Questioning God's Chosen Communication

[POI]

(1) Why would an omniscient God reveal to ancient societies the questions that modern scientific communities would be interested in? (2) Why would God care more about making scientific knowledge available in these texts versus addressing how He wanted humans to live?

For debate: Does the provided video below answer the above two questions sufficiently? If not, why not? If so, then I guess God is inept?

[POI]

Noted. But then aren't the two words "objective morals", which are then mashed together, incompatible with one another; since one is assessing the subjective 'rightness and wrongness' of an objective action/other?

How are you defining ‘morals’ here? It seems like you are defining it as “the subjective ‘rightness and wrongness’ of an objective action/other,” but that would clearly beg the question against the possibility of objective morals by defining subjectivity into the question.

Can the 'rightness and wrongness' of an observed or experienced action be objectively concluded? If so, how exactly?

Okay. Then this would apply to the Bible-God. It is objective that God orders this/that/other, as expressed in the video. Hence, it is objective that God's position is so-and-so, about the said topics, but that does not make his positions objective, does it?

I agree. My moral theory is not that morals are objective because God says such-and-such, but because God makes humans in such-and-such a way, where certain things will objectively harm them and their objective purpose, which includes being moral agents.

Does this mean a 'moral' assessment can be objectively concluded based upon 'well-being'/other? Please clarify?

So, why should humans act with more modern sensibilities, if we are concerned with acting objectively moral (i.e., independent of one’s opinions)?

My answer here depends on how you answer the above.

Let me know if you need more clarification to answer my question.

I may or may not need further clarification, but I'll proceed to answer anyways (for now).

It's not about applying more "modern sensibilities". It is instead about heading towards being 'more right vs. not'? Is there such a thing? If so, who or what determines this path exactly? (i.e.) Does there exist THE CORRECT consequence/solution/resolution/other for so-and-so? And if so, by what reason/measure/justification?

[The Tanager]

Can the 'rightness and wrongness' of an observed or experienced action be objectively concluded? If so, how exactly?

I may not be sure what you are meaning here. Can the rightness and wrongness of the shape of the Earth be objectively concluded? Your answer to that may help me understand your question better.

Does this mean a 'moral' assessment can be objectively concluded based upon 'well-being'/other? Please clarify?

If one knows what a thing’s objective purpose is (if it has one), then an objective ‘well-being’ can be objectively concluded. But without an objective purpose, there is no goal to judge what 'well-being' means and what 'not-well-being' would refer to.

I may or may not need further clarification, but I'll proceed to answer anyways (for now).

It's not about applying more "modern sensibilities". It is instead about heading towards being 'more right vs. not'? Is there such a thing? If so, who or what determines this path exactly? (i.e.) Does there exist THE CORRECT consequence/solution/resolution/other for so-and-so? And if so, by what reason/measure/justification?

That’s exactly my questions for you! What is that thing that shows we are leaving behind the Bible’s morality and the God of the Bible's chosen communication and heading towards being “more right vs. not”? If there is no such thing, then the video’s critique of God we are talking about fails.

[TRANSPONDER]

No, you are the one making the mistake. There is on all evidence no Ought in the sense of a cosmic law of morals or a divine diktat, and if anything it is theism that insists there is or should be an Ought.

You obviously aren’t understanding what I’m saying. I AGREE there is no Ought, if atheism is true. If certain forms of theism are true, then there is an Ought. I’m not arguing for or against an Ought here, full stop, but simply talking about what follows from each view.

I say there isn't, other than an evolved survival instinct which is sometimes co -operation as much as competition, and that with our human problem - solving and emotional preference for well being, we have the Objectivity as much as we can expect.

If what you believe is true, then there is absolutely ZERO objectivity; it’s 100% subjectivity for what moral behaviors should be; everyone’s got opinions and none are correct or wrong. Zero objectivity, on your view, is as much as we can expect. That’s just a statement of fact, not a judgment. If you think that’s a bad thing, then you are betraying that you think a lack of objectivity is a bad thing. That is irrational for a subjectivist to believe; of course you should think a lack of objectivity is a good thing in that it’s the truth.

