Isn't this the life of a well taken care of kid in his parent's house, where he owes nothing to anyone, and owns nothing, and there's always a well stocked pantry and a helpful parent ready to offer assistance?

I was more than ready to leave the safety of that nest, why would I want to recreate it on a societal level even if I could?

How normal is this? — Michael

It does have precedence in South Carolina's Nullification Act of 1832 stating it did not have to pay federal taxes on cotton exports. That didn't ultimately turn out well for South Carolina.

I did look through the bill, and it even includes provisions stating the Supreme Court precedent should not be considered.

What you have is just a very political bill that has limited likelihood of being passed that some legislator wants to wave around showing how defiant he is in defense of protecting babies' lives. If that law passed, it would be declared unconstitutional. A state can't declare its sovereignty. It would never be enforced and Louisiana wouldn't secede from the union (unfortunately) in order to defend that right.

If they were the badasses they pretend to be, they'd just start prosecuting abortions now and not wait on the Supreme Court. They'd also not be permitting gay weddings, but they do, meaning that they are compliant citizens regardless of wanting to appear rogue.

It also would seem to include fertilizations that occur in vitro and would eliminate fertilization procedures.

From this: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/05/05/louisiana-abortion-bill-would-make-crime-murder/9656102002/ this appears to be a bill that just came out of committee, so I assume it has a long way to go (votes before both houses) before landing on the Governor's desk.

The problem, to the extent there is one, is that the US Constitution does not unequivocally provide a right to abortion and the American public is deeply divided over the issue, resulting in the election of Presidents who will appoint Justices sympathetic to their cause.

If the issue goes back to the democratic process, and abortion is made illegal, you needn't blame RGB or the Supreme Court, but you can blame John Q. Public, which is really where blame ought to lie.

Much has changed since Roe v Wade. I think that abortion will still be legal in all states but with varying limitations depending on the state. — Harry Hindu

Actually, abortion was never legalized in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Oklahoma, West Virginia and Wisconsin, but those laws have been unenforceable since Roe v. Wade. Presumably if Roe v. Wade is overturned, those laws would immediately become effective again.

I think there will be a good number of other states that will outlaw abortion as soon as they can. The battle to overturn Roe v. Wade hasn't just been a symbolic gesture over state authority. Much will change in certain states.

There is no such thing as theism per say - there are simply theists who hold a range of often incompatible and contradictory views from one another. — Tom Storm

Would it also follow that there's no such thing as religion due to the variations in religion? Can the same be said of political systems, that there's no such thing as them either due to their variations?

I agree with you of course that different religious systems describe their gods very differently, but each can independently be said to be theistic, and so the question then becomes what makes each theistic system resemble the next, but I don't think any of this means theism doesn't exist. We just find ourselves with the universal problem of precise definitions.

I think any honest theist would admit that the religious tradition they hold to is as much the result of family tradition, regional influences, and other such coincidences than actual free choice after full exploration. Sure, there are occasional Catholics who become Baptists, but none worship Zeus much any more, so something other than obvious truth must be guiding theists to their particular brand of religion.

My point here is that I do hold that whether to be atheist or theistic is a real choice we make, but once decided to be theistic, we tend toward the path of understanding most accessible to us. Those raised Jews turn toward Judaism and so on. With that, I think we're required to have respect for those other traditions with recognition ours isn't the only way; otherwise I'd be faced with the absurd argument I chose my Judaism after considering other options. I didn't.

I point this out only to defend against the idea that theism is so varied and murky that it doesn't meaningfully exist, and to respond maybe preemptively to the question of how can a theist pretend he's found the light after open minded exploration, when all he really did was repeat what he's always been told.

You can hardly expect to start a thread to discuss your brand of the aesthetic experience and then refuse to explain it and expect it remain open.

So again,carry on. — skyblack

So I read your OP and @T Clark's response and I did find his response fairly accurate in describing my thoughts. I disagree with him somewhat in that I didn't find your attitude just dismissive or even snooty, but more so intentional, reminding one of an aspiring cult leader.

You solicit the despondent with vague descriptions of existential doubt, you offer a solution you vaguely reference as aestheticism, and you refuse to explain what it is, wanting us to believe you possess this mysterious answer.

So, either tell us your secret or stop telling us you have one.

Can God end evil? — T Clark

I don't follow why this question is meaningless.

The question is often asked if God is all powerful and good, then why is there is evil in the world. That seems a reasonable question.

The emphasised part is a non sequitur. That he can create such a rock isn't that he does create such a rock.

