The Universality Of Morality

Consideration Of Relevant History:

So what are we to make of the progression of moral systems over the course of human history?  The Axial Age is a good place to start.  Though Siddhartha Gautama of Lumpini (a.k.a. the “Buddha”) did not write anything during his ministry in the 6th century B.C., we have a general idea of his teachings from the T[r]i-Pitaka (a.k.a. the Pali canon), which was composed in the centuries thereafter.  (Such documentation started with the “Sammaditthi Sutta”, attributed to S[a]ri-putta; then the “Sutta Pitaka”, attributed to Ananda.)  Bookshelves-worth of material have been written about Buddhist philosophy in all its variegated forms; but it should suffice to say that the Buddha preached in favor of compassion / temperance and against avarice / materialism.

During Classical Antiquity, even more bookshelves-worth of material have been written about Greek thought–much of which goes far beyond the scope of this essay.  For our present purposes, though, it is worth noting the work of the Athenian philosopher, Aristotle of Stagira from the 4th century B.C. (esp. his “Politics”).  For Aristotle, virtue was of value insofar as it contributed to the greater good (that is: to the commonweal).  The well-being of the general populace was seen as an end in itself; so both moral and intellectual virtue was to be cultivated because it was amenable to that end.  (For more on the insights found in Aristotle’s “Politics”, see Appendix 3 of my essay on “The Long History Of Legal Codes”.)

By the time Judaic law was first codified (in Babylon during the Exilic Period), Athenian democracy had been established in Greece, King Lycurgus of Sparta had established equality amongst citizens, the Roman Republic was being governed according to the “Law of the Twelve Tables”, and Persian rulers had instituted a regime recognizing universal human rights (ref. the “Cyrus Cylinder”)…including policies that would liberate the Hebrews from their captivity in Babylon.  Meanwhile, in the Far East, the “Rites of Zhou” had been composed in China and the Upanishads had been composed in India.

When it came to the development of civil law, the Abrahamic deity was clearly behind the curve.  Human rights were pioneered in the Far East by the Mauryans (spec. Ashoka the Great) in the 3rd century B.C.  Such programs–which were informed by Buddhist teachings–also emphasized socio-economic equality.   By the time Ashoka issued his groundbreaking edicts, it was plain to see that Mosaic law played no role whatsoever in the development of civil society.  The best that could be managed in the “Halakha” was Hillel the Elder’s reiteration of the Golden Rule in the 1st century B.C., which–as we saw–had already been established in the Far East for centuries.

In Late Antiquity, pre-Islamic Alexandria boasted an efflorescence of thought.  Hero made major inroads into mathematics and engineering in the 1st century; Sextus Empiricus revitalized Skepticism in the 2nd century; and Plotinus of Lykopolis revitalized Neo-Platonism in the 3rd century.  Theon and his daughter, Hypatia, became renown pedagogues in the late 4th / early 5th century.  Alexandria was also home to the greatest library of Antiquity.  Here, it’s worth surveying the great libraries of the ancient world.  There are 25 worth noting:

• The Sumerian library at Uruk (c. 3400 B.C.)
• The Assyrian libraries at Nippur and at Ebla (c. 2500 B.C.)
• The Hittite library at Hattusa (c. 1900 B.C.)
• The Amorite library at Mari (c. 1900 B.C.)
• The Akkadian library at Agade [Akkad] (17th century B.C.)
• The Assyrian library at Nuzi (c. 1500 B.C.)
• The Phoenician library at Ugarit (c. 1200 B.C.)
• The Assyrian library of Ashur-banipal at Nineveh (7th century B.C.)
• The Roman “Vivarium” of Bruttium (6th century B.C.)
• The Vedic library at Taxsha-shila [Taxila] in Punjab (6th century B.C.)
• The Persian library at Ctesiphon in Mesopotamia (Classical Antiquity)
• The royal (Chinese) library of the Qin palace at Xian-yang (Classical Antiquity)
• The Hellenic library at Antioch (3rd century B.C.)
• The Hellenic library at Pergamum [Aeolia] (3rd century B.C.)
• The Hellenic library of Alexandria (3rd century B.C.)
• The Hellenic “Villa of the Papyri” at Herculaneum (1st century B.C.)
• The Greco-Roman library on the island of Kos (c. 100 A.D.)
• The Persian “Sarough” [alt. “Sarouyeh”] at Isfahan (2nd century)
• The Greco-Roman library of Celsus at Ephesus (early 3rd century)
• The Roman library at Caesarea Maritima in Palestine (early 3rd century)
• The Syriac “Dayro d-Mor Mattai” on Mount Alfaf (c. 363)
• The imperial (Roman) library at Constantinople (4th century)
• The Armenian “matenadaran” at Etchmiadzin (4th or 5th century)
• The Vedic library at Nalanda in Bihar (5th century)

