Morality versus Niceness: Winner Take All

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Does morality provide any advantage whatsoever over niceness?

This is something I'm posting in the Christianity rather than ethics section because I've thought quite a lot about it and decided that the religiosos are right and any useful morality absolutely has to come from God (or some other moral authority) no bones about it.

Morality here meaning the sort of codified rules that tell you that you can't (for example) murder people. Without absolute morality you absolutely can kill people, though of course you can still choose not to. Morality for the purposes of this discussion means you absolutely may not (for example) kill people under any circumstances it's wrong no room for discussion and that's that. Yes, you need an absolute moral authority for non-relative morality. That's inescapable.

And people are generally fallible so choosing a person gets you nowhere and choosing a government gets you Nazis. Besides, you may say this person is an absolute moral authority and someone else may simply disagree, so yes, it pretty much has to be God, and God pretty much has to have been imbued with that moral authority as a function of the universe. Also unfortunately if there is no such being, absolute morality doesn't exist, because nobody has that authority and people thus may always disagree.

But let's abandon morality for a moment and talk about niceness. In other words, doing what the other person wants you to and not what he doesn't, just to be nice to him. This has problems because perhaps he wants something unreasonable like both your kidneys, but this is already knowable and absolute because this other fellow exists and if you're trying to be nice to him, and he lies, he's only hurting himself.

Morality can solve the problem of people being unreasonable, but only because morality is a codified system that tells you when you may permissibly hurt someone and that's the bloody problem with it! If you may never hurt anyone, you're stuck doing what they want and that's a problem if they're unreasonable, but this problem isn't really a problem unless there's a moral rule that tells you that you have to be nice. And there obviously isn't.

So doesn't niceness have the same problem as relative morality in that it's useless? No. Niceness is still useful because two people may agree to be nice to one another, and as long as they abide by that agreement, and are both reasonable, they both benefit. I would argue they benefit more than if they're both pouring over a holy book trying to find permissible ways to hurt one another, or delighting in making complicated agreements and castigating the other person when they break them.

Remember, agreements aren't morally binding in this system; they are a tool to facilitate niceness and should be discarded when they cease to serve that purpose. The person who breaks the agreement is not automatically wrong and the person who kept it is not automatically righteous. If we're trying to be nice it's about avoiding hurting the other person. If someone always cries that they're hurt by you no matter what you do, well, you can't avoid hurting them, but again, nobody said you had to. Niceness isn't like morality: It's not mandatory. It's just something we do to make our lives easier.

But what about the problem of knowing what you may, and may not do? Shouldn't that be consistent? Well, if there's no morality there's nothing stopping a government from making good laws that benefit the society and there's nothing stopping people from following them. In other words, without morality, laws - if they help a society rather than hurt it - are by default legitimate. You don't have to follow them but if you break them, it's not wrong when you get punished. And we can even be nice by punishing people if the actions we're punishing are hurting others. In other words, it may not be nice to the murderer, but it's nice to future potential victims to lock up or even put the murderer to death.

So TL;DR: I don't see what advantage morality has that niceness can't go above and beyond. Niceness doesn't define people into wrongness on technicalities. Niceness doesn't castigate people who are trying. And if niceness fails, well then, don't be nice. It's a tool, so stop using it when it doesn't work.

[TRANSPONDER]

If the law against killing is rigid, then why would God kill? Or is God immoral or above morality in your view?

The law seems, to me, to be for people and not God. Either that, or it somehow isn't technically murder when God does it.

I'm actually not one of the people who objects to this. If such a being exists, so powerful that it could author morality, so powerful that because it has every power, it has the power to commit any action and have it count as moral, we can't possibly object to anything it does on a moral basis.

However, the question then becomes, how useful is morality?

I agree that the law is for people (basically training wheels in my view). So my previous response definitely breaks down on that front and only applies if we define morality by the law (per the OP).

This changes though when we think bigger, and go to the source of the law, which is the Word / Spirit. That is our true aim (and the aim of the law), and marks union with God once achieved. Like Jesus: His will is God's. His words and actions are God's. So there is a common morality once we traverse that gap -- one that God is just as beholden to as us, even if God is the author of it.

