an utter lack of any sense of shared comity between individuals, and a lack of recognition of the humanity of other human beings. It isn’t that people weren’t aware that their fellows were also humans like themselves, and it isn’t that communities/cities/tribes etc. didn’t provide some sense of a communal spirit–but this is not precisely the same as the recognition that all men are brothers, and that an “enemy” is really the same as the self (hence the act of “turning the other cheek”). Jesus even went *beyond* the Buddha in this, in a sense–at least looking at it a certain way.
In any event, it’s to Jesus that the West, at least, owes its inherited sense (even if on MANY occasions we’ve only paid lip service to it) that the other individual over there is really the same as yourself, and you should therefore help him and sympathize with him—and that this *crosses over* all boundaries of race, creed, and nationality. Jesus also taught other things, some of which people have been less inclined to pick up on (read carefully, his message is not altogether very different from the Buddha’s, flaming speculation that Jesus went away to India for a time to study Buddhism, adapting it to a Judaic context) but at any rate, it’s to him that we owe an awakened sense not only of the Self, but of the other Selves all around us… and that’s no small thing. We like to ***** about how horrible our world has been, particularly over the last hundred years, and how we’ve done awful things to each other–sometimes in the name of Jesus. But we really need to be grown up about this and face that A) what’s been done in his name and what HE would have done are usually two VERY different things and B) the world, without his teaching, would have certainly been a great deal worse. In fact, we might not be here today, if not for the inner restraints on our own hatreds and passions which Jesus caused us to place upon ourselves.
Whatever you think of his divinity, the dude was one-of-a-kind and he did one of the greatest things ever for our civilization.
Chickensoup:
As you can see from my previous comment, I feel I have to take issue with your denunciation of what DDRM said in his/her earlier comment.
You’re right, of course, about Hippocrates, but as a specialist in ancient Greece, I feel I need to assure you that there’s a big difference between the PHILOSOPHY of health care in our post-Jesus world vs. that in the day of the ancient Greeks (and Egyptians, who were also accomplished, if incurious, physicians). Health care, of course, is largely a matter of practicality–it’s expedient to keep useful members of society healthy so they can go on being useful. And in ancient Greece this sometimes did cut across all lines to include slaves and other hoi polloi as well as the aristocratic. But it was largely a practical matter. The Greeks were highly inquisitive lovers of science who saw new ways of applying their brains to the pursuit of knowledge. Medicine was part of this–but the extent to which it was practiced out of an innate feeling of “one-ness” with one’s neighbor/fellow is pretty small. The Greeks did not possess this sense any more than any other ancient society–which is part of the reason that it was possible for them to ignore slavery, in large measure, as a social injustice. (Of course, yes, we did the same thing, but this simply proves that we are far from perfect, and do not always follow our better natures–not that we are the same as the ancients). In essence the Greeks did love life, and were followers of the “life impulse” more readily than the “death impulse,” if you will, unlike their Asian or Egyptian fellows (or later, the Romans). But this is not the same as our modern sense of what is “right” and true in regards to caring for one’s neighbor, etc.
You went on to quote DDRM and then reply:
““but day to day Christian morality and ethics among the common folk inspired everything we hold dear in civilization, from human rights to health care.”
I’m sorry if my entire comment has come across as rude, but I simply cannot comprehend these totally spurious assertions, particularly the one above – I mean, in all serious, do you actually believe that?”
Yes, frankly–*I* believe that–because I know it historically to be so. What is your reason for doubting this or asserting otherwise?
Note what I said in my previous comment about the paradigm shift that Jesus brought about (it took a while) in the modern mind. Prior to Jesus there simply was no sense of “social good” based on compassion and a shared sense of co-existence. The “social good” of the ancients before Jesus was rather based on expediency and practicality in large measure (I’m generalizing of course, but nevertheless this is largely so). It’s only after Jesus that we get the sense of doing good for the sake of doing good–or to put it more specifically, for doing what is “right” based on a shared sense of existence–that everyone around us is our brother and sister and that we are all, underneath, the same. That’s a day-to-day philosophy that had only the barest existence prior to Jesus (in the West at least) though some philosophers in Greece had touched upon it slightly.