By the end of the 4th century (the century that the Christianized Roman Imperium became theocratic), many of the libraries located in Christendom had become–as the historian Ammianus Marcellinus remorsefully put it– “like tombs, permanently shut.”  Hypatia was lynched; and intellectual activity was largely arrested. By the Dark Ages, even the ancient Talmudic academies in Mesopotamia (at Sura, Pumbedita, and Nehardea) were going defunct.  (Note: The Judaic library of Geniza was established at Fustat in Egypt c. 870.)

We might note that during Late Antiquity, there had been some notable instances of religious tolerance (tolerance of alternate Faiths, so long as they did not disrupt the political order).  After the transition of the Roman Empire to Christianity, secular ideals were still being proffered from time to time. Such sentiment was captured as late as the 520’s by the NON-Christian Roman consul, Flavius Symmachus (son of famed philosopher, Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius), who stated in his “Memorandum”:

“Whatever each person worships, it is reasonable to think of [all people] as one.  We see the same stars, the sky is shared by all, the same world surrounds us.  What does it matter which [Faith tradition] a person uses to seek Truth?”

He wrote this while dwelling in the realm of the Ostrogoths, who were split between paganism and Arianism.  This eloquent endorsement of pluralism was one of the earliest (explicit) articulations of the value of freedom-of-conscience.

It was in the late 1st century A.D. that Tacitus first put forth the separation of church and state, with his maxim, “deorum injuriae diis curae” [leave offenses against the gods to the care of the gods].  This was a clear proscription against the State enforcing piety.  Tacitus wrote this around the same time the authors of the Gospel of Matthew had Jesus of Nazareth enjoined his followers to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to god that which is god’s (22:21).

As expressed by JoN, the idea was quite simple: Matters of religion did not fall within the jurisdiction of the State.  Needless to say, the Roman Catholic Church opted to completely contravene this enjoinder from their own savior-god; as it did not serve the centers of power, who were more apt to use religion as a cudgel.

In Late Antiquity, the neo-Platonists (as with Plotinus), political philosophers (as with Cicero), and Stoics (as with Marcus Aurelius) contributed far more to human thought than Christian apologists (e.g. Augustine of Hippo).  To this day, civil society owes much more to the former than to the latter. Religious zeal only served to DETER progress, not abet it. Illustrative of this is the fact that Plato’s Academy in Athens was closed by Emperor Justinian in 529.  Why?  Any thinking conducted outside the church’s strict parameters was heresy.

In fixating on the history of thought in “the West”, it is easy to overlook luminaries in the Far East.  It’s worth noting Chinese freethinker, Wang Chong (1st century) and the Chinese mathematician, Zu Chongzhi (5th century).  In India, the mathematician-astronomer, Arya-bhata of Patali-putra / Kusuma-pura penned the “Arya-Siddhanta” and “Ashmaka-tantra” c. 500.

By the time Mohammed of Mecca was born, the great Indian polymath, Varaha-mihira of Ujjain / Avanti was pioneering astronomy and mathematics.  And while Mohammed was undertaking his ministry, the great mathematician / astronomer, Brahma-gupta of Rajasthan [Gurjurata] composed his landmark work, the “Brahma-sputa-siddhant[h]a”, which broke new ground in algebra and geometry (providing an explication of the quadratic formula).

Pre-Islamic Arabia was far more Progressive than Arabia would become in the advent of Mohammed’s ministry.  Before the Mohammedan movement, women could own and manage their own businesses: a fact made clear by Mohammed’s first wife, Khadijah.  After Mohammed’s ministry, such a phenomenon was unheard of.  Also in the pre-Islamic Middle East, there was little if any slavery.  After Mohammed’s ministry, slavery became a booming business–wholeheartedly encouraged (even sacralized).  It is incontrovertible that for both women and non-Muslims, the Middle East became a much WORSE place to live pursuant to the institution of Islam.

But what of Christian libraries?  It was not until the 10th century that the Benedictine monastery at Cluny (France) became one of the great storehouses of Europe’s ancient manuscripts.  THAT ended up being one of the few places that heretical documents were not destroyed by the Catholic Church.  Thus Baghdad’s Bayt al-Hikma was not the only place where some scribes sought to preserve ancient manuscripts at the time. (See my essay on “Islam’s Pyrite Age” for more on this topic.)