You might as well ask "can a two-armed man cut off one arm?" and answer with "if he can then he'll only have one arm and so therefore isn't a two-armed man which is a contradiction" and so conclude that a two-armed man can't cut off one arm, which is of course false; I have two arms and am quite capable of cutting one off.

So an answer to your question is; yes, he can create such a rock, but because he doesn't there's nothing he can't do. — Michael

I just see it as a category mistake. Category A are physical objects and Category B are theoretical concepts. Within A, you have actual tangible things that can be measured, using words like 100 feet, 5,065 pounds, and 345 ounces. In B, you have theoretical intangible entities, that are described using words like biggest, strongest, and highest.

Rocks are within A. God is within B.

Can God create a rock he cannot lift? Because he's within B, we don't suggest God can lift a specific number of pounds. We just say he's the strongest and there is nothing within A he can't lift. If we suggest there is a rock he cannot lift, we'd need to know the weight of that rock and ask why that weight is more the most, which makes no sense (such is the category mistake).

This is to say rocks are real things that can be put on scales and weighed. Asking if God can create a rock he can't lift is to apply the B standard (the heaviest) to the A standard (an actual weight). You can't what is higher than infinity.

The other problem is that two wrongs make a right. I think that's the rule.

Which would you select and why? — Agent Smith

Everybody is wrong. — Tom Storm

If you're right that everyone is wrong, then not everyone is wrong because you were just right.

In golf, the winners pay the most per stroke for a round.

There is a chess puzzle called a helpmate where black assists white in arriving at mate of black, so the best black player would be the one that could best lead to his own demise.

It sort of responds to the OP, but not exactly, but it was the first thing I thought of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helpmate#:~:text=A%20helpmate%20is%20a%20type,White's%20nth%20move%20checkmating%20Black.

The other type of helpmate would the husband who helps with the dishes, but that's a survival skill of sorts.

Nice.

Without epistemological certainty there can be no certainty of ontological reality. Moral realism remains an assertion. — Fooloso4

I don't agree with this assertion. Regardless, I am certain there is a moral reality. Certainty is a special class of knowledge in any event.

Whether we know what is right doesn't affect what is right
— Hanover

If we do not know what is right we do not know if anything is right beyond whatever it is we assert to be right. — Fooloso4

And you comment is non-responsive to mine.

Those who are convinced of their own moral certainty are now the majority of the Supreme Court and a large and powerful enough faction of the Legislator to determine what significant portions of our lives will be. — Fooloso4

I don't know their level of certitude regarding moral issues and neither do you

The point is, what is regarded as the wisdom of the Bible does not conform to what you want it to. Where it does you call it wisdom, where it doesn't you reject it. I do think there is wisdom to be found but do not think it matches up with what you find. — Fooloso4

You have no idea what I derive from the Bible, Hamlet, or Winnie the Pooh.

Right. This supports the claim of moral relativism, that even under the pretext of what is unchanging and absolute the beliefs and values of human beings are not invariant. — Fooloso4

Variations in moral beliefs over time and among cultures is an obvious empirical fact, and if that proved relativism, the debate over moral realism would have ended long ago. The problem is that epistemological uncertainty has no bearing on ontological reality. Whether we know what is right doesn't affect what is right

In the absence of such knowledge perhaps what is best is to accept that certain moral problems do not yield clear solutions, that the recognition of uncertainty leads to toleration of differences. — Fooloso4

Why would someone advocate otherwise, as if to insist someone behave in a certain way when we ourselves aren't certain of what is the right way to behave? This has no bearing on moral relativism or absolutism, but is just pragmatics. I'm going to insist though that others not rape. Moral quandaries exist, but sometimes not

What I am suggesting is that our wise ancestors did not make such a clear distinction. The tree of knowledge is of both good and evil. One tree, so to speak, that bears fruit that is both good and evil, just as experience shows. (Koholeth) eschews the pollyannic view and squarely faces the fact that the wicked may prosper and the righteous get what the wicked deserve. — Fooloso4

By using a biblical analogy to make your point, do you not invoke the wisdom of the Bible?

Do you mean no historical evidence taking place or no historical evidence of them taking place in the rabbinical era? — Fooloso4

I don't accept the historicity of the Bible, so I'm not using that as a source of proof. Whether there were stonings in the Near East in the Bronze and Iron ages, I don't know as the historical record is pretty much lacking unless there's an archeological record. What I can say is that the institutional religious records written by the rabbis do not reflect stonings occurring, with that era beginning in the first century CE.