Chicken Soup,
Again, the question is not who is the lesser of the two evils, but Who Has Done The Most Good. The current Dalai Lama didn’t do anything worthwhile when he was in Tibet or when he is an exile.
Frankly, when US gov. agency openly said the Tibet Coup against China failed in the past due to lack of support from the local, that should say something.
Leo Baekeland, he invented plastic in 1898 (which gave rise to newer synthetic plastics now in play). I honestly think that without the gift of plastic so many of today’s conventions would be lost. Even when you think medically, much of what we use in a hospital again, is made of plastic (from syringes, nebulizers, even the beds the patients lay on, etc.). I hope I do not see a “Green” backlash b/c I know it’s not the best at being biodegradeable but it got us through many advances through the past century+. Thanks a bunch to Leo!
****
161. Randall
****
Randall, has it been my imagination, or have you been unusually quiet of late? I’ve missed you.
Spanner is gone, and I thought maybe you had gone also.
Are you alright?
ben franklin. he invented EVERYTHING.
Randall, I must commend you on your posting 161.
As a person who has read most of the posts nominating/supporting Jesus and thought “***** Off” as much for the tone as the validity of Jesus as a nominee, I found your post to be one of the best written presentations supporting him.
Nice to see a mature sensible posting on the subject after some recent efforts in the LV.
Cheers
Lee
segue:
I hope Spanner hasn’t *really* left. But thanks for missing me. I’ve been caught up in a health issue. Hopefully it’s nothing. Thanks very much for asking though.
k1w1taxi:
Thank you.
Muhammad(pbuh)
147. k1w1taxi
my main point about winston churchill was he did not surrender when many people in the government wanted this the only other option for pm (lord halifax)in my opinion whould have bowed down to the pressure from his own government and surrendered
I’ll start by congratulating Mom424 on the best post so far. I will reiterate their comment that this topic is WAY too broad.
I’d also like to add a name to the candidates: John Locke. English philosopher who was instrumental in the liberalism movement out of the Age of Enlightenment.
However, I don’t think that any one person can be credited with an idea. Locke himself was influenced by Descartes, who was in turn influenced by other teachings.
Which leads me to the nominations by others of Jesus. Randall makes a decent argument but writes as though Jesus came up with the principles that he taught. From what I understand, Jesus was a jew and was simply teaching the ethics of judaism. Furthermore, there are no writings by Jesus, only those of the gospels, so it’s really these authors who should be applauded for spreading the benovolent ideas that Jesus is credited with.
What I’m getting at, is that if ideology is the category, then naming a particular individual is next to impossible, as thought is constantly evolving.
The same goes for Darwin. He’s credited with the theory of evolution but he was simply building on the work of others (see Lamarck) and managed to provide scientific support for the idea.
As a last comment, I feel the need to call DDRM and Randall on their assumption that “Christian morality and ethics among the common folk inspired everything we hold dear in civilization, from human rights to health care”. That is a truly egotistical, ignorant and inflammatory statement. How can you try to assert that these concepts weren’t also championed by buddhists, jews and ateheists? Plus, what does “christian morality” have to do with the conversation at hand?
umgrego2:
You’re laboring under some misconceptions, so allow me to clear them up for you:
“Randall makes a decent argument but writes as though Jesus came up with the principles that he taught. From what I understand, Jesus was a jew and was simply teaching the ethics of judaism.”
Incorrect, umgrego2. Yes, Jesus was a Jew, but no, he was most certainly NOT “simply teaching the ethics of Judaism.” I would suggest you re-read my earlier posts–I made it *quite* clear that Jesus introduced an entirely new paradigm into the consciousness of western civilization. Judaism prior to Jesus contained little of the ethos that Jesus taught–Jewish thought at this time still in large measure derived from the Torah, or the Law. This bears little relation to the teachings of Jesus, who by his own admission went beyond the Law and set a “new” law into being. Some of Jesus’ teachings spin off from Jewish Law, of course… but the ethos he introduced was entirely new and had no actual precedent in western consciousness.