I get your further analysis though as much as I take no joy in it. It's a caricature God. A popular but biblically unsound view prone to massive criticisms. There are some obvious counterpoints, too, where biblical heroes do object to God and gain ground. Abraham (when he argues for Sodom). Job (when he argues against his treatment). Moses (when he argues for Israel after the golden calf).

It all speaks to some deeper principle / value that they all share and are trying to live by. God included.

The question really is, whether the Spirit is to be found by going back to religious texts and regard the present 'Law' and everything that follows on as 'training - wheels' or whether the Holy Books were the training wheels of human morality - codes (aside from pretending to be the authorities for it) and the 'Law' of ethics and moral philosophy is putting an engine into it, so to speak, and the 'Spirit' is not to be found by going back to old religions, but realising the essentials of morality and what it actually is.

Cue: "But that's human morality which is imperfect! God's morality is perfect!" Thing is that wishful thinking and ideals aren't always what we get in nature. And maybe what we have to do is try to make the best of the hand that evolution dished out to us rather than insist that we can have a perfect flush if only we believe in it hard enough.

[theophile]

I agree that the law is for people (basically training wheels in my view). So my previous response definitely breaks down on that front and only applies if we define morality by the law (per the OP).

This changes though when we think bigger, and go to the source of the law, which is the Word / Spirit. That is our true aim (and the aim of the law), and marks union with God once achieved. Like Jesus: His will is God's. His words and actions are God's. So there is a common morality once we traverse that gap -- one that God is just as beholden to as us, even if God is the author of it.

What you're getting at is the idea of rights, and the idea of some beings (usually sentient or sapient ones) having them just by virtue of existing, even against beings higher than they. I actually think this idea breaks down upon inspection. But let's treat it as true.

Let's treat it as true that there are some things I simply may not do, even to beings I create. And there are some things God may not do, even to beings he creates. I shouldn't abuse animals, even those I create from scratch, and neither should God, which includes me.

The question is: Why not? If you're saying something is binding on God, why?

No, not rights. But I get why you say that. I'm more talking about values here, and what is most valued, not just by us but by God. A shared, fundamental value that guides all action and can (should we want to) be elaborated and codified in a set of rules.

For the sake of argument, let's say that what God valued first and foremost was life. The furtherance and betterment of life of every kind.
When God looks at an animal then, it's not an inviolable right inherent to the animal that stays God from harming it, or that compels God to help it, but the fact that the animal's life is what God holds in highest esteem. It's much more a personal conviction and affirmation than it is an external force imposed upon us (as a right would be).

But you're right, God (or we) can do whatever we want or are able to. Rights or values be damned. So it's not binding on God, to your question. But if God doesn't act consistently with God's values, then there is no reason for faith. Further, if we look at God's values and find them lacking, same thing. (And I do think God's fundamental value is discoverable through God's words and actions -- it burns pretty hot on the pages of Genesis 1 for instance...)

I get your further analysis though as much as I take no joy in it. It's a caricature God. A popular but biblically unsound view prone to massive criticisms. There are some obvious counterpoints, too, where biblical heroes do object to God and gain ground. Abraham (when he argues for Sodom). Job (when he argues against his treatment). Moses (when he argues for Israel after the golden calf).

It all speaks to some deeper principle / value that they all share and are trying to live by. God included.

But if that principle exists, God is still the object of it, and people are lesser in it, merely tools to treat how God wants so that I may achieve my goal of being moral. I don't really like that. I would prefer that we be the most important objects of one another's desire to behave appropriately to one another.

That doesn't say we can't also be nice to God. But we have to make a choice when God says not to be nice to someone else.

No, God is not the object, and people are not lesser per se. In the examples I gave, Abraham, Job and Moses all had the moral high ground.