I'm also not committed to referring to the ancient Hebrews as Jews until much later in the biblical history, considering the religion of sacrifice centering around the Temple is a much different religion that what is practiced today.

So there is for you no connection between your moral realism and your claims about God and identification with Judaism? — Fooloso4

None might be an overstatement, but to the extent there is a dispute between a Judaic concept and my personal belief, my personal belief trumps.

In other words, your definition of God is subjective and based on the presupposition that there must be a meaning and purpose that is not subjective. — Fooloso4

Maybe as a broad sketch I might agree with this. I'd have to think on it. I do believe in the subjectivity of faith in a Kierkegaardian sort of way. I'm trying to make sense of it honestly.

To be clear, are you claiming that the quotes from Isaiah and Job are false? And that they are false because they do not conform to your definition of God as good? A definition that "we" or "one" should accept because that is what a reasonable person should do? — Fooloso4

I'm in disagreement with any statement that represents God as not being the source of the good or morality, whether that be Isiah, the Koran, or whoever says something contrary to what I think.

My take on the Bible is that it is an ancient source of wisdom, in particular how it has been interpreted, meaning our wisest ancestors used it as the vehicle to describe good from evil and to take a stab out of describing God. I think they did a far better job with the Bible, than say the Scientologists have done with Dianetics.

These are not mutually exclusive, many but not all scholars are believers. — Fooloso4

True.

Are you claiming that stoning was never taken literally? If it conflates your dubious distinction it does so for good reason. The rabbis who interpret the Law, both then and now, were both believers and biblical scholars. — Fooloso4

There is no historical evidence of the stonings taking place and extremely few death penalties being carrier out in the rabbinical era beginning in the 1st century CE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Judaism ( "The Mishnah states that a Sanhedrin that executes one person in seven years — or seventy years, according to Eleazar ben Azariah — is considered bloodthirsty.")

This is to say that that biblically imposed death penalties occurred in antiquity far less often than secular based death penalties in modernity.

How do you reconcile such changes with your claim that there is an objective morality? — Fooloso4

Because I have never suggested, hinted, or intimated that the Bible is the source of morality. I hold to moral realism, a claim that there is a true right or wrong, regardless of what the current population might hold.

So what would you suggest is the best way to answer the question? — Fooloso4

Through personal experience, introspection, and a need for there to be an anchor for meaning and purpose.

You shifted from biblical scholarship to modern biblical scholarship. The inclusion of the perspective of time is significant. — Fooloso4

What is significant isn't when it occurred as much as who is doing the scholarship. It's a distinction between believers and those not committed to interpreting it from a perspective of belief.

At least we can define God as the good and deny unholy acts are decreed by him, but only falsely in his name.
— Hanover

seriously? Or are you saying that you are not prepared to back up your claim? When you say "we" who are you referring to? — Fooloso4

I'm saying that I'm not committing to your strawmen and am asserting what I take to be a more proper conception of God.

I'm using "we" in the third person objective, synonymous with "one." It expresses an ideal, or what a reasonable person should do.

hard to do, but there is something in the attempt: better to be a pig satisfied than a philosopher unsatisfied, or not — Constance

That's a Mill quote, not Bentham.

That pleasure is, call it apriori good, is my position. Pleasure qua pleasure cannot be other than good. It is apodictically good. — Constance

So Kant's categorical imperative should have resulted in his being a Utilitarian since the hedonistic principle of Bentham was synthetic a priori?

I raised this problem before, but you ignored it. By what light do we read such passages from Deuteronomy? I think it obvious that we read them in light of beliefs and values which are not fixed and eternal, but relative to time and place. Those who wrote and those who first heard the Law did not think that it was not to be taken literally. — Fooloso4

There are two ways to read the Bible: (1) from a traditional view of a believer or (2) from the view of biblical scholarship. If you want an answer under #1, you will need to look at the tradition you are referencing and we can look at all the theology and additional texts used by that group. An Orthodox Jew would read it differently than a Reform Jew and differently than a Christian, and there are variations among Christian denominations.

Your last sentence quoted above is simply not correct and it conflates the views of #1 and #2. If you want to stand in the position of a believer, you are correct in asserting that Moses received the law from Mount Sinai and he accepted it as the word of God, but you also (depending upon your religious viewpoint) might be accepting that an oral law was also handed down that day that dramatically added to and altered the written word. That is, if you're a believer, tell me what you believe, and I'll believe you, but the views you're expressing of believers do not describe any real group of believers.