“…Furthermore, there are no writings by Jesus, only those of the gospels, so it’s really these authors who should be applauded for spreading the benovolent ideas that Jesus is credited with.”
While true that Jesus left no writings, this is a somewhat spurious argument. History and philosophy grant to Socrates, the great ancient Greek philosopher, credit for his ideas, despite the fact that he wrote nothing in his lifetime and everything we know about him comes from his student, Plato. Moreover, the authors of the gospels would have had no ideas to spread if Jesus had not first spoken these ideas in the first place. Lastly, we do have the Gospel of Thomas, which, while apocryphal, has been the one non-biblical gospel generally accepted by scholars as being representative of the actual words of Jesus–in fact, in many cases it’s judged that Thomas *more closely* gets the words of Jesus right than the biblical gospels do. So while Jesus also did not write this, we do have what we believe are his actual words—and it’s what Jesus said that mattered–not who reported it or wrote it down. Your argument would say that we should give more credit to the reporter who publishes the words of the president’s latest speech FOR that speech, than we should give to the president himself–simply because he spoke it rather than wrote it down. Silly.
You also go on to say:
“As a last comment, I feel the need to call DDRM and Randall on their assumption that “Christian morality and ethics among the common folk inspired everything we hold dear in civilization, from human rights to health care”. That is a truly egotistical, ignorant and inflammatory statement.”
To begin with, I did not make that statement, DDRM did. However, yes, I support it.
I would ask you to explain how it is that this statement is “egotistical” and “ignorant.” I take it by inflammatory you refer to how it seems to discredit or steal credit, at least, from other religions. Hence your next statement:
“How can you try to assert that these concepts weren’t also championed by buddhists, jews and ateheists?”
A) Saying Jesus, as a figure, was responsible for the introduction and codification of certain principles, ethics and ideas is NOT the same as saying it was NOT also championed by others. I stated *clearly* in my comments that the teachings if Jesus closely mirrored the teachings of the Buddha—so your accusation is off the mark and reactionary. However, I also stated that Jesus in some ways went *beyond* the Buddha in his teachings. If you know anything about the Dhammaparda (the teachings of the Buddha)–which you apparently don’t–then you see clearly that while Jesus and the Buddha run parallel in many ways, they diverge on certain points, and Jesus actually takes things further–and is more clear, in a moral sense. This is by no means an indictment in any way of the Buddha–his mission, as it were, was simply of a different nature.
B) In any case, I saw this statement as relating mainly to WESTERN civilization, which is what I spoke of in my statements. I was not, therefore, speaking about Eastern civilizations and their ideals and systems of thought and ethics.
C) As I already pointed out, Judaism did NOT come up with the ideas that Jesus brought into our western consciousness. He built on some Judaic principles, yes, but Judaism itself did not formulate what Jesus taught.
D) There is no evidence whatsoever that atheists ever created any unique ethical system. This is not to say atheists can’t have ethics–of course they can. But no ethical system ANYONE comes up with nowadays is unique, after thousands of years of human history. But the simple fact is that Jesus’ system WAS unique–at least to the West, and while it bore much relation and similarity to Buddhist teachings, Jesus also deviated from that and what he taught was, in nearly every other sense, new and singular.
“Plus, what does “christian morality” have to do with the conversation at hand?”
That’s rather obvious, umgrego2. DDRM introduced the idea of Christian morality as the reason WHY Jesus should be considered as “the one who has done the most good.” And again, it comes back to the statement that the morality and ethos he laid down was entirely new to the Western mind and created the paradigm that we still work under to this day.
