If Stephen Fry Met God - Revisited God & Problem of Evil

[BigRedBuster]

 

Glad this is a respectful discussion. I have found myself staying out of these discussions because a) almost nobody changes anyone's minds, and b) most of the time it ends up with some people being totally disrespectful to other's beliefs. I have just found that life is much more enjoyable and meaningful if I stay out.

 

But, since this is being respectful, I will dive in.

 

As I have said many times on here, I have gone through the very deep thought process and search for what I believe that many on here have. Many have gone through that and decided...."Meh...there must not be a God". I went the other way and believe too many things point to something not being able to happen without a higher power.

 

As for this discussion about God and evil, I simply get to a point where I can't answer the question without a higher power involved and within us. That question is...."Why do we care?"

 

We have talked about earthquakes and horrible things that happen to people all over the world. These things can affect us emotionally very very deep even if we aren't directly involved. But...why do we care? If all we are is one big chemical reaction....then...so what? Who cares if that kid is trapped under that rubble and dies? It's no different than some scientist discontinuing an experiment between two chemicals in a lab. A chemical reaction stopped. Who cares? If anything, we should be happy because that's one less chemical reaction taking up space and resources for our own chemical reactions to take place.

 

Why do we care if a guy in Omaha kills his mom and throws one small sibling in the dumpster and the other over a bridge to die? Friggen, leave the little kid in the dumpster and let him be smashed and torn apart in a dump truck and buried at the land fill.

 

OK...the answer I usually get is that we have chemical reactions in our brains that cause us to have these emotions. Ok.....now that we know that, wouldn't the logical reaction then to be to somehow stop those chemical reactions in our brains that cause those horrible emotions towards the end of these chemical reactions? I would think with the technology today, that would be pretty easy. If we could solve that problem, then when I get sick and tired of my wife, kids or the neighbor, I can just take my shot gun out and blow them away and I'll be happy consuming the resources they were taking up.

 

Why do we care about "saving the planet for future generations"? Who gives a crap about future generations? All they are is more of the same meaningless chemical reactions that we are.

 

The fact is, we can't do that. There is something in us telling us that is wrong and when it does happen, it affects us very deeply. Now, I personally, have come to believe this is one piece of evidence that there is a higher power within us. For Christians, that higher power is named "God".

 

So....bringing this full circle, when I look at this I come to realize that (in my opinion) we recognize evil because there is a higher power (God). Evil (or all those bad things we call evil) would always be there. But, because there is a higher power, we recognize and feel them and work to eliminate as much evil as possible.

 

There are evolutionary reasons for everything here. Evil is simply a human word, a descriptor for things we don't like. It's been attached to the god conversation because God is presented as the opposite of evil. When we were hunter-gatherers huddled in our caves fearful of the wolves, wolves were evil. Other tribes were evil. Drought was evil.

 

Whatever we didn't understand, we invented explanations for. Zorb is the greatest spear-thrower in the tribe. We need meat, Zorb throws his spear at the antelope but OH NO! Zorb misses. How could Zorb miss? What happened? Zorb doesn't want to take the blame for a bad throw, so he looks for some external excuse. Zorb has a great idea - there are these things we can't see, spirits, that affect our lives. A bad spirit made the spear fly poorly, and miss. Zorb saves face, the tribe is mollified, and life goes on. The spirit story is adaptable, and works for any number of situations: No rain? The rain spirit isn't giving us rain. The spirit of the antelope makes him run away. The spirit of the night scares me. Soon the word of this tribe's "spirits" spreads, and other tribes pick it up. They have spirits, too. Because they are Them and we are Us, our spirits must be better than their spirits. Hence, some spirits become gods. The other guy's spirits, or gods, they're bad. They must be evil. When bad things happen to us, it's their gods, their evil. They are evil.

 

Maybe it isn't Zorb and the spear-casting. Maybe it's lightning which frightens us, for which early man had zero ability to explain. Maybe it's flood or pestilence... whatever. Same explanation arises - we can't see the cause, we can't figure it out, it must be something, so... spirits. Our spirits, their spirits, better spirits, gods, bad gods, Us vs. Them...