If you take the position of #2 (a modern biblical scholar), you will not say such things as "those who first heard the law" because that assumes a sudden handing down of law as opposed to hundreds of years of the Bible being written, it being edited, and it being combined by an editor into a single scroll. It also assumes a single march step through time of how the Bible was used and accepted, ignoring the fact that rabbinical Judaism is not at all similar to the Jewish practice during the times described prior to the destruction of the Temple.

What you are describing in your post is a modern fundamentalism that asserts a simple literalism to the Bible that isn't historically something biblical adherents held to, and it's certainly not something I adhere to. For that reason, it's a strawman.

As to your comment that biblical interpretations by adherents have varied through history and that fact is obvious, I agree. The insertion of biblical interpretation into this conversation only arose in this conversation when someone asked me about the historical accuracy of the flood (which I denied), but I never suggested the question of who God was best answered by referinng to the Bible.

The only strawman here is the one you made. It is not a matter of reading the myths literally. How do you understand the following:

Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.'
— Isaiah 45:7

Shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?”
— Job 2:10 — Fooloso4

You would be interested in my interpretation of biblical text? Why? I think we could spend weeks on Job alone, considering that does present a very complicated discussion of theodicy.

I'm telling you that do no harm is a foundation that gets entangled with complex affairs in which things are brought into competition and contextualized, relativized, and it is here doing harm becomes ambiguous. — Constance

You are making an impossible distinction here, arguing that there are two definitions of terms (1) the absolute meaning and (2) the contextualized meaning. All actually fall under category #2.

Consider the color example. It remains what it is, most emphatically and without exemption, an absolute one might say (though this term is difficult); yet it can be taken up is countless ways that compromise this simplicity. — Constance

There is no essence to the term "yellow." "Yellow" means however it is used, and there is not a Platonic form that represents true yellow from which to measure. You're arguing essentialism, which isn't a sustainable position.

Generally speaking, pleasure os good. — Constance

If one holds to hedonism, pleasure is good by definition, but that position isn't universally held.

Do no harm. — Constance

But I'm saying sometimes we ought to harm and that your view is idiosyncratic, but you just keep telling me it's obvious we shouldn't harm.

Weak dodge. — 180 Proof

Nah, you're trying to make the fact that it's fictional mean that every fact contained in it is false. To be fictional simply means the factual claims in the book need not be true for the relevance of the story, but it doesn't require they be false.

I think there's been a major distraction here. Kant wasn't concerned with whether we had hard wired empirical data in our brains, like if we have an innate fear of falling and instinctively cover our heads when we fall, or if infants instinctively turn their head to locate the nipple when the cheek is stroked.

His concern was whether there were a priori synthetic judgments, meaning could some new fact be known about the world through reason alone. That is, unlike knowing that bachelors are unmarried (analytic), when we determine the length of the hypotenuse from the length of the other sides of the right triangle, we now have new knowledge prior to experience (synthetic).

The idea that love is undisputably good is a most Christian sentiment and is understandably a sentiment that might be thought of as universal by someone immersed in Christian society, but, believe it or not, Judaism finds hate a virtue when deserved, drawing a sharp contrast against the Christian virtue of turning the other cheek.

"Regarding a rasha, a Hebrew term for the hopelessly wicked, the Talmud clearly states: mitzvah lisnoso—one is obligated to hate him."

https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/research_sites/cjl/texts/cjrelations/resources/articles/soloveitchikm.htm

So what scriptures say about "God" is fictional but "God" itself is not a fictional character (like "Abe Lincoln" in that old Star Trek episode "The Savage Curtain" or "Jesus" in Monty Python's Life of Brian)? — 180 Proof

I can only repeat what I've said, which is that the fictionality of the Bible neither affirms nor negates its literal statements. I mean could there have been a Tiny Tim and Ebenezer Scrooge? I guess, but who cares? The story's literal truth doesn't impact its meaning.

Indeed. Do you know have a view why it is that Jewish fundamentalism hasn't gone down this path, given that Islamic fundamentalism (by contrast) seems quite ready to kill women, children and apostates in the name of Koranic fidelity? — Tom Storm

I tend to draw very blurred lines between theology and politics, meaning why a civilization behaves as it does might be related to underlying worldviews and religious views, but also to wars, leadership, and all sorts of political forces. I also don't subscribe to the belief that religious beliefs are immutable, as they change with demographic changes, economic issues, and all things political as well.

So why are Muslims where they are right now? Maybe look at the Koran in part, but look at the whole picture. A single invasion, for instance, can change history more quickly than theological shift.