For the sake of argument (per above), if the shared, fundamental value is life, then the object is to spread life throughout the world, and to create the conditions where every kind of life can flourish (like in a garden). From the very beginning, God calls us to share in that value and join that pursuit. "Fill the earth and subdue it." (Gen 1) "Take care of the garden." (Gen 2)

What the right action is in every moment to uphold that value and achieve that end is something we have to keep discerning anew. Life is as chaotic as it is an orderly system (and that's not necessarily a bad thing!). Hence (to the OP) why a codified set of rules such as the law will always breakdown (because it's not a perfect order). Hence why God chooses people like Abraham or Moses, who are willing to 'wrestle with God' (/Israel) in finding the right course.

So I 100% agree with your last point here. We have to make a choice when God says not to be nice to someone. We have to ask if it is consistent with the above, and if not, call God out for it. That is our job from the very beginning (i.e., being made in the image of God, called to rule, and to fill the earth with life).

[theophile]

I would prefer that we be the most important objects of one another's desire to behave appropriately to one another.

Just to comment on that quick. I think the issue is when we focus too much on optimizing parts versus the whole (for lack of better analogy). What I mean is, I can't value you above all, and Sally over here as well. And Joe. While every life is important, if we focus too much on any one life it creates conflict and lack of objectivity. Hence I see the bible trying to pull us up a level. Either by focusing on our union with God, who in turn is focused on the bigger picture, or by focusing on the bigger picture, which in turn means we're in union with God.

Either way, the result is the same: we're all working together out of a shared value and towards the same end.

[theophile]

If the law against killing is rigid, then why would God kill? Or is God immoral or above morality in your view?

The law seems, to me, to be for people and not God. Either that, or it somehow isn't technically murder when God does it.

I'm actually not one of the people who objects to this. If such a being exists, so powerful that it could author morality, so powerful that because it has every power, it has the power to commit any action and have it count as moral, we can't possibly object to anything it does on a moral basis.

However, the question then becomes, how useful is morality?

I agree that the law is for people (basically training wheels in my view). So my previous response definitely breaks down on that front and only applies if we define morality by the law (per the OP).

This changes though when we think bigger, and go to the source of the law, which is the Word / Spirit. That is our true aim (and the aim of the law), and marks union with God once achieved. Like Jesus: His will is God's. His words and actions are God's. So there is a common morality once we traverse that gap -- one that God is just as beholden to as us, even if God is the author of it.

I get your further analysis though as much as I take no joy in it. It's a caricature God. A popular but biblically unsound view prone to massive criticisms. There are some obvious counterpoints, too, where biblical heroes do object to God and gain ground. Abraham (when he argues for Sodom). Job (when he argues against his treatment). Moses (when he argues for Israel after the golden calf).

It all speaks to some deeper principle / value that they all share and are trying to live by. God included.

The question really is, whether the Spirit is to be found by going back to religious texts and regard the present 'Law' and everything that follows on as 'training - wheels' or whether the Holy Books were the training wheels of human morality - codes (aside from pretending to be the authorities for it) and the 'Law' of ethics and moral philosophy is putting an engine into it, so to speak, and the 'Spirit' is not to be found by going back to old religions, but realising the essentials of morality and what it actually is.

Cue: "But that's human morality which is imperfect! God's morality is perfect!" Thing is that wishful thinking and ideals aren't always what we get in nature. And maybe what we have to do is try to make the best of the hand that evolution dished out to us rather than insist that we can have a perfect flush if only we believe in it hard enough.

The bible and any other religious trappings are all conditional language, stories, rituals, what have you. There's nothing necessary about any of it, or that can't be had, found, or conveyed through other means.

But that doesn't mean it is wrong.

[Purple Knight]

No, not rights. But I get why you say that. I'm more talking about values here, and what is most valued, not just by us but by God. A shared, fundamental value that guides all action and can (should we want to) be elaborated and codified in a set of rules.

For the sake of argument, let's say that what God valued first and foremost was life. The furtherance and betterment of life of every kind.
When God looks at an animal then, it's not an inviolable right inherent to the animal that stays God from harming it, or that compels God to help it, but the fact that the animal's life is what God holds in highest esteem. It's much more a personal conviction and affirmation than it is an external force imposed upon us (as a right would be).