There’s no need to review the long, meandering history of Judaism and Christianity here; but for our present purposes, a stark juxtaposition is worth noting.  The Roman Catholic Inquisition (from 1184 to 1834) represented the world’s first experience of fascism.  It would be difficult to imagine a more flagrant departure from–nay, outright repudiation of–the most fundamental teachings of the figure on whom a religion was ostensibly based.  JoN was adamant about forbearance (i.e. NOT judging other people), being forgiving (even turning the other cheek when wronged), and flouting worldly authorities in order to be godly (i.e. the separation of church and state).

Contrast the sordid legacy of the Roman Catholic Church to the estimable treatment of Christianity by the Quakers (starting in the 17th century).  Suffice to say, the Society of Friends was far more in keeping with the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth–including his message about not being materialistic. When it came to giving aid and comfort to those of other communities, the Quakers–being the LEAST doctrinal–hewed most closely to JoN’s vision. It is no coincidence, then, that they were the most active when it came to the abolition of slavery. What, exactly, made the Quakers chart a different path? Clearly, something BEYOND scripture was at play.

Also in the 17th century, Hugo Grotius laid out the case for always keeping promises (honoring treaties and contracts), captured by his maxim: “Pacta sunt servanta”.

But religion continued to stymie moral progress.  Recall that, in colonial New England, the heterodox minister, Roger Williams (who was influenced by the Stoics more than Abrahamic dogma), was banished by the Puritans for his Progressive ideas (that is: for his support for civil rights).

The recognition that there is a NON-religious basis for morality goes back to the Stoics of Late Antiquity (esp. Seneca the Younger).  This was echoed by Baruch-cum-Benedict Spinoza in the 17th century with his iconoclastic masterpiece, “Ethics”.  It was reaffirmed by David Hume in the early 18th century with “An Enquiry Concerning The Principles Of Morals”; and then by Adam Smith in “The Theory Of Moral Sentiments”.

The point was then CONFIRMED in the late 18th century, with Immanuel Kant’s deontic approach to morality (ref. his “Groundwork For The Metaphysic of Morals”), whereupon he outlined the Categorical Imperative discussed earlier.  By the end of the 18th century, Thomas Paine had put the matter to rest–showing us that civil society was predicated on ideals that have no grounding in dogmatic thinking.

Several other great thinkers have contributed to making this fundamental point–notably: John Stuart Mill, Bertrand Russell, G.E. Moore, John Rawls, Peter Singer, and Derek Parfit.  It should go without saying–though, unfortunately, it still sometimes needs to be said–that civil society has been built on principles that transcend any and all religiosity; as said principles are in no way predicated on this or that (sanctified) dogmatic system.

Such thinkers showed that moral principles exist independently of social norms, which–after all–are accidents of history.)  THAT is what makes moral principles categorically universal–rather than “universal” merely by fiat.  (For more on this point, see Kai Nielson’s “Ethics Without God”.)

As outlined in my essay on “The Long History Of Legal Codes”, the ideal of civil society–and of civil rights in particular–was operative long before it was adopted within the Judeo-Christian idiom; and oftentimes in ways that were far superior to the ham-fisted attempts found in the variegated Abrahamic doctrines–be it the Halakha or the Sunna.  Humanity’s origins, its place in the world, and its inherent value were captured long before Judaism; and–again–in much better ways.  Such ideations require Abrahamic scripture as much as modern chemistry requires alchemic ramblings.  To suppose that the ideals we esteem NOW require the Mikra or the Pauline Letters or the Hadith is analogous to supposing that astro-physics requires astrological charts. {20}

Nothing worthwhile requires dogmatism–of any kind.

As explicated at the onset of this essay, the myth that Judeo-Christian “values” somehow served as the foundation for civil society in “the West” is false.  Mosaic law is not–and has never been–operative when our moral intuitions inform us that deeds such as lying, cheating, stealing, and killing are wrong.  At best, religionism only supplements these moral intuitions.  More often than not, though, it actually MITIGATES such intuitions; as it assigns all precepts an entirely spurious dogmatic foundation–thereby basing even the most estimable tenets on authority / tradition rather than on the lights of Reason.  And as we saw in the discussion of the Golden Rule, religionism imports tribalism into the equation, thereby delimiting the scope of empathic concern.

As I show in “The Long History Of Legal Codes”: By the time Christianity emerged as a distinct religion, governments had been formulating the system of civil law that would create the ideal society for over a THOUSAND YEARS.  And as we’ve seen in the present essay, for the next TWO THOUSAND years, any headway that was made (in terms of scientific and moral insight, as well as with regards to the furtherance of civil society) was made in spite of, not because of, ambient religiosity.