As to what I was getting at about the use of the Hebrew Bible for the Orthodox views, the Talmud (the supposed oral tradition) and the rabbinic law arising from that, dramatically altered the religion. The Torah does not have priority over the Talmud. See, generally, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah

So what is the truth about God as depicted in the stories of wrath and destruction? Do you think the depictions are false because they do not conform to God as you define him? One might just as well say that God as you define him is a fiction. It seems far more simplistic and lacking in sophistication. — Fooloso4

You submit a strawman that certainly no significant group adheres to, which is that the Hebrew Bible is to be read literally and in isolation. No one does that. If they did, adherents would be stoning little girls. That they don't should give you pause as to what they must be looking at to decide how to act.

So, unless you really want to study the theology of religious groups that hold the Bible sacred, and you think that somehow this bears on the question of whether God is evil (which is the impetus of this recent turn in discussion), we can do that.

That discussion will in itself be a response to a strawman because I've never stated that God's definition is to be found in the Bible, but the conversation would be instructive to the fact that your own understanding of how the Hebrew Bible is interpreted and applied is incorrect.

So your Bible / Qur'an is a "work of fiction"? Thus, it's protagonist "YHWH" / "Allah" is also fictional? — 180 Proof

The Bible is fiction, but fiction doesn't mean it can't contain truths. That a fictional book speaks of God (or trees) doesn't mean God (or trees) don't exist. I assume that's the drift of your question.

So, perhaps, one of the first insights of the via negativa on justice is that one should not impose one's conception of justice on others... — Tobias

Wouldn't the least just among us celebrate this decision the most?

Love cannot be bad. It is as impossible as a logical contradiction. — Constance

Suppose I love murder?

Not trying to be difficult here, but the idea that there is universal agreement on what is good (or not good as the OP suggests) and we just need to talk it out to see what it is so we can arrive at this naturally understood goodness necessarily assumes Attila the Hun and Adolph Hitler don't get a seat at the brainstorm session. On what basis do we exclude them?

That is to say, I have no doubt we, educated Westerners positioned in 2022 could all find some common ground regarding the ethics du jour, but that's as far as we'd get. The question would remain how we'd have confidence that our justice is true justice, and more meta-ethically whether speaking of True justice makes sense.

The Bible lied? — Jackson

Must we really start this discussion from the simplistic strawmen or can we fast forward to a place of higher sophistication? Modern fundamentalist readings are absurd. There weren't polar bears and camels on an ark bouncing around in a violent storm for 40 days and nights.

I also don't recall remotely suggesting the Bible was the work of God.

But to your question, a work of fiction doesn't lie. Winnie the Pooh isn't a lie. It's a tale of talking bears and donkeys, but I don't think you'd read it thinking it were non-fiction. By the same token, that it is fiction doesn’t mean it can't contain truths.

Didn't God flood the world? — Jackson

No.

Religion can make good people believe bad things, like that God can order slayings of any person at anytime. — Gregory

It's always people who do the slayings, whether in the name of God or, more topically, Putin. At least we can define God as the good and deny unholy acts are decreed by him, but only falsely in his name. The same cannot be said of Putin. He is not an ideal or representation of the good.

Kant was responsive to Hume's extreme empiricism and his denial of knowledge of causation, a claim Kant claims is synthetic a priori and necessary for comprehension of the world.

That is, your attempt to understand the synthetic a priori is being impacted by your evaluation of differing philosopher's views.

Disrespecting the body of the diceased is almost universally condemned. — Tobias

No, people tend to respect the corpses of the respected, but the disrespected are often unceremoniously thrown into mass graves.

It seems useless. Synthetic knowledge is nothing but regular old empirical knowledge and analytic knowledge is trivial. People wave a priori knowledge around like it's a magic wand, but it's just fancy words for regular old stuff. — T Clark

That's not correct. Empirical knowledge is known a posteriori, not a priori.. The roots of those words, prior and post, reference how the knowledge is obtained: before or after experience.

You're conflating synthetic with a posteriori. Synthetic references a truth about the world, analytic a definitional truth.

Calling analytic truths trivial overlooks the significance of syllogistic logic and its truth preserving function.

You're scratching the surface of Kant, so it's a bit early for you to critique the Critique.

I disagree with the empirical claim of a generally universal underlying moral consensus.

Great atrocities have been and continue to be committed with moral justifications being offered.

Is that your view or just a random sentence? — I like sushi

Well, this is what got me thinking about all this;

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concluding_Unscientific_Postscript_to_Philosophical_Fragments