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

"Subjectivity is truth." Discuss.

Hmmm, well now, seems I’ve gotten myself into quite the pickle. :brow:

Perhaps 180 Proof can rescue my dignity. — praxis

:clap: :fire:

our "dignity" is fine, praxis; Hanover, however, ain't looking so good (re: denialism) it seems to me. — 180 Proof

Strawman. Non-sequitur. :roll:

This began as a comparison of alcohol to faith as in either could offer meaning.
— Hanover

I can’t tell if you’re kidding. — praxis

Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful". — 180 Proof

What is the value of knowing that all bachelors are unmarried? — T Clark

That's an example of an analytic truth, not synthetic. The value is that it is definitional. It tells you what a bachelor is.

Geometrical truths are submitted by Kant to be synthetic a priori in that they tell you something substantive about the world without necessarily having to be experienced.

Quine disputes the analytic/synthetic distinction. You can look that up if interested.

This is a strange statement for me because I don’t consider intoxication or toxins “evil.” — praxis

You're going to have to go back and re-contextualize this whole alcohol discussion. I have no personal opposition to drinking alcohol and your pointing out there is no decontextualized meaning of the word "toxin" is obvious.

This began as a comparison of alcohol to faith as in either could offer meaning. I countered in two ways: (1) I have seen lives destroyed by alcohol, but not so much by faith, and (2) if you insist you have found the fountain of meaning in the bottle, then drink up.

That is to say, I don't think that faith and alcohol consumption are similar enough experiences for meaningful comparison, but if you insist they are, then have at it and enjoy your meaning on the rocks.

You say potato, I say comiconomenclaturist — Tom Storm

If the question is "Does alcohol give you cirrhosis?," the answer is yes no matter what you believe. If the question is "Does alcohol give your life meaning?," that depends. Me, no, but if you say otherwise for you, then yes for you.

Faith is as perilous a path as reason. It can devolve to a neurotic, narcissistic pursuit of glory (see Karen Horney's Neurosis and Human Growth). — ZzzoneiroCosm

That I agree with. I would place the evil on the actions, not the intent, so it's not the faith that is doing the harm, but the attempted imposition of one's values upon another.

And that really is what my objection has been here, which is the suggestion that another person's discovery of the meaning of life need be imposed on those who have rejected it. If someone has found the meaning of life deciphering analytic syllogisms, good for them. I don't know how they can claim their discovery superior to mine if mine subjectively works for me in terms of providing me meaning.

The similarity is in your dependence. You say yourself that it gives your life meaning. If that’s the case then you’re dependent on it. Without if you would feeling the sting of nihilism (analogous to delirium tremens). — praxis

The critical distinction between your analogizing faith to alcoholism is that alcohol is being used in the analogy as an intoxicant, making it definitionally a toxin and an evil. As I previously mentioned and what wasn't addressed was that you would need to show the devastating implications of faith as you see in alcoholism.

That is, my question was whether ruined lives are characteristics of Jews, Christians, and Muslims as we see in the alcoholic.

If, as you're implying here, you're using alcohol as a benign example of a way to bring about bliss without the negative implications, as if it might offer a euphoria that includes leaving the user with a state of long term meaning and contentment, then it would be analogous, but that's not what alcohol is. If it were, and it did not have its negative effects, I suppose I would be advocating its usage. I just don't think the meaning of life has ever been found at the bottom of a bottle, although many have looked there.

You need to explain why I should seek empirical and rational truth for its own sake.
— Hanover
No, I do not. — 180 Proof

Yet you do explain:

Since time "wastes" all things and us too, gaining some understanding for its own sake seems like a more enriching way of "wasting" this interval between the two oblivions rather than making believe 'shit made up just to flatter and console ourselves' in anxious denial of the existential mediocrity principle (i.e. boredom). " — 180 Proof

And I accept your reason for you. There's no basis here except that "it seems" an enriching way to live your life. This really isn't about you, so I'm not sure why you're telling me what you like to do. Why devolve into the subjectivity you previously criticized?

Philosophical hold nearly as profound a meaningfulness as spiritual pursuits. Dispelling a fatal confusion is a profoundly meaningful achievement - and borders on salvation. It is indeed at times far more spiritually transfiguring than - typically lukewarm - dreams of salvation. — ZzzoneiroCosm

If that's your belief, then the altar of philosophy is where you should kneel. Like I said, I'm not an evangelical. You do you.

My point is simply that if the quest is for meaning, then the quest for knowledge will only get you closer to meaning to the extent you equate meaning with knowledge. That's a personal preference. If knowing the ins and outs of our world leads you to have a subjectively meaningful life, then do that.

I do believe I view intellectual masturbation more pleasurable than most. That's why I'm here in this forum. Doing this right here is not the meaning of life though. Not mine at least. But if yours, wow, but ok.

Again, this topic ain't about you. :roll: — 180 Proof

Such is our point of contention. You deny the significance of the subjective commitment to faith and I hold it primary. The basis for my position is that it imbues my life with meaning. I can see no reason to substitute your objective (i.e. to live the examined life) for mine.

You need to explain why I should seek empirical and rational truth for its own sake. Why is that the universal good? I recognize the hedonistic value of intellectual pursuits, but if that's all there is, I quickly reach an existential problem centering around why am I wasting my time learning the intricacies of our randomly created world?

My only objection is that it's a two-way street. — god must be atheist

But that is my point as well.

I'm not proposing an either/or (ala Kierkergaard) and can as much enjoy the intellectual pursuits as Socrates and recognize the importance of science as Pierce, but that doesn't negate the possibility of faith as well.

