Refuting Christians with their Own Bible

[The Grand Nudger]

I do think slavery is "shitty". So is death, disease, natural disasters, crime, emotional damage, etc. I just happen to think that God allowing them has a higher purpose. You are right, it can become difficult to remain consistent from topic to topic.

I'm glad we share that opinion.  Bible god doesn't just allow slavery, however, he directly commands it.  I don't think that's going to get him off the hook of our shared opinion.

[robvalue]

But God couldn't do any better than that back then, for some reason.

[Veritas_Vincit]

So neither of you read the part where I explain why that is a bullshit answer to anything? I assume she did, maybe you didn't.

---

Let me put it another way: what possible value can morality have other than maximising the wellbeing of conscious creatures?

What is the point of morality to you?

---

Otherwise what is moral about morality?

 
Morality seeks to define what is 'good' and 'bad'. You make moral judgments almost constantly. Kind of important for daily life. From Wikipedia: 

Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.

I was pointing out that while you think your morality is objective, it is not."Maximising the wellbeing of conscious creatures" is simply not sufficient to form a theory of ethical behavior. So if it is not sufficient to form a system of morality, what is it that you are basing your system on? Not science. What then?

Think about it. What is 'good' about good and 'bad' about bad?

In a universe devoid of life, populated only by rocks, would good and bad mean anything?

If morality is about behaviour, why does behaviour matter? Other than how it positively or negatively impacts on conscious creatures?

Sam Harris explains it very well, I'm paraphrasing: imagine a world in which every conscious creature, every human and animal, suffered as much as it can for as long as it can. This is by definition 'bad' - in fact, this is as bad as things can be. If you think there's a reality that is worse than this, then you haven't understood the definition.

So, if we start there, any universe, any choice, any reality with less suffering is by definition better. Once you take this basic premise, and assume that non-suffering is generally preferable to suffering, health is generally preferable to disease, life is generally preferable to death, you have the basis for a system of moral behaviour.

Evaluating the morality of any given action is now simply a question of evaluating its impact on ones self and others in terms of whether it creates suffering or promotes wellbeing. From there it's just a question of how to we make life better. Science is the best approach to this, in fact, it is the only approach worth using - it is the most realible method we have to make models of reality and figure out what is real and how the universe works.

[GrandizerII]

The morality we go by is certainly not determined by something concrete from the divine. If slavery is wrong, how did God let you know?

Because Jesus' message contained things like "love your neighbor as yourself", the beatitudes (Matthew 5), meekness, turning the other cheek, 'fruits of the spirit', etc. The path that Jesus wants us to walk has no room for things like slavery. That is why I feel confident in "backing into" God's position on slavery in the OT.

Love your neighbor as yourself was in the OT as well, yet no one interpreted it as implying that slavery is wrong back then.

But you see how you have to go by your own subjective interpretation of what it means to love your neighbor as yourself in order to come to your personal conclusion that slavery is wrong. Some people may think that loving your neighbor as yourself does not apply to slaves in the same way that others thought this did not apply to non-Israelites. Many Americans in the days prior to, and during the Civil War, certainly did not interpret that command to mean stop owning slaves. So if subjective interpretations (of the scriptures, mind you) is what you have to go by, you're not in any better position than us.

[ukatheist]

Would God know of a better solution: yes, certainly.

Could a nation of loosely grouped tribes create a centralized government that was capable of providing a safety net for the poor and refugee camps (with a long-term resettlement plan) for the displaced after a military campaign? Highly unlikely. 

To make your point, you can't simply say "God could have...". It is not that easy--you would have to give a plausible scenario.

Hmm, how about 'and if you kill another in battle you shall treat those dependant on them as your own family, treat their children as your own children' or 'if a man comes to you to offer himself as a slave, you shall not take him as a slave, but treat him as your brother' etc etc. No need for refugee camps, or formation of a centralised government. No need for slavery. Much more in keeping with what xtians prefer to believe the bible says.

Your god *could* have said that. Well, if he existed.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

[robvalue]

I want to know why god doesn't speak these days. He used to have no problem just turning up and saying stuff. What happened?

[SteveII]

Because Jesus' message contained things like "love your neighbor as yourself", the beatitudes (Matthew 5), meekness, turning the other cheek, 'fruits of the spirit', etc. The path that Jesus wants us to walk has no room for things like slavery. That is why I feel confident in "backing into" God's position on slavery in the OT.

Love your neighbor as yourself was in the OT as well, yet no one interpreted it as implying that slavery is wrong back then.