 

 

 

 

And much as I have difficulty grasping how disparate chemicals coalesced into living organisms, the best evidence we have so far is that this is the case. The organisms that began life had to struggle mightily simply to survive. The desire to live is engrained in our DNA from the very earliest stages of life. Propagation of the species is literally written into the code that makes us who and what we are.

 

So that kid trapped in the rubble of an earthquake isn't just a pile of chemicals, and if they die who cares, I react on a base level to that creature's plight and strive to help it. We're colony creatures, we group into cities and work as a team. You're unlikely to take a shotgun to your kids because your own DNA recognizes them as extensions of you, and your basic, base desire to survive is perpetuated in those kids. People who kill their kids are acting contrary to evolution, no matter the resources they take up.

 

Who gives a crap about future generations? You do. You want your kids, grandkids and descendants for 1,000 generations to prosper - and if not specifically you, then your genetic code does. And higher-brained creatures though we are, our base-brain controls a lot of what we do. That animalistic brain says that by helping that child in the rubble, you're helping your species - you're helping you.

 

There is no need for an external force, a "god," to create that altruistic nature. It's self-serving, honestly.

 

That is one way of looking at it. But, again, then to me, the simplest method to stop the pain that suffering causes is to change that chemical reaction in us that gives us that reaction. Why doesn't anyone do that? If we want to end suffering, just end everyone. Maybe Jim Jones had the right answer.

[knapplc]

I think that's why people commit suicide. Their upper brain, their consciousness, is overwhelmed by the strain and chooses to end it. So, chemically, we can change things.

 

Pharmaceutically, we can change things as well. Our technology has progressed enough to keep us high and happy throughout our lives. Between opiates, narcotics, cannabis & alcohol, the average person can dull themselves to any pain of existence as much as their resources allow.

 

Those chemical reactions are alterable. We can even fundamentally change a person's behavior and personality with chemicals. It's possible, but pretty scary.

[BigRedBuster]

I think that's why people commit suicide. Their upper brain, their consciousness, is overwhelmed by the strain and chooses to end it. So, chemically, we can change things.

 

Pharmaceutically, we can change things as well. Our technology has progressed enough to keep us high and happy throughout our lives. Between opiates, narcotics, cannabis & alcohol, the average person can dull themselves to any pain of existence as much as their resources allow.

 

Those chemical reactions are alterable. We can even fundamentally change a person's behavior and personality with chemicals. It's possible, but pretty scary.

That's all fine and dandy, interestingly though, most of the things you have mentioned that "keep people happy" like drugs, have been shown to bring more and more pain and suffering the more you use them. (narcotics, alcohol...etc).

[knapplc]

 

I think that's why people commit suicide. Their upper brain, their consciousness, is overwhelmed by the strain and chooses to end it. So, chemically, we can change things.

 

Pharmaceutically, we can change things as well. Our technology has progressed enough to keep us high and happy throughout our lives. Between opiates, narcotics, cannabis & alcohol, the average person can dull themselves to any pain of existence as much as their resources allow.

 

Those chemical reactions are alterable. We can even fundamentally change a person's behavior and personality with chemicals. It's possible, but pretty scary.

That's all fine and dandy, interestingly though, most of the things you have mentioned that "keep people happy" like drugs, have been shown to bring more and more pain and suffering the more you use them. (narcotics, alcohol...etc).

 

 

Agreed. But their danger doesn't mean they don't work. There are also pharmaceuticals that have the same or similar effect but don't damage the body like cocaine or heroin.

 

Regardless, the fact that these things can be physically damaging doesn't get us anywhere in a conversation about a higher power.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

I think that's why people commit suicide. Their upper brain, their consciousness, is overwhelmed by the strain and chooses to end it. So, chemically, we can change things.

 

Pharmaceutically, we can change things as well. Our technology has progressed enough to keep us high and happy throughout our lives. Between opiates, narcotics, cannabis & alcohol, the average person can dull themselves to any pain of existence as much as their resources allow.

 

Those chemical reactions are alterable. We can even fundamentally change a person's behavior and personality with chemicals. It's possible, but pretty scary.