It is fairly apparent that this is exactly what the God of the Chosen People does: Acts directly on his own valuations. This being has goals, among them being the betterment of his Chosen People... and no one else perhaps save the descendants of Jacob's elder brother, who were promised, "a different destiny."

When the thing in question helps the goals of this being, this being helps that thing. When not, that thing is turned into a pillar of salt or genocided.

What we are seeing here is not evil, but simply a being that wants what it wants and does everything it can to achieve those things. Ambition is only linked with evil in humanity because we do have these moral impositions that say, here and there and this case and that one, you may not simply do whatever to pursue your own goals; you must abide by morality and moral rules instead, and put second (but not last) your own desires. Selfishness is not bad; selfishness to the abandonment of moral rules is bad. (And sometimes, all selfishness might qualify if those rules say don't be selfish.)

Others would be condemning God here, but I'm not. I'm simply saying we should be more like God.

Only Jews are supposed to be able to do this, but I'm calling God on the carpet and asking why these rules at all? If it's just to benefit God, so be it, let me know that and make an informed decision. If God comes to me and tells me, genocide the Amalekites, I might say yes. I really might. There are Peoples in modern day that disproportionately hurt, slander, and oppose the Chosen People so frankly I don't see why not, if this is all real. I don't actually believe that canonically, anybody but Semitic people can go to Heaven but it still provides a moral center and that might be better than fighting over morality unresolvably.

But I do have to consider: What if none of this is real? Well then, morality isn't real and I'm just being a blug hole whenever I fail to be nice to someone because God told me it was okay. If God is not real, we're all equals and I should be nice to everyone. And if I want genocide, I would have to make such a strong case for how these ones hurt all the others, that I don't even think that case is capable of being made. I would also have to do that within the limits and laws of a society, so if I think (for example) that white people are evil, but many of them never commit a crime, too bad for me, because this is exactly why we have laws: To make expectations about what we can and cannot do, very very clear. If I want to call people out for something like institutional racism, I must first work to get the laws changed to clarify and ban it, then make my case when they're all still doing it.

Basically, I don't think God (and its morality) works for us. For humanity. Its goal-oriented approach is fine for itself and I don't see it as wrong, but I don't believe it's possible for us as reasoning human beings to simply be vessels of Grandma Elle's individual ethical egoism either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism
An individual ethical egoist would hold that all people should do whatever benefits "my" (the individual's) self-interest;

[TRANSPONDER]

If the law against killing is rigid, then why would God kill? Or is God immoral or above morality in your view?

The law seems, to me, to be for people and not God. Either that, or it somehow isn't technically murder when God does it.

I'm actually not one of the people who objects to this. If such a being exists, so powerful that it could author morality, so powerful that because it has every power, it has the power to commit any action and have it count as moral, we can't possibly object to anything it does on a moral basis.

However, the question then becomes, how useful is morality?

I agree that the law is for people (basically training wheels in my view). So my previous response definitely breaks down on that front and only applies if we define morality by the law (per the OP).

This changes though when we think bigger, and go to the source of the law, which is the Word / Spirit. That is our true aim (and the aim of the law), and marks union with God once achieved. Like Jesus: His will is God's. His words and actions are God's. So there is a common morality once we traverse that gap -- one that God is just as beholden to as us, even if God is the author of it.

I get your further analysis though as much as I take no joy in it. It's a caricature God. A popular but biblically unsound view prone to massive criticisms. There are some obvious counterpoints, too, where biblical heroes do object to God and gain ground. Abraham (when he argues for Sodom). Job (when he argues against his treatment). Moses (when he argues for Israel after the golden calf).

It all speaks to some deeper principle / value that they all share and are trying to live by. God included.

The question really is, whether the Spirit is to be found by going back to religious texts and regard the present 'Law' and everything that follows on as 'training - wheels' or whether the Holy Books were the training wheels of human morality - codes (aside from pretending to be the authorities for it) and the 'Law' of ethics and moral philosophy is putting an engine into it, so to speak, and the 'Spirit' is not to be found by going back to old religions, but realising the essentials of morality and what it actually is.