Randall, to imply that the Greeks practiced medicine purely to preserve the lives of useful people is to ignore the eentire basis of Greek society. The image you create is of a cold, heartless, machinistic society with little interest in the health and happiness of the people. This was simply not the case – empathy and thoughtfulness are evident in much of the documentation we have from this time, from the writings of Plato to ‘Oedipus Rex’. The philosophy of Christian health care also owes something of a debt to the influence and teachings of the Muslim Middle East, particularly in the Middle Ages. Social conciousness is not an exclusively Christian virtue, and can, in fact, be trampled over in puruit of Christian goals – just look at Mother Theresa, lauded as a near-saint despite her revolting “souls before bodies” policy. And if this really is such a pervasive part of the Christian psyche, why doesn’t America, one of the most fervently Christian nations in the world, employ its values in either its domestic or foriegn spheres? Why is there no state healthcare in America, while the largely atheist nations of Britain, Canada, China, Cuba, Germany etc. all do? Why did it take Britain thousands of years of Christianity alongside slavery and bloodshed in the name of the Empire before adopting the Beveridge report as its guide? And finally, why are these values prevelant in non-Christian countries, even those going back thousands of years BC, such as Japan?
“Yes, frankly–*I* believe that–because I know it historically to be so. What is your reason for doubting this or asserting otherwise?”
Because to claim that these values amongst common people are ‘Christian’ rather than ‘human’ is quite frightening to me. Empathy is not a Christian value, and a simple knowledge of non-Christian people and societies proves this. I have to say I find the fact that I have to attempt to impress this fact upon you rather confusing – I feel that the onus is on you, rather than I, to back up your claim, being as it was proposed by DDRM, rather than the opposite by me. If you feel otherwise, let me know and I will respond in kind.
“It’s only after Jesus that we get the sense of doing good for the sake of doing good–or to put it more specifically, for doing what is “right” based on a shared sense of existence–that everyone around us is our brother and sister and that we are all, underneath, the same.”
I would highlight the fact that Buddhist teachings have been around since 2500 BC – do you think that this was an isolated conciousness?
“That’s a day-to-day philosophy that had only the barest existence prior to Jesus (in the West at least”
And which continued to have only the barest existence until the Renaissance and the social revolutions in the 18th – 20th centuries. I see no correlation between Christianity and the rise in social conscience – as a matter of fact, I see more of a link between this and the rise of atheism-informed scientific practices. Draw your own conclusions.
Adolf Hitler.
Before anyone *****s there pants, i just want to say that Hilter has brought more good to the world than any one person will ever. He showed us our weakness and how corrupt the human being can get. The general worldwide illegalness of genocide, fascism, rascism, and totalitarianism is a direct result of his conquests.
Chickensoup:
Listen, I realize I make a habit sometimes of throwing my weight around here on this site, but I still have to go ahead and tell you flat out not to presume to lecture me about ancient Greek society as though I don’t know what I’m talking about when I offer up my opinion about it. Not only was I trained in this topic, (ancient history) but the Greeks have been a passionate interest of mine ever since I was a little kid–I’ve probably read more books on every aspect of their history and society than you’ve even heard of. I’m part Greek myself for god’s sake.
First of all, I think your problem is that you persist in viewing the Greeks through the prism of your modernity. Stop it. They weren’t moderns and you aren’t an ancient Greek. So realize it would take time and nuance of understanding to fully grasp them and their attitudes.
“The image you create is of a cold, heartless, machinistic society with little interest in the health and happiness of the people.”
In no way, shape, or form is that what I painted or implied. You *took* it as such, however–and that’s your error. And in so doing you also ignored what I said about the Greeks’ love of life and their adherence to the “life impulse” over the death impulse.
No, the Greeks were not cold and heartless and certainly not a machinistic society. But neither were they like you and me in regards to our generally-held attitudes towards the social good and compassion between individuals who are strangers and so on. Yes, of course they had some sense of these things–human nature in itself is to some extent about social compassion–we’re social animals. But do not make the mistake of thinking that the Greeks were just like us when it came to viewing one’s neighbor as one views oneself. *Some* Greek philosophers held views akin to this–but in general the Greeks–nor any other ancient people–didn’t think as we do in this regard.