(Put another way: Whenever headway was made, it was NEVER attributable to institutionalized dogmatism. And whenever cult activity was operative in the governance of society, things rarely turned out well–as we were reminded with Nazism, Stalinism, Maoism, Juche, etc.)

While the Stoics were pushing the bounds of thought, formulating naturalistic explanations for the cosmos, prelates were convening ecumenical councils to address such pressing matters as how to celebrate Easter, how to best make sense of Trinitarian monotheism using arcane theological jargon, and whether or not the phantasmagorical rantings in the Book of Revelation should be included in the official canon.

Even as ecclesiastical authorities were quibbling over (utterly inane) theological conundra, others were attending to the elucidation of universal principles that did not depend on recourse to this or that sanctified canon of dogmas.  In every case where mankind has gone horribly awry, it has INVARIABLY been because cult activity was afoot–be it Roman Catholicism or Salafism or the Khmer Rouge.  In every case, dogmatism and tribalism were operative.  In every case, deification was involved–whether it involved the worship of a supernatural entity or an actual person.  Upon surveying the grotesque instances of illiberalism, we find that in NO case was an overabundance of free-thought the problem. Indeed, the promotion of free-thought is antithetical to all forms of tyranny (see the Appendix for more on this point).

In ALL cases of tyranny, some combination of idolatry and groupthink–enforced by some sort of puritanical, authoritarian structure–has been the culprit.  The theme is consistent: Delusive thinking (due to some sacred doctrine), highly-concentrated power (amongst a cadre of socio-economic elites), and top-down control (demands for compliance / conformity). In other words, the OPPOSITE of what Kant, Paine, Marx, Rawls, et. al. were envisioning.

Taking all this into account, something becomes apparent.  Without the Abrahamic tradition, mankind (specifically in the Occident, mired as it was in a bog of calcified Judeo-Christian dogmatism) would have arrived at the Enlightenment–and thus civil society–much sooner (probably OVER A MILLENNIUM sooner, if we were to omit the epoch of darkness between, say, Hypatia and Copernicus). {12}

The Dark Ages were, indeed, dark; and they were dark because mankind was addled–nay, accosted–by a thousand years of institutionalized dogmatism.  The stifling, anti-intellectual climate induced by staunch religionism–systematically inculcated, often by draconian means–entailed widespread nescience.  A mandate for hyper-dogmatism entailed an active hostility to anything that resembled knowledge of the natural world; a seething contempt for critical deliberation; and precluded any consideration of liberal governance.

It comes as no surprise, then, that the Dark Ages were characterized by a protracted intellectual sclerosis.  The Occident found itself in a didactic stasis that endured from the 5th century (in the advent of the fall of the Roman Empire) to the High Renaissance (which primed the Occident for the process of secularization that was the Enlightenment).  Even as this epoch exhibited flickers of intellectual activity, it was mostly NON-Christian sources that could be thanked for any headway.  In other words: Such flickers occurred IN SPITE OF, not because of, the ambient climate of religiosity.

It was only when the Occident managed to extricate itself from this dogmatic quagmire that any progress has been made. One shining light came from the (oft demonized) Mongols, who adopted the “Great Law”–inaugurated by Genghis Khan.  Indeed, the separation of church and state was pioneered across Eurasia by the pre-Islamic (Tengri-ist) Mongols in the 12th century A.D.–reminding us how much of what those in the Occident now celebrate actually emerged in the Orient.

Compared to the uncivilized barbarians of medieval Europe, the Tengri-ist / Buddhist Mongols were–by far–the most sophisticated society in the world.  Indeed, throughout the Dark Ages, it was the leaders of Roman Catholic dominion who were the true savages, not the Mongol “hordes” of the Eurasian Steppes.  It was not for nothing that the most renown English thinker of the age, Roger Bacon, noted that the Mongols “have succeeded by means of science.”  While they are “eager for war,” Bacon noted, the Mongols have advanced so prodigiously because they “devote their leisure to the principles of philosophy.”