That's all fine and dandy, interestingly though, most of the things you have mentioned that "keep people happy" like drugs, have been shown to bring more and more pain and suffering the more you use them. (narcotics, alcohol...etc).

 

 

Agreed. But their danger doesn't mean they don't work. There are also pharmaceuticals that have the same or similar effect but don't damage the body like cocaine or heroin.

 

Regardless, the fact that these things can be physically damaging doesn't get us anywhere in a conversation about a higher power.

 

True, as does the fact that (like these drugs) things like suicide ends the pain. None of this explains why we care. Sure, you believe millions of years of evolution have caused us to care. That's obviously one theory. I'm not really buying it though.

But, that's what makes this discussion both interesting and non ending also.

[TGHusker]

Good discussion. Knapp and Husker X - this is when the forum is at its best - when we can disagree but not be disagreeable but ask honest questions. Very good posts and my goal isn't to have reactionary snap the finger reply's to your statements and conclusions. I'm not smart enough for that. My brain works better with the long deliberate response instead of the quick ones that get foot in mouth. (Thus my long 4 post OP for this thread - of several weeks in the making)

 

As I mentioned before, bright minds have debated this for centuries. So we may not change nor do I expect to change anyone's mind but create a better understanding of where we are going on our individual paths.

So, do help me understand more - I'd like to ask questions:

 

Knapp aren't you talking about 'determinism' - our actions are a result of our chemical make up, social conditioning alone - that we are hard wired so to speak to act, think in the way we do without any free will to do so?

 

To get real 'cold hearted here (and I'm not saying anyone on either side of this universal discussion is) One could argue, as BRB does above "what difference does it make' (since it is presidential sweepstake season - thought I'd grab someone's famous quote) if there is evil, destruction, pain and suffering - isn't that the evolutionary world - of DNA struggling to survive, a world of chaos in which the strong should be overcoming the weak over and over again for the long term benefit of the species? While we may not want our personal family DNA to be overcome by death & pain it would seem that as a society we wouldn't be so concern for the weak from an evolutionary point of view.

I understand what you say about us being social, colonizing creatures, however, a doctrine of evolution would stress the 'survival of the fittest'. Would that doctrine desire that the weak, the sick, etc die so that the strong DNA is passed on for the sake of the species as a whole?

[TGHusker]

 

 

 

I think that's why people commit suicide. Their upper brain, their consciousness, is overwhelmed by the strain and chooses to end it. So, chemically, we can change things.

 

Pharmaceutically, we can change things as well. Our technology has progressed enough to keep us high and happy throughout our lives. Between opiates, narcotics, cannabis & alcohol, the average person can dull themselves to any pain of existence as much as their resources allow.

 

Those chemical reactions are alterable. We can even fundamentally change a person's behavior and personality with chemicals. It's possible, but pretty scary.

That's all fine and dandy, interestingly though, most of the things you have mentioned that "keep people happy" like drugs, have been shown to bring more and more pain and suffering the more you use them. (narcotics, alcohol...etc).

 

 

Agreed. But their danger doesn't mean they don't work. There are also pharmaceuticals that have the same or similar effect but don't damage the body like cocaine or heroin.

 

Regardless, the fact that these things can be physically damaging doesn't get us anywhere in a conversation about a higher power.

 

True, as does the fact that (like these drugs) things like suicide ends the pain. None of this explains why we care. Sure, you believe millions of years of evolution have caused us to care. That's obviously one theory. I'm not really buying it though.

But, that's what makes this discussion both interesting and non ending also.

 

I sure agree with the "non ending' part. By the way, we should all meet for a NU game and discuss this wt our favorite bev afterwards. Maybe we can solve the divide in DC while we are at it. Yea, the rock and the hard place is it is difficult to prove or disapprove an "invisible being' as Husker X and Knapp both said. I start the discussion with the assumption of this God and that God could have valid reasons for the suffering- reasons we don't and can't know and Knapp, pesky guy that he is, brings us to the foundation that we have to prove or disprove this God first before we can discuss God and suffering. HuskerX mentions the various rabbit trials one could go down that would each deserve their own thread - all with pros and cons.

