[
Replying to The Tanager in post #300]
Thus you are a moral objectivist in the way I’ve been talking about all along. Yes, you disagree with me on other issues, but not the one I’ve been talking about all along.
I appreciate your perspective, but I think there’s been a misunderstanding. You’ve mentioned moral objectivism several times, but as far as I can recall, you haven’t clearly explained what you mean by it or provided a concrete example. Without that, declaring that I align with moral objectivism seems like a bit of a leap.
To clarify my position: I’m not advocating for an objective moral framework where moral truths are external and unchanging. Instead, I see morality as something that is co-created between humans and GOD, where humans are constantly evolving in their understanding of moral principles through subjective experiences and guidance from GOD. This isn’t the same as saying there is a fixed, objective set of moral rules we are all moving toward.
Could you explain more specifically what you mean by moral objectivism, and provide an example of what you see as an objective moral truth? That way, we can explore whether there really is any alignment between our positions.
But we also know that the human mind can have interactions with external realities. That means we know both types of interactions can occur. So, what evidence makes it more reasonable to infer the vision/subjective view over the literal view?
In the second quote above, you seem to say that since there isn’t evidence for the literal view, the subjective view is more reasonable. That doesn’t follow and it wrongly treats the subjective view as the default view, which it is not.
You bring up an important point about the human mind interacting with external realities, but it’s key to recognize that external realities consist of verifiable processes—shared experiences that can be observed and collectively interacted with. In the case of biblical reports like the burning bush or GOD carving the commandments, we don’t have any way to verify that these events happened as literal physical occurrences.
On the other hand, we do have a way to verify that these kinds of experiences could have happened through processes we know the mind is capable of undergoing—such as subjective spiritual experiences, visions, or symbolic interpretations that can be deeply meaningful.
So the question becomes: Why should we grant these reports as literal events when there is no way to verify they literally happened? We know the human mind can process and experience spiritual insights in symbolic ways, which are verifiable through psychological and consciousness studies. Given this, it seems more reasonable to interpret these stories as subjective or symbolic experiences, unless we have verifiable evidence that they were literal.
What would make the literal interpretation more reasonable in light of the fact that subjective processes are well-documented and verifiable?
What I just quoted in the previous quote seems to disagree with this. You say “It seems more reasonable to infer” these were intentional symbols than literal events. You need to clarify this because where we go from here will be different based on your actual claim.
I see where the confusion might be, so let me clarify my position. I’m not ruling out the possibility of these events being literal, but based on the evidence (or lack of it), it seems more reasonable to lean toward a subjective or symbolic interpretation.
Here’s the distinction:
I’m open to the idea that both interpretations—literal or subjective—could be valid, but given the lack of verifiable evidence that these events happened in a literal physical sense, it’s more plausible to interpret them as symbolic or subjective experiences.
My point is that, since subjective spiritual experiences are well-documented and align with how the mind processes and expresses profound insights, and we have no way to verify the literal occurrence, the subjective interpretation seems like a stronger inference in this case.
I’m not saying the literal interpretation is impossible, but rather that it requires more assumptions, and without clear evidence to support it, I think the subjective view is a more reasonable conclusion.
Does this help clarify my position?
____________________________
I think part of the confusion might stem from our different approaches to these kinds of reports, so I’d like to clarify something. I understand that you’re more inclined to view biblical reports—like Moses’ encounters—as literal because they carry spiritual and historical significance, while you see NDEs or similar phenomena as more aligned with hallucinations or materialist explanations.
However, what I’m suggesting is that both types of reports—whether biblical or modern-day phenomena like NDEs—can be viewed through a similar lens. If you’ve never had a personal experience of this kind of subjective spiritual phenomenon, it might be easier to default to a literal interpretation of biblical events while dismissing more contemporary phenomena as hallucinations.
But when you look at both types of experiences as potentially subjective spiritual encounters, it opens up a different perspective. Phenomenal experiences like NDEs, visions, and spiritual experiences—whether reported in the Bible or modern accounts—can be deeply meaningful and symbolic, even if they don’t align with a literal, or for that matter, superimpose themselves with external events.
The key point is that subjective experiences—whether ancient or modern—can be equally significant. This perspective allows us to interpret biblical reports and NDE reports with the same level of scrutiny and openness. Both can be understood as subjective interactions with the divine or spiritual realm, rather than being relegated to literal events on one side and hallucinations on the other.
Does this help clarify why I’m approaching both biblical and modern phenomena reports from a subjective and symbolic standpoint?
_____________________________
It occurs to me that while you’ve said you haven’t made any positive claims, you have agreed that the Ten Commandments are an example of what you mean by objective morality. Given this, it seems you might be implying that the commandments need to be taken literally in order to serve as objective moral truths.
If this is the case, is it the literal interpretation that makes them objective, or is there something else that you believe makes the commandments an example of objective morality? I’d appreciate it if you could elaborate on this, as it’s not entirely clear whether you see their objectivity tied to their literal nature or something else.
This clarification may help us move forward in understanding your position.
______________________________
It occurs to me that while you’ve said you haven’t made any positive claims, you have agreed that the Ten Commandments are an example of what you mean by objective morality. Given this, it seems you might be implying that the commandments need to be taken literally in order to serve as objective moral truths.
If this is the case, is it the literal interpretation that makes them objective, or is there something else that you believe makes the commandments an example of objective morality? I’d appreciate it if you could elaborate on this, as it’s not entirely clear whether you see their objectivity tied to their literal nature or something else.
This clarification will help us move forward in understanding your position.
Your mention of the doctrine of hell earlier, is something I recognize as a key doctrine of Cultural Christianity, often tied to the idea of punishment from an external, objective GOD. While hell is a significant element in Christian theology, particularly in terms of eternal punishment for those who offend GOD, I think we can broaden the conversation beyond just this doctrine.
Throughout the biblical texts, we see numerous examples of divine punishment meted out by GOD on those who were said to have offended him—whether it’s the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues of Egypt, or the exile of the Israelites. These narratives often reinforce the idea of an external GOD enforcing judgment and punishment on those who disobey or defy divine authority.
This same pattern of punishment carried over into Cultural Christianity. Historically, those in power within the Church judged and punished heretics, witches, and any group or individual who questioned their authority or refused to align with Christian doctrine. Whether through the Inquisition, the witch trials, or other forms of persecution, this behavior was justified as carrying out GOD’s will. This shows a clear continuity between the biblical idea of divine punishment and the ways in which Cultural Christianity enforced conformity through fear and violence.
The question I’d pose here is: How much of this idea of punishment—from hell as a theological concept to real-world persecution—comes from human interpretations and uses of power? If, as you suggest, moral guidance must come from an external, objective GOD, how do we reconcile that with the fact that so much of Christian history involves people using this concept of divine punishment to justify acts of iniquity? Jesus (as written) condemned those who claimed to act in GOD’s name but were really serving their own interests (Matthew 7:21-23).
In light of this, how do you see the relationship between the concept of divine punishment, as reflected in the Bible, and the actions taken by those in power throughout Christian history? Do you think these punishments were truly in line with GOD’s will, or were they more a product of human imaging, authority and interpretation which allows for the same type of behaviour the external GOD is said to practice?