Due to the groundbreaking precedents set by Genghis Khan, the Mongol Empire pioneered more than just the separation of church and state (i.e. government-sanctioned religious freedom).  Under Genghis, then under his grandson, Kubilai, the Mongols also broke new ground when it came to other positions:

• No divine mandate; nor claims of divine revelation. Thus: Nobody deigned to speak / act on behalf of a deity.
• Against materialism, decadence, extravagance. Genghis Khan discouraged frivolity. (That said, the Mongols were not prudes. They loved to imbibe and have lots of sex; and were not averse to festivity.)  Genghis encouraged a simple, non-materialist life-style; and surely would have been horrified by hyper-consumerism (esp. conspicuous consumption).  Despite the incredible wealth and power he accumulated, he made his position clear: “I wear the same clothing and eat the same food as the cow-herds and domestic herders.  We all make sacrifices [together], and so all share in the wealth.”
• Against slavery; nor marginalization along ethnic groups. Captured peoples were never enslaved.  (Note, though, that Genghis Khan showed little mercy to aristocrats.  Also, some captives could be conscripted for labor; but not permanently.)  A significant portion of the loot seized from invasions was distributed to widows and orphans.  NO ONE was allowed to go impoverished.
• Against kidnapping and torture. Even after war, captives were admitted back into society, and even given prominent administrative positions based on merit…except, that is, for aristocrats, of which Genghis Khan was always very suspicious. They often met a dire fate. Also, the Mongols were not averse to handing some prisoners of war over to slavers as a quid pro quo.
• Against racism. No race was favored over any other. Nobody was oppressed / marginalized based on ethnic background.  The Mongols referred to themselves as the (pluralistic) “People of the Felt Walls” [“tuurgatan”], in which ethnicity was irrelevant.
• Against caste systems. There was no caste system. To reiterate: Genghis Khan was especially wary of aristocracy; and often had aristocrats eliminated on principle.
• Against nepotism. There was no favoritism based on bloodlines (barring advantages afforded to descendants of Genghis Khan; though oftentimes only after they’d proven their mettle).

Genghis Khan was, in a word, Progressive. A voracious conquerer, he also valued equity. He made it clear that his “Great Law” applied just as much to rulers as to anyone else.  Alas, his progeny hewed to this principle for only about half a century. {32}

In the 13th century, at the behest of Kubilai Khan, the Mongols pioneered mass printing (and the wide dissemination of literary material)…almost two centuries before Gutenberg. In fact, so far as the promulgation of literacy goes, the world owes more to Mongol dissemination of texts than to the Europeans.

The Mongols actively promoted universal literacy; and instituted public education wherever they went.  Under the direction of Kubilai, the school of astronomy and medicine at Tabriz (Persia) was established, where Muslim luminaries like Rashid ad-Din of Hamadan eventually studied.

Many of the ways the Mongols broke new ground ended up benefiting the Occident. Historian, Jack Weatherford put it well when he noted that, in expanding their domain, “not only had the Mongols revolutionized warfare, they also created the nucleus of a universal culture and world system.  This new global culture continued to grow long after the demise of the Mongol Empire.  And through continued development over the coming centuries, it became the foundation for the modern world system, with the original Mongol emphases on free commerce, open communication, shared knowledge, secular politics, religious coexistence, international law, and diplomatic immunity.”  Even as the Europeans underwent a Renaissance, “It was not the ancient world of Greece and Rome being reborn; it was the Mongol Empire, picked up, transferred, and adapted by the Europeans to their own needs and culture” (“Genghis Khan And The Making Of The Modern World”; p. 234, 237).

In the 13th and 14th centuries, the (Tengri-ist) Mongols established freedom of religion wherever they went, including places where there had been no such freedom: Kashgar, Bukhara, Samar-kand[a], Termez, Ghazna, Peshawar, Hamadan, Arda-bil, Tabriz, Isfahan, Astra-khan, etc. {32} Genghis, Ogodei, and Kubilei Khan erected numerous places of worship for their Christian, Muslim, Taoist, and Buddhist constituents.  Kara-Korum was arguably the most religiously mixed, tolerant city in the world during the Middle Ages.

Recall that Tengri-ists were monotheists.  Mongke Khan once stated: “We Mongols believe in one god, by whom we live and by whom we die; and toward him we have an upright heart.”  The ultimate goal was uniting all people under the Eternal blue Sky; not by forced conformity, but simply by way of global human solidarity.  (One might say that the Mongols were the first globalists, both in terms of culture and commerce.) Mongke added that once a people acceded to Mongol rule, “by the power of the Eternal God, the whole world from the rising to the setting of the sun shall be at one in joy and peace.”

The Middle Ages demonstrated–incontrovertibly–that the sway of religion (be it the impresarios of the Roman Catholic Church or Salafi mullahs) was inversely proportional to the development of civil society AND inversely proportional to progress in science / philosophy.  Luminaries like Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, and John Wycliff were ANOMALIES, not testament to the benefits of institutionalized dogmatism.

