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?

[The Tanager]

Wasn't that answered? The objective of betterment is in contributing to the well -being of humans individually and collectively. And it gets no more objective than doing what evolutionary nature intended.Animal survival and co - operation isn't of course the objective yardstick for comparing that to but evidence that it evolved and was not handed down from on High in a book.

It wasn’t answered adequately. Why is it better to contribute to modern ideas of the well-being of humans individually and collectively? Why isn’t it better to contribute to ancient ideas of well-being or the modern ideas that disagree with your modern ideas?

[TRANSPONDER]

Wasn't that answered? The objective of betterment is in contributing to the well -being of humans individually and collectively. And it gets no more objective than doing what evolutionary nature intended.Animal survival and co - operation isn't of course the objective yardstick for comparing that to but evidence that it evolved and was not handed down from on High in a book.

It wasn’t answered adequately. Why is it better to contribute to modern ideas of the well-being of humans individually and collectively? Why isn’t it better to contribute to ancient ideas of well-being or the modern ideas that disagree with your modern ideas?

Because the discovery of DNA and the link to evolved instinct has led to the hypothesis (at least) that morals and ethics have evolved, first instinctively and (after complex society) by thinking about it. At the least, this is an equally valid alternative to a created moral code that itself has had to change to keep pace with human ethics or be left with the worst views of Reactionary Christian Fundamentalism. At best it has some evidential support while Bible -based morality has to make excuses as to why it just isn't good enough.

Human ethics doesn't; we know it isn't good enough, yet.

[The Tanager]

Because the discovery of DNA and the link to evolved instinct has led to the hypothesis (at least) that morals and ethics have evolved, first instinctively and (after complex society) by thinking about it. At the least, this is an equally valid alternative to a created moral code that itself has had to change to keep pace with human ethics or be left with the worst views of Reactionary Christian Fundamentalism. At best it has some evidential support while Bible -based morality has to make excuses as to why it just isn't good enough.

Human ethics doesn't; we know it isn't good enough, yet.

I agree this is a valid narrative, but I'm saying that narrative doesn't lead to objectivity in morals; it is subjective morality. Yes, there is an objective truth to why we have the subjective moral behaviors we have, but not an objective truth to what they 'ought' to be because there is no 'ought.' There is no 'progress'. There is no moving 'forward' if this is true. There is no "good enough, yet" as though there is some objective standard we will be reaching someday and are getting closer to. Evolutionary ethics cannot give us objective morality.

The video's critique I have been discussing (and you and POI have been responding to and, therefore, defending) requires atheism to give an objective grounding for the critique of the Bible and its depiction of God to go through. It has no objective grounding to do so. That doesn't mean there aren't other critiques to turn to, but one should rationally discard this reason given by the video.

[TRANSPONDER]

Because the discovery of DNA and the link to evolved instinct has led to the hypothesis (at least) that morals and ethics have evolved, first instinctively and (after complex society) by thinking about it. At the least, this is an equally valid alternative to a created moral code that itself has had to change to keep pace with human ethics or be left with the worst views of Reactionary Christian Fundamentalism. At best it has some evidential support while Bible -based morality has to make excuses as to why it just isn't good enough.

Human ethics doesn't; we know it isn't good enough, yet.

I agree this is a valid narrative, but I'm saying that narrative doesn't lead to objectivity in morals; it is subjective morality. Yes, there is an objective truth to why we have the subjective moral behaviors we have, but not an objective truth to what they 'ought' to be because there is no 'ought.' There is no 'progress'. There is no moving 'forward' if this is true. There is no "good enough, yet" as though there is some objective standard we will be reaching someday and are getting closer to. Evolutionary ethics cannot give us objective morality.

The video's critique I have been discussing (and you and POI have been responding to and, therefore, defending) requires atheism to give an objective grounding for the critique of the Bible and its depiction of God to go through. It has no objective grounding to do so. That doesn't mean there aren't other critiques to turn to, but one should rationally discard this reason given by the video.

The mistake you are making is that there is an intended 'Ought' in human morals as though there was a planned and intended objective. Evolution only does what is required for survival, and it is not always what look ethical to us.Some evolved instincts are shocking.

The objective ideal where everyone is fulfilled and happy is something we can only imagine and try for, and it is a fact that things have improved for humanity in general over the past century or two. The mistake of the Golden Age types is to ignore the improvements and suppose it was all happer and better back in the old days.