“…empathy and thoughtfulness are evident in much of the documentation we have from this time…”
You’re looking for an argument, chickensoup. I would advise you to step back and get a grip. No one loves the ancient Greeks more than me. They’ve been the subject of my passionate study, as I said, ever since I was a kid. I never said that empathy and thoughtfulness were unknown to them or absent from their society. You’re missing the point. These qualities were part of the Greeks, yes—in particular in their view of a human-centered universe, unlike their fellows (the Asiatics, the Egyptians, etc.) who viewed Man as a piece of mud, beholden to gods and god-kings—in particular the Greeks had a nicely developed sense of the pathos and glory and wonder of being human. They appreciated this greatly.
But there’s a big difference between the Greek notion of placing the center of the universe on Man, as it were (this isn’t really an accurate way of putting it, but it’ll do for the discussion) and actually having an embedded sense of the brotherhood of all human beings–and a sense that that stranger over there is the same as you and is your brother (or sister). The Greeks certainly appreciated that philosophy and grasped it, and there’s evidence of it, as you say, in their writings. It’s in fact no wonder that they so readily opened their arms to Christianity when it came–the Greeks “got it,” whereas it took the Romans (and others) a lot longer to swallow. But again there’s a difference between the words of a poet or a philosopher and what a society actually practices. The Greeks viewed all non-Greeks as barbarians as we well know, and even their respected neighbors, like the Egyptians, they viewed as less vital and worthy because they were not Greek. There’s nothing horrible in this, it was common for their day. It’s what allowed Greece, like all other ancient societies, to view slavery with nary a whiff of concern (some Greek philosophers, to their credit, DID speak against it, though). Even amongst themselves, it would be unusual for Greeks to view “the Other” as a mirror of oneself–in other words, to the Greeks also the “good Samaritan” would be an unusual fellow worthy of particular praise–but an exception, not the rule. They UNDERSTOOD compassion, of course, then…. but they had not had it codified for them nor had any ethos ever grown up within them that said, “this is how one must live.” WE expect the good Samaritan to be the rule. The ancients–including the Greeks–did not.
Of course, yes–you’re forcing me to go into all sorts of complicated discussions of this–the Greeks had traditional “rules” about hospitality to the needy stranger or guest–and still do today—there are few more hospitable people on earth. BUT AGAIN–this is not precisely the same as our attitudes today, nor does it any way recommend to “turn the other cheek,” nor does it say to “love one’s enemy.” The Greeks would have found that absurd. They recognized that being kind to a needy stranger is a virtue. But they had no concept of kindness for the sake of humanity OVERALL–and certainly not of being kind to an enemy.
And you’re putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said that social consciousness is a strictly Christian virtue.
AND when I was speaking I was addressing WESTERN civilization.
“And if this really is such a pervasive part of the Christian psyche, why doesn’t America, one of the most fervently Christian nations in the world, employ its values in either its domestic or foriegn spheres?”
Why does it always come down to America bashing? You’re like the atheist who says there can’t be a god because a “real” god wouldn’t let suffering go on. Childish.
I SAID that our modern societies are far from perfect. The mere fact that we rarely… RARELY… practice what we have been taught, what is INGRAINED into us by our traditional values–ANY of us, regardless of nationality–is not proof that those values don’t exist or that we are no different from the ancients. The difference, as cynical (or perhaps naive?) as this sounds is that we DO have a picture of rightness which is different from the rightness of the ancient world–which makes us, if anything, even more despicable when we fail to live up to it. But fail we do. NEVERTHELESS this doesn’t change the fact that this social consciousness is part of what we are–AND that social consciousness did NOT exist prior to the arrival on the scene of a Jesus–or a Buddha. Or for that matter a Muhammed.
Arguing this about the ancient Greeks is one thing–but you look at the Romans or the Persians or the Egyptians or any other ancient society. Clearly no such consciousness exists in them. If you want to dispute that I’ll be glad to go at it with you. But you’d be dead wrong, I can warn you in advance. And I can handle the argument, trust me.
“Why is there no state healthcare in America, while the largely atheist nations of Britain, Canada, China, Cuba, Germany etc. all do?”