We should also note that it is not just the Abrahamic strain of cult activity that the “West” has (largely) risen above…and still strives to move beyond.  It has more recently struggled to get past other grotesque creatures of its own creation–most notably, Soviet-style communism (replete with its duplicitous “Marxist” packaging) and fascism (Roman Catholic and otherwise)–that is: other quintessentially Occidental versions of cult activity.

So far as freedom of religion went, Genghis Khan was–thankfully–only the beginning.  By 1762, the (adamantly secular) Voltaire had penned his landmark “Treatise On Tolerance”.  That was followed by Thomas Paine’s “Rights Of Man” in 1791; then John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty” in 1859.  Pace the Quakers, at no point did religionism have anything to do with promoting freedom of religion.  As we’ve seen, this (wonderfully liberal) ideal was an ancient one.  Recall the articulation of religious tolerance by Roman consul, Flavius Symmachus in the early 6th century.

So what happened that finally lifted the Occident out of the Dark Ages? Sure enough, Renaissance humanists like Lorenzo Valla, Pico della Mirandola, Niccolo Perotti, and Matteo Palmieri explored the theme of global human solidarity.  How so? Not by more vociferously scrutinizing ancient scripture. They were appealing to something quite different–something that could be found in ANY human mind under the right circumstances.

This intellectual awakening involved the scientific contributions of Copernicus, Bacon, and Newton; the mathematical contributions of Leibniz; the political contributions of Locke; and the philosophical contributions of Spinoza and Hume. Such trailblazers set the stage for the Enlightenment.  Tellingly, NONE of them were religionists in the doctrinal sense.

So how, exactly, might we attribute this sudden efflorescence of knowledge to Abrahamic religion?  Are we to suppose that Christians had bided their time for over SIXTEEN CENTURIES (and Jews for over TWO MILLENNIA) before someone recognized what their holy books were REALLY trying to say.  Put another way: Are we expected to believe that Christians had been getting their scripture wrong for sixteen centuries before someone finally got around to heeding its deepest messages? This would seem to be the only explanation for what actually transpired; yet it is so far-fetched, one can’t help but chuckle at the mere suggestion. (If only people had more stringently hewed to scripture, the Enlightenment would have occurred much sooner!)

While the Enlightenment primarily occurred in the Occident (though, as we’ve seen, not entirely DUE TO the Occident), it was largely about REBUFFING much of the Occident’s most hallowed traditions (while adopting certain advances from the Orient).  In other words, this cosmic leap in progress was a matter of eschewing Judeo-Christian dogmas in favor of new ideas.  The Enlightenment was enabled by a paradigm shift, not by revanchism.

This is illustrated by the overtly Reactionary nature of the Roman Catholic Church. With his encyclical, “Mirari Vos” in 1832, Pope Gregory XVI proclaimed that it is “false and absurd–even mad–that we must secure and guarantee to each one liberty of conscience.”  Free-thought was verboten in the Church thereafter.  Critical thinking is held in utter contempt to the present day.

Did some great minds happen to be religious?  Yes.  But this prompts some obvious questions (with equally obvious answers).  Shall we thank the Catholic Church for the achievements of Johannes Kepler and Blaise Pascal?  Shall we thank Presbyterianism for the contributions of Lord Kelvin and James Clerk Maxwell?  Shall we suppose that Michael Faraday owes his scientific insights to his Sandemanian sympathies?  Shall we thank Lutheranism for the discoveries of Leonhard Euler?  Shall we attribute Tycho Brahe’s observations to the fact that he was temporarily affiliated with a Circassian Abbey?

Surely, the erudition of Michel de Montaigne can’t be accounted for by the perorations of the Vatican curia.  And Augustine Cauchy did not glean his insights by hewing to the Nicene creed.  Such men accomplished what they did in spite of the fact that they sometimes articulated themselves in the idiom with which they were most familiar–speaking of the Almighty, nature’s god, or even the glory of god.  To attribute the virtues of such luminaries to their affiliation with this or that religious tradition is to confuse BECAUSE OF with IN SPITE OF.

So how much, exactly, did the Church of England have to do with Robert Boyle’s achievements?  The answer is apparent, it seems silly to even pose the question.

We might also note that theism does not mean dogmatism; for it turns out that most great minds who were theists were DEISTS, not religionists–as with Bacon, Descartes, Spinoza, Copernicus, Galileo, Leibniz, Locke, (Adam) Smith, Diderot, and Montesquieu…on through Immanuel Kant, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson…to John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, and Charles Darwin.  (This remained the case for such luminaries Freeman Dyson, Eric Cantor, Albert Einstein, and John Rawls: all non-religious, all Deists.)