Cue: "But that's human morality which is imperfect! God's morality is perfect!" Thing is that wishful thinking and ideals aren't always what we get in nature. And maybe what we have to do is try to make the best of the hand that evolution dished out to us rather than insist that we can have a perfect flush if only we believe in it hard enough.

The bible and any other religious trappings are all conditional language, stories, rituals, what have you. There's nothing necessary about any of it, or that can't be had, found, or conveyed through other means.

But that doesn't mean it is wrong.

No, it doesn't. For that, you have to use different arguments. It's why I look at history and internal text. I only appeal to other sources of inspiration and ethics to counter any special claim for the Bible on that particular basis.

[theophile]

If the law against killing is rigid, then why would God kill? Or is God immoral or above morality in your view?

The law seems, to me, to be for people and not God. Either that, or it somehow isn't technically murder when God does it.

I'm actually not one of the people who objects to this. If such a being exists, so powerful that it could author morality, so powerful that because it has every power, it has the power to commit any action and have it count as moral, we can't possibly object to anything it does on a moral basis.

However, the question then becomes, how useful is morality?

I agree that the law is for people (basically training wheels in my view). So my previous response definitely breaks down on that front and only applies if we define morality by the law (per the OP).

This changes though when we think bigger, and go to the source of the law, which is the Word / Spirit. That is our true aim (and the aim of the law), and marks union with God once achieved. Like Jesus: His will is God's. His words and actions are God's. So there is a common morality once we traverse that gap -- one that God is just as beholden to as us, even if God is the author of it.

I get your further analysis though as much as I take no joy in it. It's a caricature God. A popular but biblically unsound view prone to massive criticisms. There are some obvious counterpoints, too, where biblical heroes do object to God and gain ground. Abraham (when he argues for Sodom). Job (when he argues against his treatment). Moses (when he argues for Israel after the golden calf).

It all speaks to some deeper principle / value that they all share and are trying to live by. God included.

The question really is, whether the Spirit is to be found by going back to religious texts and regard the present 'Law' and everything that follows on as 'training - wheels' or whether the Holy Books were the training wheels of human morality - codes (aside from pretending to be the authorities for it) and the 'Law' of ethics and moral philosophy is putting an engine into it, so to speak, and the 'Spirit' is not to be found by going back to old religions, but realising the essentials of morality and what it actually is.

Cue: "But that's human morality which is imperfect! God's morality is perfect!" Thing is that wishful thinking and ideals aren't always what we get in nature. And maybe what we have to do is try to make the best of the hand that evolution dished out to us rather than insist that we can have a perfect flush if only we believe in it hard enough.

The bible and any other religious trappings are all conditional language, stories, rituals, what have you. There's nothing necessary about any of it, or that can't be had, found, or conveyed through other means.

But that doesn't mean it is wrong.

No, it doesn't. For that, you have to use different arguments. It's why I look at history and internal text. I only appeal to other sources of inspiration and ethics to counter any special claim for the Bible on that particular basis.

'Right and wrong' are relative -- there are too many kinds of 'truth'. So near impossible to say whether the bible is absolutely right or wrong. We can only say it is right or wrong from a certain perspective. Like that of science or history, to your point. (And using those two examples, it is definitely wrong for the most part!)

But morally? A much tougher nut to crack, and it's still going to come down to personal conviction methinks.

For the sake of argument, we can't say that the bible (or anyone else for that matter) is wrong for the core values they hold. That is personal conviction and what I've been arguing gives us a moral sensibility in the first place. (Our moral compass is relative to that chosen north.) We can only say it is wrong in what it says follows from those values, i.e., if its words or actions are not consistent. Or we can try to sell what we think is a superior value-system...

Hence I would further suggest that most of the time spent arguing against the bible is misplaced. It's either spent attacking specific words or actions conveyed by the bible, without tying back to the core values giving rise to them (i.e., context-less arguments that presuppose other value-systems). Or it's attacking the God-concept, as if that's what gives weight to what the bible says...

This I think is key: What gives weight to God (to God's words / the bible) is not God but the values God holds. So that is where all argument should be focused, IMO, should we want to dislodge the bible from our conscience.