That in place, the human morality is treated like an Ought and it changes and evolves, getting better overall, and it is valid.. Religion does too, but slowly and grudgingly. This basic fallacy (known but ignored) is rather like the claim that nothing is known or reliable, yet they act like it is, just as we all do). Point is, we all debate morals and ethics, yet treat it as though it is valid, whether we credit it to a religion or not.

If atheism is true, then treating morality like an Ought is completely irrational. It is irrational to think morality is getting BETTER; it’s just getting different, if your worldview is true.

But ok you say you don't think it was better back in the old days. So you agree the change is for the better, after you said it's not improvement only change. Please sort your argument out before you present it.

No, understand the context of what I’m actually saying. I said that if atheism is true, it’s only change, not improvement. I don’t think atheism is true, so I can rationally think there is change for the better or worse even if I’m wrong about that.

You continue to flounder with the idea there has to be a cosmic Ought and cannot accept the validity of majority preference in morals and lifestyle.

Majority is not a good test of truth. The majority throughout history has been wrong about all sorts of things. You think the majority is wrong about theism, for instance. Majority is never a valid reason for something to be true. The consensus preference isn’t good just because it is the consensus.

Which is as you say 'subjectivity'.So is art, music, literature and sports. All human inventions. But we don't dismiss them as invalid just because the rules were not set out in the Bible.

Who said we should dismiss them entirely? I’ve only said the equivalent of dismissing that one piece of art is objectively good while another is objectively bad; different people like/dislike different art. If morality is like that, then raping someone is not worse than not raping them; it’s just different like different aesthetic tastes. If you are a subjectivist, that is the rational take. If you disagree, then you are not really a subjectivist, or at least not a consistent one.

I know what you are saying but you don't get what I'm saying. I repeat, there is no cosmoc 'ought' of morals. It is a human contruct and based on the only'objective' thing - survival (and saying that's all about ttooth and claw competition is too one -sided) and human well - being and our innate preferences and that's as much as you get or have any right to expect from a universe that doesn't care.

The point is whether the subjective human values are valid, not whether they are objkective or not. Understand the argument before you argue.

i recall that I already countered your denial that morality is getting better (at least better than the bible). I already pointed up emancipation issues (not least slavery). If you claim those are just 'change' and not improvements, then I can only say that you may be without morals, but I am not.

You again show that you don't get the argument. Majority is not the test of 'truth', but we already agreed that morality is not objective truth, so human consensus is what it has o be with the basics of survival and well -being as the only basis we have. You equally miss or confuse the point about art (etc) because these are subjective, but we take the (more or less) consensus as meaningful if arguable. Morality is the same.

I can only say that the theist insistence that morality must be based on a Cosmic Law or it is invalid (or irrational, as you say) is making your argument invalid as is the implied idea that a moral code given by a god (name your own) is Objective, rather than one person't opinion.

You have to get a grip on the argument and stop repeating uncomprehending denialism (and faithbased of course) before you can do any meaningful discussion here. And I'd do something about the moral stance you purport to present, but which I don't believe you really hold to. That the moral improvements (emancipation) are not really improvements but just 'change'.

[The Tanager]

You have to get a grip on the argument and stop repeating uncomprehending denialism (and faithbased of course) before you can do any meaningful discussion here. And I'd do something about the moral stance you purport to present, but which I don't believe you really hold to. That the moral improvements (emancipation) are not really improvements but just 'change'.

I never said I believe moral improvements (like emancipation) aren't really improvements but just change. I said that is what follows if morality is not objective. One of us is obviously misunderstanding the issue here. We've each shared why we think it is the other. My whole response to you would be an exact repeat of what I've already said because you continue the same (in my eyes) mistakes. Rhetoric and repeat doesn't help. Thanks for sharing your views and listening to mine.

[TRANSPONDER]

You have to get a grip on the argument and stop repeating uncomprehending denialism (and faithbased of course) before you can do any meaningful discussion here. And I'd do something about the moral stance you purport to present, but which I don't believe you really hold to. That the moral improvements (emancipation) are not really improvements but just 'change'.