The fallacy is the usual Christian - it is the same that leads to errors in objecting to evolution producing humans. "How is it possible for random chance to do what it needed to produce humans? The odds are astronomical". The error is in assuming humans were an intended outcome. It assumes there is a plan. This is the same error as assuming there has to be an objective basis beyond what I have indicated - better and happier for humans as an ideal because it's what we (generally) all want. There is no more objectivity than that and it is a fallacy to insist there must be one, as much as it is a fallacy to think that a diktat from a god is Objectivity.

The critique of the Bible (aside from the more relevant one of whether it is reliable and true or not) is that clearly it is not even matching up to the moral code we are using today. Just in our lifetimes we have seen gender issues given rights and freedoms it never had until after the 70's and it saw the Christians having to play catch -up and even now some trying to turn the clock back.

[The Tanager]

The mistake you are making is that there is an intended 'Ought' in human morals as though there was a planned and intended objective. Evolution only does what is required for survival, and it is not always what look ethical to us.Some evolved instincts are shocking.

When analyzing what atheistic morality is, you are the one making this mistake. You say there is no ‘Ought’ (and I agree there isn’t), but then you turn around and talk like there is.

The objective ideal where everyone is fulfilled and happy is something we can only imagine and try for, and it is a fact that things have improved for humanity in general over the past century or two.

That isn’t an objective ideal. It’s subjective if atheism is true. It’s not improvement, but only change.

The mistake of the Golden Age types is to ignore the improvements and suppose it was all happer and better back in the old days.

Why do you think I think it was happier and better back in the old days? I don’t.

This is the same error as assuming there has to be an objective basis beyond what I have indicated - better and happier for humans as an ideal because it's what we (generally) all want.

That is not an objective basis. What we generally all want is not objectivity, but majority subjectivity.

There is no more objectivity than that and it is a fallacy to insist there must be one, as much as it is a fallacy to think that a diktat from a god is Objectivity.

I haven’t insisted there must be one. I’m responding to a critique in the video that assumes an objective basis in morality in order to critique the God of the Bible. I’m asking for that objective basis. You offer only subjective bases, equivocating on ‘objective’ because for some reason you seem to think it helps your case. If you are a subjectivist, then consistently be one and stop trying to hold onto some value in this 'objective' sense you are using. It has no value in this discussion (whether your view is correct or mine).

The critique of the Bible (aside from the more relevant one of whether it is reliable and true or not) is that clearly it is not even matching up to the moral code we are using today. Just in our lifetimes we have seen gender issues given rights and freedoms it never had until after the 70's and it saw the Christians having to play catch -up and even now some trying to turn the clock back.

On your view, the Bible “not matching up to the moral code we are using today” means nothing of importance. It is the exact same as saying we like different ice cream flavors today then what we used to. So what?

[TRANSPONDER]

The mistake you are making is that there is an intended 'Ought' in human morals as though there was a planned and intended objective. Evolution only does what is required for survival, and it is not always what look ethical to us.Some evolved instincts are shocking.

When analyzing what atheistic morality is, you are the one making this mistake. You say there is no ‘Ought’ (and I agree there isn’t), but then you turn around and talk like there is.

The objective ideal where everyone is fulfilled and happy is something we can only imagine and try for, and it is a fact that things have improved for humanity in general over the past century or two.

That isn’t an objective ideal. It’s subjective if atheism is true. It’s not improvement, but only change.

The mistake of the Golden Age types is to ignore the improvements and suppose it was all happer and better back in the old days.

Why do you think I think it was happier and better back in the old days? I don’t.

This is the same error as assuming there has to be an objective basis beyond what I have indicated - better and happier for humans as an ideal because it's what we (generally) all want.

That is not an objective basis. What we generally all want is not objectivity, but majority subjectivity.

There is no more objectivity than that and it is a fallacy to insist there must be one, as much as it is a fallacy to think that a diktat from a god is Objectivity.

I haven’t insisted there must be one. I’m responding to a critique in the video that assumes an objective basis in morality in order to critique the God of the Bible. I’m asking for that objective basis. You offer only subjective bases, equivocating on ‘objective’ because for some reason you seem to think it helps your case. If you are a subjectivist, then consistently be one and stop trying to hold onto some value in this 'objective' sense you are using. It has no value in this discussion (whether your view is correct or mine).

The critique of the Bible (aside from the more relevant one of whether it is reliable and true or not) is that clearly it is not even matching up to the moral code we are using today. Just in our lifetimes we have seen gender issues given rights and freedoms it never had until after the 70's and it saw the Christians having to play catch -up and even now some trying to turn the clock back.

