The flaws of NT-based morality

[Roy]

The bible is wrong on a huge variety of moral issues.

I'm not sure it's possible to be wrong on a moral issue. Disagreeable, certainly; inconsistent, definitely; self-defeating, perhaps. But to be wrong requires that there is an agreed on objective or universally acknowledged right - and there isn't.

[Roy]

I think you're both dense and deluded. As I have explained to you repeated and in great detail, I think objective morality exists in the same sort of way that 2+2=4 exists, as a self-evident truism.

2+2=4 isn't a self-evident truism, it's derivable from the definition of 4 as 3+1, plus the associative property of addition. It can be proven in other ways too.

But if you insist that objective morality exists, perhaps you could explain according to objective morality (a) what parts of a human female's anatomy should be covered in public, (b) the acceptable levels of land usage for farming vs natural species preservation, and (c) how you know.

[seer]

I think you're both dense and deluded. As I have explained to you repeated and in great detail, I think objective morality exists in the same sort of way that 2+2=4 exists, as a self-evident truism. Obviously cultural mores differ from time to time and some are more moral than others, just as some cultures are better at math than others.

But moral truths are not self-evident, you may believe as you like, but you have never demonstrated otherwise. What you are really doing is adding "objective" to your personal or cultural moral opinion and claiming the high ground.

[37818]

The bible is wrong on a huge variety of moral issues. I'm sure it would be convenient for you if you only had to defend one of those, and could pretend to yourself and others that the bible as a whole could be successfully defended by the quality of your defense of whatever I felt personally to be the 'most' serious issue. But actually, if the bible were only wrong on one moral issue we would be having quite a different conversation. I would be saying "well the bible is overall an extremely good guide to morality, but I have this one quibble where I have a difference of opinion with what the bible teaches..."

But that's not the issue at all. The issue is that overall the bible is a bad guide to morality. It's consistently wrong, on numerous issues. I listed 20 major moral issues where the bible is wrong on, unclear on, or fails to address. And the point is thus that overall the bible is not a particularly useful or good source of morality for us.

You do not even know the purpose of the Bible.

[One Bad Pig]

I have never seen a skeptic say that every proposed interpretation is on an equal footing. Can you quote one who does?

Well, they don't come out and say it; they merely argue as if that were the case. Sorry, I don't have any quotes handy; it's not something I felt a burning need to bookmark.

[Roy]

You do not even know the purpose of the Bible.

Irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what the original intended purpose of something is when evaluating its usefulness in a specific context.

The bible would be a poor guide to moral behaviour whether it's original purpose was as a history, a lawbook, a guide to etiquette, a paperweight, a compilation of pithy epithets, a portable firelighter, a miniature cuirass or a sea-anchor.

[Sparko]

Irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what the original intended purpose of something is when evaluating its usefulness in a specific context.

The bible would be a poor guide to moral behaviour whether it's original purpose was as a history, a lawbook, a guide to etiquette, a paperweight, a compilation of pithy epithets, a portable firelighter, a miniature cuirass or a sea-anchor.

right, because it has been the moral guide for western civilization and the basis of laws for about 4000 years now. A really poor guide

[37818]

Irrelevant.

It doesn't matter what the original intended purpose of something is when evaluating its usefulness in a specific context.

The bible would be a poor guide to moral behaviour whether it's original purpose was as a history, a lawbook, a guide to etiquette, a paperweight, a compilation of pithy epithets, a portable firelighter, a miniature cuirass or a sea-anchor.

Your problem. Not the NT or the whole Bible.

[JimL]

right, because it has been the moral guide for western civilization and the basis of laws for about 4000 years now. A really poor guide

Moral law long precedes the bible Sparko. Better to say that moral law is the basis of the bible.

[Doug Shaver]

they don't come out and say it; they merely argue as if that were the case.

I've seen an awful lot of skeptical arguments besides the ones I make myself. I do think some of them are ridiculous, but I have never seen one that presupposes "every proposed interpretation is on an equal footing."

[Adrift]

I've seen an awful lot of skeptical arguments besides the ones I make myself. I do think some of them are ridiculous, but I have never seen one that presupposes "every proposed interpretation is on an equal footing."

You've never seen, for instance, a Jesus Mythicist who assumed that Jesus Mythicism was on the same academic footing as, say, historical Jesus studies? If not, I suggest checking out a number of skeptical communities where you'll find a number of skeptics who do, in fact, hold that view. The atheist community at Reddit (which pretty much was most of Reddit) was a good example of this for years until a number of skeptical atheist/agnostic historians finally disavowed them of that notion.

[Tassman]

Moral law long precedes the bible Sparko. Better to say that moral law is the basis of the bible.

Yes. According to Prof. Yuval Noah Harari, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, one hundred thousand years ago at least six human species inhabited the earth. All lived in communities and this presupposes codes of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour i.e. Moral Law...all long before the bible.

[Starlight]

You do not even know the purpose of the Bible.

It was written for atheists to laugh at, obviously.

[Starlight]

But if you insist that objective morality exists, perhaps you could explain according to objective morality (a) what parts of a human female's anatomy should be covered in public, (b) the acceptable levels of land usage for farming vs natural species preservation, and (c) how you know.

People can be referring to quite a few different things when they talk about 'morality'.

What I am thinking of here is that interpersonal interactions can be measured for their levels of benevolence or malevolence. If I kill someone because I hate them, that is an interpersonal interaction performed out of negative intentions. If I help an old lady across the street out of concern for her safety and well-being, that is an interpersonal interaction performed out of positive intentions. What characterizes the difference is the level of value placed on the other person in the interaction (be it a positive value, perhaps a strongly positive one, a negative value, perhaps strongly negative, or no value at all). All interactions performed by intentioned agents are subject to potential evaluations of this kind (i.e. the question of what intention(s) an agent performing an action has, always has a true answer).

Humans instinctively try to evaluate the motives of others around them all the time, both because it is socially useful to understand other people, and because it has been evolutionarily hard-wired into us to detect potential threats and/or sources of assistance. So any human group or society as a whole is constantly making these sorts of assessments of its members and trying to evaluate the positive and negative intentions toward others that are behind the actions. Most socially created laws and explicit codes of conduct necessarily have this underlying them to some degree or another, as obviously any society where members are trying to harm one another constantly will quickly self-destruct, while societies that encourage mutual benevolent behavior will prosper.

Obviously when a person uses the English word "morality" they might simply be referring to the general concept of "what is considered socially acceptable in a particular society", as Tassman often does, which naturally varies by society to a significant extent although it typically has a strong degree of overlap since the above-discussed principles ultimately always underlie it (so phrases like "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" appear in numerous societies across time and space since that is a way of saying to place a positive value on others and act with positive intentions toward them). But when I speak of a mathematical-like objective morality, I am referring to the above outlined view that all interpersonal interactions can be assessed for positive/negative intentions, and that can always be done regardless of the particular society or socially accepted code of conduct, and seems to always be a relevant and interesting thing to assess.

As far as your particular questions A and B go, those fall outside of areas that can be assessed directly for positive/negative intentions towards others. It would be a matter of considering many, many factors and coming to some sort of widespread agreement as to the best balance. (In case it wasn't clear in my description, an act can obviously be performed with multiple intentions and so there can be plenty of gray areas where some intentions are positive and others negative, or where the actor positively values some people and negatively values others, or where they are making a judgment call in an effort to balance competing concerns with regard to the well-being of multiple people).

[Roy]

Your problem. Not the NT or the whole Bible.

Your inability to understand arguments or avoid fallacies is not my problem.