I never said I believe moral improvements (like emancipation) aren't really improvements but just change. I said that is what follows if morality is not objective. One of us is obviously misunderstanding the issue here. We've each shared why we think it is the other. My whole response to you would be an exact repeat of what I've already said because you continue the same (in my eyes) mistakes. Rhetoric and repeat doesn't help. Thanks for sharing your views and listening to mine.

Oh yes you did Here If atheism is true, then treating morality like an Ought is completely irrational. It is irrational to think morality is getting BETTER; it’s just getting different, if your worldview is true. and here "No, understand the context of what I’m actually saying. I said that if atheism is true, it’s only change, not improvement. I don’t think atheism is true, so I can rationally think there is change for the better or worse even if I’m wrong about that."
But I get it. You are not denying improvement, even though improvement (beyond the Bible morality) was the point I was making but you changed the point. You apparently concede improvement, but deny that humans could do that. But slavery and other kinds of emancipation refutes that, doesn't it? The Bible says slavery is ok (which it isn't of Bible apologists wouldn't have to pretend it says something else. There has been improvement in other areas, like health, nutrition, lifestyle and life expectancy. If that is ascribable to human work, why in principle is it not the case with morals? You assertion that, if it is not grounded in some'objective' set of laws, it shouldn't work. That is sheer denial based on nothing valid.

[POI]

Can the 'rightness and wrongness' of an observed or experienced action be objectively concluded? If so, how exactly?

I may not be sure what you are meaning here. Can the rightness and wrongness of the shape of the Earth be objectively concluded? Your answer to that may help me understand your question better.

Allow me to clarify, using your example above:

1) The earth's shape is spherical. = Objective fact and an amoral observation
2) The earth's shape, which is spherical, is ('good', 'bad', 'other'). = moral observation

In other words, can making a moral observation about objective facts also be objective, or are all moral observations subjective?

Does this mean a 'moral' assessment can be objectively concluded based upon 'well-being'/other? Please clarify?

If one knows what a thing’s objective purpose is (if it has one), then an objective ‘well-being’ can be objectively concluded. But without an objective purpose, there is no goal to judge what 'well-being' means and what 'not-well-being' would refer to.

Well-being - is the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous

(Yes or no). Well-being is the standard to assess against a moral observation? If (no), can consequentialism then be the standard to assess against moral observation(s)? If (no), what IS THE standard to apply morals, if any?

I may or may not need further clarification, but I'll proceed to answer anyways (for now).

It's not about applying more "modern sensibilities". It is instead about heading towards being 'more right vs. not'? Is there such a thing? If so, who or what determines this path exactly? (i.e.) Does there exist THE CORRECT consequence/solution/resolution/other for so-and-so? And if so, by what reason/measure/justification?

That’s exactly my questions for you! What is that thing that shows we are leaving behind the Bible’s morality and the God of the Bible's chosen communication and heading towards being “more right vs. not”? If there is no such thing, then the video’s critique of God we are talking about fails.

Well, I reckon you would argue God is attempting to move folks in the right direction. Your argument may be that we are moving in that direction in some cases, but not others. I guess, in order to move this conversation forward, I will need to list some topics, from the video, for reference:

a) gay sex is not okay?
b) rape is not okay?
c) slavery is okay?

According to the Bible God, we are:

a) moving away from rightness?
b) heading towards rightness?
c) moving away from rightness?

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. Theist apologists seem to have a real struggle in telling the difference between objective fact (that is to say, what is so and true - assuming reality is real - no matter what humans think about or even know about it) and what is subjective, like human inventions like art, music and literature, and yet we value all those things and even debate the intrinsic Rightness of this or that iteration of them.

Apart from the insistence that there is (or should be) some kind of Cosmic Law of morality (like there should be of music) there is a sorta objective basis in instinct, though as yet we only got started on biological morality. I watched a Bernstein talk on the inherent (instinctive) effect of music. Why it makes us feel this way or that about it. The physics of music are inherent, but the effect it has on humans is (surely) instinctive. It is the same with morals and ethics. The basics are found in pack animals. They co -operate by evolved instinct. They do not (as an opponent on my Other forum once had it) have amoebas sitting round a table discussing what to do. Evolutionary forces find unplanned biological solutions, and sometimes ones we think moral and sometimes not. Thus humans are also moral and sometimes not.