Now you’re just resorting to cant and pure nonsense, chickensoup. The West has lost its faith, yes–and I think this is correct in some sense–don’t make the mistake of thinking I am some born-again Christian or something. But Christian values are rooted in our civilization still, and it’s what makes the nations you mention compassionate. America has its own *****ed up ideas about it–the tough love attitude. I don’t know who’s right really but I’m more on the side of the Europeans certainly. But don’t pretend that Europe is an “atheist” continent just because most of the populace has stopped believing in Christianity as a religion. Christianity is still part of our history, as Westerners, and whether we still “believe” in it or simply treat it as a valuable well to draw from while rejecting the parts we no longer like doesn’t matter–it is still there and is still part of us.
Socialism, as we all know, champions the idea of governments seeing to the needs of the society. Hence your example of Cuba and China. But socialism, too, is *largely* a western invention–and it too has its roots in Christian principles.
The mere fact that the West hasn’t lived up to its principles, that it took it a long time for it to really get around to walking the walk—does NOT disprove any of what I’ve said. It takes TIME for the kind of thing we’re talking about to settle in to the attitudes of human beings as a whole. It sounds like you’re trying to say it happened overnight when we *stopped* being Christian… as though it were an impediment–and that the ancients had it all along. This is silly.
And I challenge you to back up your statement that the values we’ve been talking about existed in ancient Japan. That was an absurd overstatement on your part.
“Because to claim that these values amongst common people are ‘Christian’ rather than ‘human’ is quite frightening to me.”
I did NOT make that claim. You are quite simply misreading what I said.
“Empathy is not a Christian value”
EXCUSE ME? The hell it isn’t, chickensoup. But I’ve already laid this out for you. I did NOT say it was EXCLUSIVELY Christian. I said simply that it was NOT the NORM in ANCIENT societies.
AGAIN—I am deeply sympathetic with Buddhism. But I was speaking of WESTERN culture and civlization. Is that now clear?
“I see no correlation between Christianity and the rise in social conscience – as a matter of fact, I see more of a link between this and the rise of atheism-informed scientific practices. Draw your own conclusions.”
I will draw the conclusion that you simply no little or nothing of history.
what “atheism-informed scientific practices” are you speaking of?
Sounds to me, chickensoup, that you’re just another one of these history revisionists who hates the idea of giving credit to the despised Christians–superstitious and backward fools that they are. I suggest you grow up a little and get a more balanced view of reality.
Jesus Christ
Paramhansa Yogananda.
He was the first Indian sage to move to America (in 1920). He showed the underlying unity of christianity and Indian spirituality / yoga. He introduced many spiritual techniques that are now commonly used. He was immensely popular, taught hundreds of thousands of people and was received by president Coolidge. His book ‘Autobiography of a yogi’ has been an eye opener for many in many countries. It helped them understand that religion is not about belief but about the actual experience of truth, timelessness and love.
In my opinion it is thanks to his influence that we are now moving beyond the old, structured form of religion into an age of true spirituality.
do a bit more research , alexander fleming wasn’t actually the true inventor of penicillin
OK, here we go…
I’ll try to do this bit by bit.
First of all, I thought we were having a debate. I didn’t think I was ‘lecturing’ you, but it’s a little hard to monitor your audience’s response when you’re typing into a computer.
I have no doubt that you’re well-versed in the subject, as am I. I too have studied ancient Greece, although my fields were literature and philosophy (hence why I mentioned “documentation”). I’m sorry if I upset you by not giving your academic prowess the respect it deserves. Won’t happen again, mate.
“In no way, shape, or form is that what I painted or implied. You *took* it as such, however–and that’s your error.”
You’re right, my failure to understand your point was clearly entirely my fault. You are exonerated of all responsibility for my inability to follow your point, being it within a certain “nuance of understanding” that my puny mind couldn’t grasp. Good for you.
I concede the point about the ancient Greeks having a different social perspective from ours.
“You’re looking for an argument, chickensoup.”
Is that what I’m doing? If you say so.
“I would advise you to step back and get a grip.”
*Ahem*, will do.