On your view, the Bible “not matching up to the moral code we are using today” means nothing of importance. It is the exact same as saying we like different ice cream flavors today then what we used to. So what?

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. 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.

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.

What more bad arguments you got? Denial about social (and indeed living) improvements. I already mentioned gender and social improvements. If you deny those, you have no business even discussing morality. Life, health and lifesyle has improved greatly over the last couple of centuries. If you deny that, you have no business discussing the matter

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.

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. 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.

But human morals (without a god needed so I let calling it atheist pass) have that evolutionary basis which is the most objectivity you are going to get. It is not an Ought but a reaction to conditions. But humans can have preferences (majority ones) and that is the Ought that we have. You can of course deny all this but the point is, it is a valid alternative to a god - originated morality. Evolution does just as well, or better.

I think you probably err in saying the video requires an objective morality or some such ( I’m responding to a critique in the video that assumes an objective basis in morality in order to critique the God of the Bible. I’m asking for that objective basis. ) But I'll go back and look and see where you are wrong as you have been all along in demanding an objective basis to morality and insisting that 'atheism' must require one as well. No, no more than human preference based on evolved instincts. You are the one making the error in denying the value of human preferences, never mind consensus preferences. That is not how it works.

That video doesn't even appear to be on that subject - it is about why the Bible gives misinformation (excused on the grounds that they couldn't understand back then). But of course this has a moral aspect - mainly 'Why not ban slavery?'. I see no good reason why God couldn't do that, and in fact some pretend like it does. It is excuses,evasion and denial. Don't go down that route. Though of course to accept that the Bible DOES endorse slavery (while knowing that people don't like it) means you have to deal with the Bible not being good, true, worthwhile, valid or reliable. I understand, that may be too much to deal with. I understand, and I sympathise, but I cannot allow flummery to pass just because it upsets people to call it out.

[POI]

Define 'objective'? Is it what the God you believe in's opinion is, or other?

That certainly can’t be the definition, for it would beg the question in favor of theistic morality. I would define “objective” as something like “independent of one’s opinion”.

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?

Now, of course, there are objective truths about subjective matters. It is objectively true that I love chocolate chip cookie dough ice cream. That is true, even if you don’t like that flavor.

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?

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

Looking at the video again, there is an implied 'ought'. The Bible "Ought" to have given true information about the universe, not what appears to be a flat earth and sky dome. There are of course those who insist that it does, fiddling the Bible to fit the science and then insisting it is science in the Bible. Others try to fiddle Bible morality to modern and insist it is anticipating human morality.

The implied Ought is accepted: people Ought to have right information and Ought to be doing what is perceived as a consensus human preference: a decent and safe life. It doesn't invalidate it just because there is no Cosmic Law of morality or saying that humans should get correct information.

On my Other forum long ago I got into a discussion about Plantinga's argument that apparently appeals to revelation as more reliable than evolution as a path to truth. The discussion ended with it coming clear that superstition, imagination and the like evolved human reactions are to aid survival, not to impart true information. Finding out true facts is not a cosmic right, but a human preference, and is seem as valid by all, (other than the utterly ignorant) and even by those who profess the validity of Bible - based preference for Faith over mundane knowledge.

The point is made or implied that the information, rules and moral of the Bible reflect the human opinion of the time, not of a god who really should know better. The excuse that the God could not do better than that fails because the hypothesis that it was no better than humans could do because humans wrote it is an equally valid hypothesis,even if it was not better supported by evidence, not least that apologists will try to excuse that it does not do better or deny that it does not tell the truth.

Even if the apologist denies the bad ethics, information and history of the Bible, there is still no good reason why anyone should prefer one of the religions over any other, or none.

Yes, yes, the Jesus excuse. Which itself blows out the fundamentalist appeal to OT for their bronze age laws that they want applied now.

But what did Jesus himself teach? Never mind, giving all your stuff away, or keeping a very low profile on slavery, but his teaching was that Sabbath worship didn't matter. It is telling that Christianity is deathly silent on that. To them, the Sunday shibboleth of trooping to church matters more than Jesus saying 'better to paint your neighbour's fence on a Sunday than go to church'. The believers suit themselves what their religion is, not the Bible. Consensus preference indeed, and no less considered valid for all that.

[The Tanager]

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.

[The Tanager]

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.

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.

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.