But you see how you have to go by your own subjective interpretation of what it means to love your neighbor as yourself in order to come to your personal conclusion that slavery is wrong. Some people may think that loving your neighbor as yourself does not apply to slaves in the same way that others thought this did not apply to non-Israelites. Many Americans in the days prior to, and during the Civil War, certainly did not interpret that command to mean stop owning slaves. So if subjective interpretations (of the scriptures, mind you) is what you have to go by, you're not in any better position than us.

In the OT is was literally your neighbor. Jesus expanded "your neighbor" to mean everyone in the parable of the Good Samaritan. I can't see how that parable leaves the concept of everyone being your neighbor as subjective. The Jews hated the Samaritans. If Americans did not interpret that concept correctly it certainly was not because it was unclear. Jesus expanded several things in the same way. Do not murder was expanded to do not hate. Do not commit adultery was expanded to do not lust, etc. He explained it was a heart thing, not a "do not" thing.

[RoadRunner79]

https://youtu.be/44ilZq3R900

I think that video demonstrates pretty well, the problem that we had before, of equivocating two different meanings of the word objective.

[robvalue]

Would God know of a better solution: yes, certainly.

Could a nation of loosely grouped tribes create a centralized government that was capable of providing a safety net for the poor and refugee camps (with a long-term resettlement plan) for the displaced after a military campaign? Highly unlikely. 

To make your point, you can't simply say "God could have...". It is not that easy--you would have to give a plausible scenario.

Hmm, how about 'and if you kill another in battle you shall treat those dependant on them as your own family, treat their children as your own children' or 'if a man comes to you to offer himself as a slave, you shall not take him as a slave, but treat him as your brother' etc etc. No need for refugee camps, or formation of a centralised government. No need for slavery. Much more in keeping with what xtians prefer to believe the bible says.

Your god *could* have said that. Well, if he existed.

Sent from my ALE-L21 using Tapatalk

Welcome to the forums! Perhaps you'd like to make a thread in the introductions section, to tell us a little about yourself?

[SteveII]

 
Morality seeks to define what is 'good' and 'bad'. You make moral judgments almost constantly. Kind of important for daily life. From Wikipedia: 


I was pointing out that while you think your morality is objective, it is not."Maximising the wellbeing of conscious creatures" is simply not sufficient to form a theory of ethical behavior. So if it is not sufficient to form a system of morality, what is it that you are basing your system on? Not science. What then?

Think about it. What is 'good' about good and 'bad' about bad?

In a universe devoid of life, populated only by rocks, would good and bad mean anything?

If morality is about behaviour, why does behaviour matter? Other than how it positively or negatively impacts on conscious creatures?

Sam Harris explains it very well, I'm paraphrasing: imagine a world in which every conscious creature, every human and animal, suffered as much as it can for as long as it can. This is by definition 'bad' - in fact, this is as bad as things can be. If you think there's a reality that is worse than this, then you haven't understood the definition.

So, if we start there, any universe, any choice, any reality with less suffering is by definition better. Once you take this basic premise, and assume that non-suffering is generally preferable to suffering, health is generally preferable to disease, life is generally preferable to death, you have the basis for a system of moral behaviour.

Evaluating the morality of any given action is now simply a question of evaluating its impact on ones self and others in terms of whether it creates suffering or promotes wellbeing. From there it's just a question of how to we make life better. Science is the best approach to this, in fact, it is the only approach worth using - it is the most realible method we have to make models of reality and figure out what is real and how the universe works.

But why base morality on the "well-being of conscious creatures"? First what is good/goodness; bad/evil? Harris is redefining the moral words good and evil in nonmoral terms as the well-being of conscious creatures. So when we ask "why is maximizing well-being good?" it is the same as asking "why is maximizing well-being maximizing well-being?". This is question begging and circular. 

Second, can rapist, liars and thieves be just as happy as 'good' people? Since their greatest state of 'well-being' conflicts with someone else's all you have is a continuum of well-being and not true 'morals'. What about psychopathic people or even worse, a group of psychopaths? How do you define well-being within that group? Linking well-being with brain states does not get you to anything resembling objective morality. 

Regarding your statement about evaluating morality: "Science is the best approach to this, in fact, it is the only approach worth using" is wrong on many levels. First, science can only tell us what is and not what ought to be. It can describe how we are but not offer an opinion as to what is wrong with how we are. It certainly cannot tell what we ought to do (moral obligations) and therefore obligatory actions for things like the well-being of conscious creatures. 

Second, ought implies can. Do you believe as Harris does that free will is illusory? He rejects both the libertarian and compatibilistic view so we are left with hard-core determinism. If we don't really have choices, what does that say about a system of morality?

Third, aren't there other goals beside scientific well-being that would be of interest to us? Happiness, love, fulfillment, security, companionship, loyalty, creativity, etc.?