[knapplc]

Good discussion. Knapp and Husker X - this is when the forum is at its best - when we can disagree but not be disagreeable but ask honest questions. Very good posts and my goal isn't to have reactionary snap the finger reply's to your statements and conclusions. I'm not smart enough for that. My brain works better with the long deliberate response instead of the quick ones that get foot in mouth. (Thus my long 4 post OP for this thread - of several weeks in the making)

 

As I mentioned before, bright minds have debated this for centuries. So we may not change nor do I expect to change anyone's mind but create a better understanding of where we are going on our individual paths.

So, do help me understand more - I'd like to ask questions:

 

Knapp aren't you talking about 'determinism' - our actions are a result of our chemical make up, social conditioning alone - that we are hard wired so to speak to act, think in the way we do without any free will to do so?

 

To get real 'cold hearted here (and I'm not saying anyone on either side of this universal discussion is) One could argue, as BRB does above "what difference does it make' (since it is presidential sweepstake season - thought I'd grab someone's famous quote) if there is evil, destruction, pain and suffering - isn't that the evolutionary world - of DNA struggling to survive, a world of chaos in which the strong should be overcoming the weak over and over again for the long term benefit of the species? While we may not want our personal family DNA to be overcome by death & pain it would seem that as a society we wouldn't be so concern for the weak from an evolutionary point of view.

I understand what you say about us being social, colonizing creatures, however, a doctrine of evolution would stress the 'survival of the fittest'. Would that doctrine desire that the weak, the sick, etc die so that the strong DNA is passed on for the sake of the species as a whole?

 

I don't think that's cold-hearted, I think that's how it is. We're just little creatures on a little blue marble stuck out in the midst of a VAST bunch of nothing, trying to survive. It all may not make any difference whatsoever.

 

Regarding survival of the fittest - we do overthrow the weak, the sick, etc, especially when we fight wars, rob each other, or otherwise take from each other. That's survival of the fittest. We can reason, however, and we have developed a sense of right and wrong, and largely that's based on survival of the fittest as well: If my tribe is stronger than your tribe, my tribe is more likely to survive, and we can extrapolate that out to DNA. That's how it's been since we lived in caves. Reason tells us that if we work together, 20 of us can fight off 10 invaders from the other tribe. So we learn to band together, that teaches us altruism, and those traits are passed down because they help us survive.

 

In the very recent past, societies have killed the weak, the sick, to help the majority survive and thrive. Sparta is just one example off the top of my head, but there are more.

[TGHusker]

Knapp, WOW -Great post - thanks for your honesty in that first sentence (not saying rest isn't honest - for I know it is).

 

Ultimately, in the materialistic world view, none of it matters. One day all of our survival, all of our altruism will be for naught. For one day, if this physical world is all that there is, all of this will wind down to nothing. The sun will burn out and poof - no more life (probably will happen well before then because of man's destructive tendencies ) That is why I say that as a believer in a God who is the 'First Cause' of all that is (nothing can't produce something), that personal suffering can be redemptive in the long run as trials and suffering and even natural calamities can produce redemptive character traits in all of us but beyond that - As a Christian, I believe that there is a hope of a 'new heaven and an new earth" - an eternal place both after death and at the end of our linear time. Where this earth of suffering has been changed to a redemptive place of true justice, in which evil has been removed. As Geisler says in my 4th post - the current world isn't the best world but it is the best way to the best world - which is yet to come.

 

In regards to altruism, the culturalization/colonization affect of society does build in altruism but lets not short change 'religion' or faith in that regards. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 2 about the law (moral law) being written in our hearts and our hearts either agree wt or condemning us (depends if we are keeping it or not - and all of us have failed in multiple ways - and me everyday!). Others of course refer to this as natural law - which has been codified by various religions in various ways - think 10 Commandments. So one of the benefits of faith and religion as a whole, is the teaching of being altruistic ie: The Golden Rule - "Do onto others as you would have them do on to you". Jesus also said - the 2nd greatest command after Loving God with all of our heart is to "Love your neighbor as yourself". His example of sacrifice encourages many to do acts of sacrifice even self sacrifice of giving up life for the benefit of others. You might call that 'advancing the DNA pool'. I call it living a Christ like life.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Good discussion. Knapp and Husker X - this is when the forum is at its best - when we can disagree but not be disagreeable but ask honest questions. Very good posts and my goal isn't to have reactionary snap the finger reply's to your statements and conclusions. I'm not smart enough for that. My brain works better with the long deliberate response instead of the quick ones that get foot in mouth. (Thus my long 4 post OP for this thread - of several weeks in the making)

 

As I mentioned before, bright minds have debated this for centuries. So we may not change nor do I expect to change anyone's mind but create a better understanding of where we are going on our individual paths.