“It’s in fact no wonder that they so readily opened their arms to Christianity when it came–the Greeks “got it,” whereas it took the Romans (and others) a lot longer to swallow.”
I would argue that the Romans took longer to ‘get it’ because it was considered an insurrection on Roman soil. It’s hardly surprising that Christianity took a while to spring up there. Considering your extensive knowledge of Greek history you must be aware that it was the Byzantines (for all intents and purposes the Romans) who introduced Christianity to Greece, as they did many other innovations and aspects of their society.
“But again there’s a difference between the words of a poet or a philosopher and what a society actually practices.”
True, but there is also an element of zeitgeist – these ideas do not spring up solely in eloquent individuals, and they are certainly not popularised without a certain shared understanding.
“WE expect the good Samaritan to be the rule. The ancients–including the Greeks–did not.”
Point well made, I concur with that.
“BUT AGAIN–this is not precisely the same as our attitudes today, nor does it any way recommend to “turn the other cheek,” nor does it say to “love one’s enemy.” The Greeks would have found that absurd.”
As do most people to this day. Evidence? Prevelant in every aspect of society, including the very comment I am responding to. No slight intended, just look at it and you’ll see what I mean.
“And you’re putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said that social consciousness is a strictly Christian virtue.”
It’s the assertion that Christianity introduced widespread social conciousness to the world that I am arguing against…
“AND when I was speaking I was addressing WESTERN civilization.”
Well, I’m not. This topic is called “Who Has Done the Most Good?”, not “Who Has Done the Most Good in Western Civilisation?”.
“Why does it always come down to America bashing? You’re like the atheist who says there can’t be a god because a “real” god wouldn’t let suffering go on. Childish.”
*I’m* being childish? You ignored my point because it said a not very nice (though obviously true) thing about America. Then you insulted me and made a ridiculous assumption about me and my beliefs. Cut the *****, answer my God-damn question.
“I SAID that our modern societies are far from perfect. The mere fact that we rarely… RARELY… practice what we have been taught, what is INGRAINED into us by our traditional values–ANY of us, regardless of nationality–is not proof that those values don’t exist or that we are no different from the ancients.”
But it does indicate that Jesus did not do ‘the most good’ for our society if his teachings have, in large part, been a failure.
“NEVERTHELESS this doesn’t change the fact that this social consciousness is part of what we are–AND that social consciousness did NOT exist prior to the arrival on the scene of a Jesus–or a Buddha. Or for that matter a Muhammed.”
People can be influenced. This doesn’t mean that the values are not already there. If it did, then that would mean that social conciousness would not exist in the children of non-Christian countries.
“Arguing this about the ancient Greeks is one thing–but you look at the Romans or the Persians or the Egyptians or any other ancient society. Clearly no such consciousness exists in them. If you want to dispute that I’ll be glad to go at it with you. But you’d be dead wrong, I can warn you in advance. And I can handle the argument, trust me.”
I don’t want to get into that. I didn’t say I wanted to get into that. So no, I’m not going to dispute that. Do you want me to list some topics about which we could debate and on which you’d be ‘dead wrong’? Clearly, that wouldn’t really be beneficial to the topic, but my ego would enjoy the *****.
“Now you’re just resorting to cant and pure nonsense, chickensoup.”
Oh, an insulting accusation with little or no explanation. How clever of you.
“The West has lost its faith, yes–and I think this is correct in some sense–don’t make the mistake of thinking I am some born-again Christian or something.”
I didn’t.
“But Christian values are rooted in our civilization still, and it’s what makes the nations you mention compassionate. America has its own *****ed up ideas about it–the tough love attitude. I don’t know who’s right really but I’m more on the side of the Europeans certainly. But don’t pretend that Europe is an “atheist” continent just because most of the populace has stopped believing in Christianity as a religion. Christianity is still part of our history, as Westerners, and whether we still “believe” in it or simply treat it as a valuable well to draw from while rejecting the parts we no longer like doesn’t matter–it is still there and is still part of us.”