As mentioned, the Enlightenment was far from perfect–what with its sometimes overzealous emphasis on rational thinking and materialistic cast of mind…which, it turned out, could morph into purely INSTRUMENTAL reason, which undergirded a raft of dysfunctions like hyper-consumerism and free-market fundamentalism.  Such problems were brought to light by the Frankfurt School–the legacy of which was tragically hijacked by ardent proponents of (the utterly vacuous movement of) post-modernism and (the patently illiberal movement of) political correct-ness.

Any judicious critique of the Enlightenment reveals that it had faults and shortcomings–like any other period in human history.  As Kwame Anthony Appiah noted, even as we find that “the actually existing Enlightenment was insufficiently enlightened, it is not an argument that Enlightenment [per se] was the wrong project.” Any errancy that occurs during a noble enterprise does not discredit the enterprise. Thus any dysfunction that may have besot the meandering process of secularization / liberalization does not mean that said process was inherently flawed.

Regarding the need to reassess “received wisdom”, Appiah made the point that “the advance of reason” in the modern world does not stem from “grater individual powers of reasoning.  [Rather, it is] the result of the fact that we have developed institutions that can allow ordinary human beings to develop, test, and refine their ideas.  What’s wrong with the theory of witchcraft is not that it doesn’t make sense, but that it isn’t true.  And to find that out–in the way scientists gradually developed our modern understanding of disease–requires enormous, organized institutions of research, reflection, and analysis.”  Such robust deliberation–and the critical inquiry that impels it–never happens BECAUSE OF institutionalized dogmatism; it happens IN SPITE of it.

As freethinkers like Thomas Paine (and, later, John Stuart Mill) made very clear, civil society (spec. liberal democracy) is not predicated on institutionalized dogmatism.  That the Enlightenment ended up occurring in the Occident (western Europe) is an accident of history, not a reflection of the provenance of the Judeo-Christian dogmas that saturated the region up until then.  To treat this as some kind of vindication of Judeo-Christian religiosity, then, is to entirely miss the point.

In reality, the only truly objective basis for morality is a SECULAR one.  If anything: It is primarily due to a REJECTION OF Abrahamic religionism that has enabled societal progress…at all key junctures.  As for prohibitions against lying, stealing, cheating, and killing, those who are impressed by the inclusion of such elementary points are setting the bar abysmally low. In any case, that Judeo-Christians INVENTED such elementary strictures would come as a surprise to the world’s Zoroastrians, Hindus, Jains, and Buddhists…as well as all other morally upright people across the planet who are outside the Abrahamic tradition.

As I hope to have shown, not only does the Abrahamic tradition not have a monopoly on probity; it has arguably done the WORST job in promulgating it over the course of its long history.

If one would have gone to London in 1859 and asked John Stuart Mill how much he had based the insights articulated in his landmark work, “On Liberty” on Judeo-Christian doctrine, he would have surely responded, without hesitation: “Not at all.”  Two years later, when he published “Considerations On Representative Government”, had he been asked the question, he surely would have given the same response.

This would have also been the response of the founders of the American republic.  Thomas Paine corroborated this in 1776, during the lead-up to the war for independence, when he wrote the pivotal tract that triggered the revolution and inspired a generation: “Common Sense”.  The point would become even clearer with his “American Crisis” essays…and CLEARER STILL with his “Rights Of Man”.  With the rise of humanism since the Enlightenment (read: an objective basis for morality in strictly secular terms), this fact has only become more and more ineluctable.

That ethics requires no dogmatic system was made no more apparent than when it came to women’s rights; where the glaring deficiencies of Abrahamic lore are especially flagrant.  The scriptures of either Judaism or Christianity (or Islam, for that matter) not only didn’t help, they detracted from female empowerment in palpable ways.  (For a historical survey for women’s rights, see my “The Empowerment Of Women” series.)  The Bible is pretty clear that women are not equal to men.  Women–the Torah tells us–should worship their husbands, “and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:16). It was all downhill from there.

The Pentateuch oozes with patriarchy.  In Mosaic law, women–along with slaves and livestock–were considered legal chattel (that is: something for a man to own); as the anti-coveting commandment stipulates (a wife is–effectively–her husband’s property).  Deuteronomy 22:28-29 notifies us that a Hebrew girl who is raped can be sold to her rapist.  Leviticus 27:3-7 specifies that women are worth between 1/2 and 2/3 as much as men.  And, by the way, make sure women are forced to sleep outside for a week when they are menstruating (Leviticus 15:19-24).  Needless to say, there were no women allowed to participate in the Sanhedrin.  Today, there is no more flagrant misogyny than is found amongst Haredim / Hassidim (the ultra-Orthodox denizens of Beth Israel).  