Who decides and why? In practice we all know. There is an innate preference for what makes us live long and prosper and feel good about it, too. These are innate preferences as well as logical ones and for theist apologists to pretend none of it is valid unless some Cosmic Power has a Law of Morality is simply short sighted and irrational.

[The Tanager]

Allow me to clarify, using your example above:

1) The earth's shape is spherical. = Objective fact and an amoral observation
2) The earth's shape, which is spherical, is ('good', 'bad', 'other'). = moral observation

In other words, can making a moral observation about objective facts also be objective, or are all moral observations subjective?

If there are objective moral truths, then one will be making an objectively correct or incorrect moral observation. Now, the certainty of that observation is a different question, but I still think we can be adequately certain of many of our moral observations.

Well-being - is the state of being happy, healthy, or prosperous

(Yes or no). Well-being is the standard to assess against a moral observation? If (no), can consequentialism then be the standard to assess against moral observation(s)? If (no), what IS THE standard to apply morals, if any?

The question then becomes whether there is an objective happiness (linked to some objective purpose in being a human) or well-being is all about perceived happinesses. I think there is an objective happiness for humans based on our purpose.

Well, I reckon you would argue God is attempting to move folks in the right direction. Your argument may be that we are moving in that direction in some cases, but not others. I guess, in order to move this conversation forward, I will need to list some topics, from the video, for reference:

a) gay sex is not okay?
b) rape is not okay?
c) slavery is okay?

According to the Bible God, we are:

a) moving away from rightness?
b) heading towards rightness?
c) moving away from rightness?

You are skipping a step, though. To be able to move in the right OR wrong direction, morality has to be objective. Subjective morality cannot give us that. That’s the critique of the video right now. Are you a subjectivist? If so, then the video’s critique fails because subjective morality can’t rationally claim we are moving in the wrong or right direction. If you are not a subjectivist, then what objectively grounds our moral judgments?

[TRANSPONDER]

Since you seem disinclined to answer my post, I'll just observe that you are in failure mode because you insist on objectivity in something that is no more 'objective' than instinct plus social evolution and logical reasoning and does not need to be.

You are demanding something (God) that isn't needed or you refuse to accept that it is valid.

But you fail because what you will or will not accept is nothing to the point. What matters (as always) is that the reader with their mind still open will see that evolutionary (bio and social) evolution is adequate (if not actually better) to account for human morals and ethics, and sight better than any religious morality, including the Bible.

Your case Fails if you can't make a convincing one to others, never mind what you deny in order to cling to your own faith. It was never about persuading those who deny even hard evidence. Or as we have seen elsewhere even what the Bible says. Faith is the worst reason of all (other than race hate, of course) for believing any claim.

[The Tanager]

Since you seem disinclined to answer my post, I'll just observe that you are in failure mode because you insist on objectivity in something that is no more 'objective' than instinct plus social evolution and logical reasoning and does not need to be.

You are demanding something (God) that isn't needed or you refuse to accept that it is valid.

But you fail because what you will or will not accept is nothing to the point. What matters (as always) is that the reader with their mind still open will see that evolutionary (bio and social) evolution is adequate (if not actually better) to account for human morals and ethics, and sight better than any religious morality, including the Bible.

Your case Fails if you can't make a convincing one to others, never mind what you deny in order to cling to your own faith. It was never about persuading those who deny even hard evidence. Or as we have seen elsewhere even what the Bible says. Faith is the worst reason of all (other than race hate, of course) for believing any claim.

I’ll try one more time to get us on the same page, then. Your view is not objective. Yes, instinct plus social evolution plus logical reasoning can theoretically account for the actual moral views and behaviors we see in the world. But that’s not ‘objective morality’ any more than socio-biological evolution accounting for the ice cream flavors we like is ‘objective food taste’. Those are both objective facts about reality (you like X, I like Y), but those are facts about parts of reality that are subjective features. That's the first bit. Do you understand this part before going onto what I've said or haven't said about how reality needs to be objective and how God does or doesn't need to come into play.