So, do help me understand more - I'd like to ask questions:

 

Knapp aren't you talking about 'determinism' - our actions are a result of our chemical make up, social conditioning alone - that we are hard wired so to speak to act, think in the way we do without any free will to do so?

 

To get real 'cold hearted here (and I'm not saying anyone on either side of this universal discussion is) One could argue, as BRB does above "what difference does it make' (since it is presidential sweepstake season - thought I'd grab someone's famous quote) if there is evil, destruction, pain and suffering - isn't that the evolutionary world - of DNA struggling to survive, a world of chaos in which the strong should be overcoming the weak over and over again for the long term benefit of the species? While we may not want our personal family DNA to be overcome by death & pain it would seem that as a society we wouldn't be so concern for the weak from an evolutionary point of view.

I understand what you say about us being social, colonizing creatures, however, a doctrine of evolution would stress the 'survival of the fittest'. Would that doctrine desire that the weak, the sick, etc die so that the strong DNA is passed on for the sake of the species as a whole?

 

I don't think that's cold-hearted, I think that's how it is. We're just little creatures on a little blue marble stuck out in the midst of a VAST bunch of nothing, trying to survive. It all may not make any difference whatsoever.

 

Regarding survival of the fittest - we do overthrow the weak, the sick, etc, especially when we fight wars, rob each other, or otherwise take from each other. That's survival of the fittest. We can reason, however, and we have developed a sense of right and wrong, and largely that's based on survival of the fittest as well: If my tribe is stronger than your tribe, my tribe is more likely to survive, and we can extrapolate that out to DNA. That's how it's been since we lived in caves. Reason tells us that if we work together, 20 of us can fight off 10 invaders from the other tribe. So we learn to band together, that teaches us altruism, and those traits are passed down because they help us survive.

 

In the very recent past, societies have killed the weak, the sick, to help the majority survive and thrive. Sparta is just one example off the top of my head, but there are more.

 

In this world view, we should be celebrating people like Hitler and not be trying to stop him.

[Husker_x]

 

x, if God stopped an earthquake from happening, that would hardly be a demonstrable thing.

 

Well if we're going to nitpick . . . I suppose not, unless as the first building was starting to crumble, God appeared and pulled some real Aladdin sh#t. That could work.

.

 

Knapp, WOW -Great post - thanks for your honesty in that first sentence (not saying rest isn't honest - for I know it is).

 

Ultimately, in the materialistic world view, none of it matters. One day all of our survival, all of our altruism will be for naught. For one day, if this physical world is all that there is, all of this will wind down to nothing. The sun will burn out and poof - no more life (probably will happen well before then because of man's destructive tendencies ) That is why I say that as a believer in a God who is the 'First Cause' of all that is (nothing can't produce something), that personal suffering can be redemptive in the long run as trials and suffering and even natural calamities can produce redemptive character traits in all of us but beyond that - As a Christian, I believe that there is a hope of a 'new heaven and an new earth" - an eternal place both after death and at the end of our linear time. Where this earth of suffering has been changed to a redemptive place of true justice, in which evil has been removed. As Geisler says in my 4th post - the current world isn't the best world but it is the best way to the best world - which is yet to come.

 

In regards to altruism, the culturalization/colonization affect of society does build in altruism but lets not short change 'religion' or faith in that regards. The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 2 about the law (moral law) being written in our hearts and our hearts either agree wt or condemning us (depends if we are keeping it or not - and all of us have failed in multiple ways - and me everyday!). Others of course refer to this as natural law - which has been codified by various religions in various ways - think 10 Commandments. So one of the benefits of faith and religion as a whole, is the teaching of being altruistic ie: The Golden Rule - "Do onto others as you would have them do on to you". Jesus also said - the 2nd greatest command after Loving God with all of our heart is to "Love your neighbor as yourself". His example of sacrifice encourages many to do acts of sacrifice even self sacrifice of giving up life for the benefit of others. You might call that 'advancing the DNA pool'. I call it living a Christ like life.