[theophile]

It is fairly apparent that this is exactly what the God of the Chosen People does: Acts directly on his own valuations. This being has goals, among them being the betterment of his Chosen People... and no one else perhaps save the descendants of Jacob's elder brother, who were promised, "a different destiny."

When the thing in question helps the goals of this being, this being helps that thing. When not, that thing is turned into a pillar of salt or genocided.

If I read you correctly, our main difference is as follows (just to restate and be clear):

Where I see all of God's "goals" anchored in and flowing from an original -- and enduring -- affirmation of life, you see it as selfishness (i.e., God's goals involve a certain level of caprice or divine whim -- they are disconnected and somewhat arbitrary based on God's latest interest or valuation of things).

So to your example, why destroy the Amalekites? You say because it benefits God -- whatever God's goal of the day is. I say because it benefits life, and because all of God's goals are for life. (To your point, the Amalekites are a blight on the earth, and perhaps should be destroyed.)

If so, what makes you think there's no anchor point (what I called before a fundamental value) informing God's goals? I can logically tie back anything that's been said so far, like the destruction of the Amalekites (to free life from their oppression), or the choosing of Israel (to be a light to the other nations), or the giving of the law (to guide Israel in a time of moral immaturity).

It all follows from and points back to that original and enduring affirmation of life.

Basically, I don't think God (and its morality) works for us. For humanity. Its goal-oriented approach is fine for itself and I don't see it as wrong, but I don't believe it's possible for us as reasoning human beings to simply be vessels of Grandma Elle's individual ethical egoism either.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism
An individual ethical egoist would hold that all people should do whatever benefits "my" (the individual's) self-interest;

I don't see why God's morality (my version at least) can't work for us. I also don't think it reduces us to 'vessels' either. It involves personal conviction (/autonomy) and the ongoing, highly rational effort of discerning the right course. And fighting for it (against God even).

It suggests something not far off from your turn to human institutions of government. i.e., an assembly with shared values constantly working out and implementing the path to salvation for all.

[Purple Knight]

If so, what makes you think there's no anchor point (what I called before a fundamental value) informing God's goals? I can logically tie back anything that's been said so far, like the destruction of the Amalekites (to free life from their oppression), or the choosing of Israel (to be a light to the other nations), or the giving of the law (to guide Israel in a time of moral immaturity).

I'm sure there is an anchor point but it's going to be difficult to live my life by, "Does this help or hurt the Jews?" because 1) I actually don't know and 2) this is far-off from my natural center as I'm not a Jew. It's about as natural as living my life by, "Does this action help or hurt the Queen of England's pet goldfish?" Well I don't know for one, and the goldfish doesn't figure in my life at all for two.

It might help me decide the big stuff and I have no problem (for example) voting more power and freedom to the ADL, and for harsher anti-discrimination laws that specifically target whites as discriminators because whites are the modern-day Amalekites who always seem to be at odds with the Jews and hurting or slandering them somehow. I might even have an understanding that a law aiming to limit white reproduction is good.

But this is all big stuff and has an effect on one thing I do every two years. This tells me next to nothing about how I ought to behave toward everyone in the everyday, which not only doesn't require the big picture, but constant zooming out may bring important things out of focus. Similarly, zooming in may be bad, and I may decide that by the general affirmation of life, and applying that to the everyday, the person I'm helping is an Amalekite who goes on to hurt Jews and now I've actually contradicted the main focus of morality. Or maybe not helping him because he's an Amalekite and trying to hurt him instead causes me to be alienated from a large group of others who now (though they wouldn't have otherwise) perceive the Amalekite as the good guy.

Do you see how the focus being on something that is irreducibly two or three steps away from me is tough and likely to backfire? God is even one more step away than the Jews are. I can't live my life trying to please somebody I don't know, whether it's God or somebody's goldfish on another continent.

It suggests something not far off from your turn to human institutions of government. i.e., an assembly with shared values constantly working out and implementing the path to salvation for all.

I do think a society must have shared values and that pluralism doesn't work. I think pluralism - the diversity of values - is bad, and requires cognitive dissonance. Instead of everyone being encouraged to fight for what they believe is right, everyone must simply ignore what is wrong and pretend that this is okay.