The male-centric precedent was upheld in the Christian tradition.  The subordination of women is established in Saul’s first letter to Timothy 2:11-12: “A woman must receive instruction in silence, with complete submission; and I [god] do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority of / over a man; but to remain silent”).  And in his first letter to the Corinthians 14:34, Saul insisted that women should remain silent in church.  To ensure the point was made loud and clear, Saul wrote to the Ephesians that a wife must always submit to her husband (5:22-23); and then repeated this claim to the Colossians (3:18).  Also in his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul states that the head of a woman is a man (11:3) and that women were MADE FOR men (11:6-9).  And, remember, women should NEVER be allowed to speak up when men are in charge…or even be allowed to braid their own hair. (!) For, it was believed, only MEN have something worthwhile to say.

Women are referred to as “the weaker vessel” in first Peter 3:7.  Demanding female subservience was par for the course in the Judeo-Christian tradition–as is made crystal clear by the canonical scripture of Nicene Christianity, which is rife with misogyny.  It should come as little surprise, then, that the (hyper-patriarchal) Roman Catholic Church has such an opprobrious record on this issue.  (Fundamentalist Christian denominations infamous for misogyny include Puritans, Calvinists, Pentecostals, Seventh-Day Adventists, and Mormons.)

The Koran is no clarion call for women’s rights either.  The putative “Final Revelation” (which was, in should be noted, addressed explicitly to a male audience) puts this odious legacy into overdrive.  The most notorious Koranic passages are verses 3-4, 15, 22-25, 33-34, and 43 of Surah 4.  (Also cringe-worthy are verses 223-237 and 282 of Surah 2; as well as verses 4-6, 8, and 13 of Surah 24–all of which make clear that women are inferior to men.)  It is no wonder that Aisha is reported to have stated that she knew of no women who suffered as much as Muslim women (Bukhari no. 5825).

Of course, this is in keeping with the teachings of Mohammed of Mecca, wherein we are notified that women are intellectually inferior to men (Bukhari’s Hadith; chap. 12, no. 2658; alt. 1/6/301, 2/24/541, and 3/48/826) and that hell is populated primarily by women…because they deserve it (Bukhari; 1/2/29; alt. no. 304).  No kidding.  This makes sense, as women are less intelligent and less morally capable than men (Muslim’s Hadith; no. 241).

When it comes to women’s rights, things were a starkly different story when it came to SECULAR contributions.  It’s worth exploring this, as women’s rights is as good a metric as any for civil society. We might start with the Stoic philosophers of Late Antiquity, who argued for equality of the sexes; holding that sexual inequality was contrary to the laws of nature.

Prior to the emergence of Islam in Arabia, women had rights–as attested by the fact that Mohammed’s first wife, Khadijah, owned her own thriving business. According to Bukhari’s Hadith (3/43/648), the Ansari women (of Yathrib) had authority over their men before Islam; something that was SCOFFED at.

In the 1670’s, French philosopher, François Poullain de la Barre explicitly addressed his female readers, stating: “The [analytic] mind has no sex whatsoever.  You are endowed with Reason.  Use it.  And do not sacrifice blindly to anyone.”  Needless to say, this insight was not gleaned from ancient scripture.

The Marquis de Condorcet advocated for suffrage in an article for Journal de la Société in 1789; and published “For the Admission to the Rights of Citizenship For Women” the next year (1790).  The year after that (1791), French activist, Olympe de Gouges published the “Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen”, which was inspired by the secular “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” from two years earlier. Also in 1791, Thomas Paine argued for women’s rights in his “Rights Of Man”. Mary Elizabeth Wollstonecraft penned “A Vindication Of The Rights Of Women” the year after that (1792).

These figures were all secular. This was no coincidence.  It comes as a surprise to nobody that women’s rights have consistently been championed in societies that are the most secular.  When Italian reformer, Giuseppe Mazzini championed women’s rights in 1860 (ref. his “Duties of Man”), he needed to make no appeals to religious doctrine.  Roman Catholicism had absolutely nothing to do with it.  And so it went with John Stuart Mill, who completed “On The Subjection Of Women” the very next year (1861).

A century later (1960), Roslyn Pope came home from Europe to a segregated South and channeled her frustrations into writing “An Appeal for Human Rights”.  She made her case by appealing to something that had been available to mankind for thousands of years: universal moral principles.  But what, pray tell, might THOSE be?  And where might they come from?