 

Yeah, lest anyone think that identifying as an atheist is like a yellow brick road to Sunshine and Lollipop land, there are some unfortunate but necessary conclusions that you can draw––or at least contemplate––about the meaning of it all. The universe is very old, and very large, and things a lot bigger than our planet go boom every single day. I think the "nothing matters" bit is subject to scrutiny, though. Nothing matters to whom? That's the real question. I think in your first paragraph we see one of the oldest causes and functions of religious belief. The end of everything is a hard concept to face mentally and philosophically.

 

The other thing I wanted to add is that survival of the fittest is often mischaracterized or misunderstood. It doesn't just mean "I get mine and screw everyone else," because in many cases organisms that behave that way don't survive. Cooperation is an aspect of fitness. Bees mindlessly follow the queen's directives to maintain a hive; wolves hunt in packs; chimpanzees live in groups (some even make tools); humans build civilizations. Incidentally, the Golden Rule or some version of it is also very old.

[knapplc]

 

Incidentally, the Golden Rule or some version of it is also very old.

 

 

 

First known from ancient Egyptian scripts in the 18th Century BCE, and a popular tenet in Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism... lots of the isms. It isn't something the Christian God wrote on man's heart (as Paul wrote), it's something lots of gods wrote on lots of hearts. Apparently.

[NUance]

 

 

Incidentally, the Golden Rule or some version of it is also very old.

 

 

 

First known from ancient Egyptian scripts in the 18th Century BCE, and a popular tenet in Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism... lots of the isms. It isn't something the Christian God wrote on man's heart (as Paul wrote), it's something lots of gods wrote on lots of hearts. Apparently.

 

 

You two are comparing things that are similar, but not quite the same. The law Paul talked about being written on men's hearts is God's law. God's law involves the Golden Rule and having a good conscience, but it's taken a bit further. It also involves worshiping and obeying God.

[Husker_x]

 

 

Incidentally, the Golden Rule or some version of it is also very old.

 

 

 

First known from ancient Egyptian scripts in the 18th Century BCE, and a popular tenet in Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism... lots of the isms. It isn't something the Christian God wrote on man's heart (as Paul wrote), it's something lots of gods wrote on lots of hearts. Apparently.

 

 

And every band has to do a cover of All Along the Watchtower. When it's good it's good, and when it works it works.

[knapplc]

 

 

Incidentally, the Golden Rule or some version of it is also very old.

 

First known from ancient Egyptian scripts in the 18th Century BCE, and a popular tenet in Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism... lots of the isms. It isn't something the Christian God wrote on man's heart (as Paul wrote), it's something lots of gods wrote on lots of hearts. Apparently.

 

You two are comparing things that are similar, but not quite the same. The law Paul talked about being written on men's hearts is God's law. God's law involves the Golden Rule and having a good conscience, but it's taken a bit further. It also involves worshiping and obeying God.

 

 

"Ethic of Reciprocity" passages from various religions:

 

 

Bahá'í Faith:

"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah

 

"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." Epistle to the Son of the Wolf. 1

 

Brahmanism: "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "

 

Buddhism:

"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353

 

Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18

 

Christianity:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.

 

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.

 

"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that circulated among the early Christian movement, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).

 

Confucianism:

"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23

 

"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3

 

"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4

 

Ancient Egyptian: "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to circa 1800 BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of Reciprocity ever written. 2

 

Hinduism: This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517

 

Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 3

 

Jainism:

"Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2.

 

"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara

 

"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "Sutrakritanga 1.11.33

 

Judaism:

"...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18

 

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.

 

"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15 4

 

Taoism:

"“Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien

"To those who are good to me, I am good; to those who are not good to me, I am also good. Thus all get to be good."

 

Zoroastrianism:

"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing to another whatsoever is not good for itself." Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29 5