So, despite the fact that the predominantly Christian America is losing its social conciousness while the predominantly atheist Europe is increasing it’s social conciousness, it is still Christianity that is the impetus for its adoption? I would argue that it is more likely to come out of education (before you get upset again that is not a crack at America) and social progress rather than Christianity. This argument is similar to the suggestion above that Hitler did the greatest good because he inspired the world to defeat fascism. Again, that isn’t a crack, just think about it.
“Socialism, as we all know, champions the idea of governments seeing to the needs of the society. Hence your example of Cuba and China. But socialism, too, is *largely* a western invention–and it too has its roots in Christian principles.”
No, socialism has its roots in socially conscientious issues. Religion, especially in the societies I mentioned, is rejected. You can argue otherwise till the cows come home, but i can assure you that, in your words, you’d be “dead wrong”.
“It takes TIME for the kind of thing we’re talking about to settle in to the attitudes of human beings as a whole.”
Again, the topic is “Who Has Done the Most Good?”, not “Who Will Do the Most Good?”
“It sounds like you’re trying to say it happened overnight when we *stopped* being Christian… as though it were an impediment–and that the ancients had it all along. This is silly.”
Now who’s putting words in who’s mouth? I didn’t say that at all.
“And I challenge you to back up your statement that the values we’ve been talking about existed in ancient Japan. That was an absurd overstatement on your part.”
Oh really? Ever heard of Confucianism? Don’t write cheques you can’t cash.
“I did NOT make that claim. You are quite simply misreading what I said.”
Quote:
DDRM: “day to day Christian morality and ethics among the common folk inspired everything we hold dear in civilization, from human rights to health care.”
Chickensoup: “I’m sorry if my entire comment has come across as rude, but I simply cannot comprehend these totally spurious assertions, particularly the one above – I mean, in all serious, do you actually believe that?”
Randall: “Yes, frankly–*I* believe that–because I know it historically to be so.”
That’s REAL easy to misread, isn’t it?
“EXCUSE ME? The hell it isn’t, chickensoup. But I’ve already laid this out for you. I did NOT say it was EXCLUSIVELY Christian. I said simply that it was NOT the NORM in ANCIENT societies.”
CHILL! I said empathy was not a Christian value because it isn’t. I know many non-Christians. They are all empathic people. I even know empathic animals. Jesus didn’t come up with these ideas, they are not Christian-exclusive, Christian-based, Christian-named or anything, so I do not accept that they are ‘Christian’ values.
“AGAIN—I am deeply sympathetic with Buddhism. But I was speaking of WESTERN culture and civlization. Is that now clear?”
If you wanna talk about that then good for you, but that’s not what this topic is about.
“I will draw the conclusion that you simply no little or nothing of history.”
Because I have a different view of it from you? I will draw the conclusion that you are an arrogant blowhard who makes personal assumptions based on little or no evidence. I study history at university, I write dissertations and magazine esaays on it. I know a *****RAKE about history, whether you like my opinions of it or not. We disagree, that doesn’t necessarily mean that I am ignorant. So cut the ***** nd stop acting the pezzovenante. It’s not big, it’s not clever, and I can’t maintain civility in the face of bull*****.
“what “atheism-informed scientific practices” are you speaking of?”
I was speaking of the popularisation of practices such as euthanasia, abortion, stem cell research, etc., all of which are opposed by popular Christianity.
“Sounds to me, chickensoup, that you’re just another one of these history revisionists who hates the idea of giving credit to the despised Christians–superstitious and backward fools that they are. I suggest you grow up a little and get a more balanced view of reality.”
Blah, blah, blah. I’m sure your half-baked, petty assumptions about me are very self-fulfilling, but I can assure you they don’t exactly suggest that you have any more balanced a view of reality than I do. If you wanna cry then do so yourself, I didn’t come on to this site to have someone wax bollocks about my life and opinions. Let’s keep it civil.
“Empathy is not a Christian value” at least since Spanish Inquisition NOBODY EXPECTED THE SPANISH INQUISITION in this list, ja,ja!!!
yeah I know, soul salvation and all this stuff… that explain it all
failed, was that this?