[TRANSPONDER]

If the law against killing is rigid, then why would God kill? Or is God immoral or above morality in your view?

The law seems, to me, to be for people and not God. Either that, or it somehow isn't technically murder when God does it.

I'm actually not one of the people who objects to this. If such a being exists, so powerful that it could author morality, so powerful that because it has every power, it has the power to commit any action and have it count as moral, we can't possibly object to anything it does on a moral basis.

However, the question then becomes, how useful is morality?

I agree that the law is for people (basically training wheels in my view). So my previous response definitely breaks down on that front and only applies if we define morality by the law (per the OP).

This changes though when we think bigger, and go to the source of the law, which is the Word / Spirit. That is our true aim (and the aim of the law), and marks union with God once achieved. Like Jesus: His will is God's. His words and actions are God's. So there is a common morality once we traverse that gap -- one that God is just as beholden to as us, even if God is the author of it.

I get your further analysis though as much as I take no joy in it. It's a caricature God. A popular but biblically unsound view prone to massive criticisms. There are some obvious counterpoints, too, where biblical heroes do object to God and gain ground. Abraham (when he argues for Sodom). Job (when he argues against his treatment). Moses (when he argues for Israel after the golden calf).

It all speaks to some deeper principle / value that they all share and are trying to live by. God included.

The question really is, whether the Spirit is to be found by going back to religious texts and regard the present 'Law' and everything that follows on as 'training - wheels' or whether the Holy Books were the training wheels of human morality - codes (aside from pretending to be the authorities for it) and the 'Law' of ethics and moral philosophy is putting an engine into it, so to speak, and the 'Spirit' is not to be found by going back to old religions, but realising the essentials of morality and what it actually is.

Cue: "But that's human morality which is imperfect! God's morality is perfect!" Thing is that wishful thinking and ideals aren't always what we get in nature. And maybe what we have to do is try to make the best of the hand that evolution dished out to us rather than insist that we can have a perfect flush if only we believe in it hard enough.

The bible and any other religious trappings are all conditional language, stories, rituals, what have you. There's nothing necessary about any of it, or that can't be had, found, or conveyed through other means.

But that doesn't mean it is wrong.

No, it doesn't. For that, you have to use different arguments. It's why I look at history and internal text. I only appeal to other sources of inspiration and ethics to counter any special claim for the Bible on that particular basis.

'Right and wrong' are relative -- there are too many kinds of 'truth'. So near impossible to say whether the bible is absolutely right or wrong. We can only say it is right or wrong from a certain perspective. Like that of science or history, to your point. (And using those two examples, it is definitely wrong for the most part!)

But morally? A much tougher nut to crack, and it's still going to come down to personal conviction methinks.

For the sake of argument, we can't say that the bible (or anyone else for that matter) is wrong for the core values they hold. That is personal conviction and what I've been arguing gives us a moral sensibility in the first place. (Our moral compass is relative to that chosen north.) We can only say it is wrong in what it says follows from those values, i.e., if its words or actions are not consistent. Or we can try to sell what we think is a superior value-system...

Hence I would further suggest that most of the time spent arguing against the bible is misplaced. It's either spent attacking specific words or actions conveyed by the bible, without tying back to the core values giving rise to them (i.e., context-less arguments that presuppose other value-systems). Or it's attacking the God-concept, as if that's what gives weight to what the bible says...

This I think is key: What gives weight to God (to God's words / the bible) is not God but the values God holds. So that is where all argument should be focused, IMO, should we want to dislodge the bible from our conscience.

This is the problem.Yes right and wrong is relative, and obviously that is because it is human. The underlying principle (what benefits humans plus the principle of reciprocity = empathy is also human, and if it isn't easy to work out what we should do let alone how to do it, it solves nothing by tuning to a particular religion or Holy Book or god -concept to make it work let alone make it work perfectly. We have a better chance of being able to push on to a better level of human ethics by understanding the principle, not using a mythological explanation, never mind trying to mytholygize morality and ethics in order to try to prop up religion.