But where do you arrive at the idea that the examined life (as translated by modern sensibilities) is a virtuous raison d'etre other than your subjective assessment? If my life suffers in all objective measure as the result of my rejection of faith, is such just my unfortunate fate even though there was a way to have avoided it? Why must I worship at your alter? Because it is the path to Truth? But we're right back in our circle - I must accept that the rational pursuit of truth is a valid reason to exist in order to be persuaded by rationality alone.

How aren't you similar to the evangelical at my door telling me to follow his path to truth so that I can experience true joy? Is it impossible to believe my beliefs do accomplish exactly as I say they do?

The point here is that the way of Athens is not the only way to a meaningful life. The way of Jerusalem works just as well. Either path is a choice

Moral freedom requires injustice. — unenlightened

Nice.

If I were trying "to assess your subjective state ... actually experiencing", I would agree with you, sir, but I have not claimed or implied any such thing. Your non sequitur is what's "non-sensical". Faith-based rationalizations (and delusions) abound. — 180 Proof

Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful". — 180 Proof

You have offered an opinion as to what "seems to you," which is how you think things must seem to me, namely that I derive the same sort of benefit an alcoholic receives from his drink. I'm telling you that I don't. It's different. My faith doesn't cause me to wreck my car, divorce my wife, lose my job, and destroy my liver. In fact, it causes me no internal strife. So how do you assess what my faith does to me from your vantage point at your keyboard?

Your final sentence ("Faith-based rationalizations (and delusions) abound") attempts to wedge in what you want desperately to argue, which is that my beliefs are factually wrong. I've, at best, argued from pragmatism. I'm not asserting what reality is, but just how best to live my life. "My" is in bold because I trust you when you say that what I say works for me doesn't work for you.

This is about Hanover being Hanover, accepting whatever abuse you wish to throw my way in terms of my believing in complete and utter bullshit. I do accept those criticisms smugly, to be sure, because I have lived it both ways, and I know personally what offers my life meaning and direction and what does not.

And the point of all of this is to offer elbow room in this crowded world of ideas for religion, which does have a role, and for which I think is the primary motivation behind your objections, although correct me if I'm wrong.

Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful". Like other forms of intoxication, religious faith exchanges sobriety for "comfort" (often to the point of delusion (e.g. Haglund)). — 180 Proof

I trust you in your statement that you would not find any value to holding to religious faith and that it would not enhance your life in any way. I find your assessment that I would have as meaningful of a life without faith as pretty non-sensical, as if you know better than me what I'm actually experiencing. That is, I'm not in a position to assess your subjective state and you're not in a position to assess mine. We're just left having to trust one another when we tell each other what affords our respective lives meaning.

As I've also said:

If, at the end of one's life, one has lived a life they found complete and meaningful, what difference does it make that the person might have lived a life filled with unprovable and even false beliefs? — Hanover

In order to make your analogy apt, that religion is akin to alcohol and other toxins, you will need to demonstrate that like the alcoholic whose life often ends in broken relationships, destroyed families, financial ruin, desperation, legal troubles, and general instability, so goes the person of faith.

Does that describe the typical life of the devout Jew, Muslim, or Christian?

And it's an odd twist here, with the atheist knocking at my door and handing me his literature so that I can see his Way. If you find atheism the way to a meaningful or productive life (or whatever your objective might be), then do that. Even if I had positive proof that God existed, if you have found happiness in your belief he didn't exist, why would I impose?

My point is that being comforted by some idea is not evidence that the idea is true, just as being offended by someone's claim does not mean that your claim is true or their claim is false. Our personal feelings have no bearing on what is true or false.

I'm not interested in Haglund's feelings. I'm interested in the truth. — Harry Hindu

It's obvious that our personal comfort in believing something has no bearing on the truth of it. To the extent one can choose to believe or not when there's a lack of evidence of something, that would be a nod towards pragmatism. That is, if I choose to believe in a fantastical claim that in no way interferes with my daily existence, but it does offer me comfort, then that would be a basis to believe in it, while admittedly not making the belief true. I choose to believe for the positive effects, not because of a delusion that I have arrived at empirical evidence or that my position is logically entailed.

Asserting that you know more than others while at the same time giving no evidence is a symptom of delusions of grandeur. — Harry Hindu

There might be some degree of cognitive dissonance in maintaining a belief in God that you should know is not valid, but I wouldn't describe that as having special access to the divine that would amount to a delusion of grandeur. The typical theist claims that knowledge of the divine is available to anyone who seeks it, so I don't agree with your psychological assessment.

My point here is simply that decisions of how one wishes to live one's life, including what foundational truths one wishes to adopt, need not be based upon upon empirical evidence or logical dictates, but it could just be a matter of personal preference. If, at the end of one's life, one has lived a life they found complete and meaningful, what difference does it make that the person might have lived a life filled with unprovable and even false beliefs?

I find the objection that one must accept atheism as true because it is true, even if it means a life a despair, to be ironically antithetical to the ideology of secular humanism. That is, if all there is to this great big universe in terms of meaning is what we humans give it, then why deprive it of sacred meaning if that will elevate the lives of humanity?

I'm submitting that we should hold to beliefs that make life meaningful as opposed to insisting we live with the cold reality of meaningless if meaningless is what there really is behind the curtain.

And before you say that atheism is what gives your life meaning, however that might be, please recall my prior comment, which is that simply because you've found the fountain of meaning in your atheism, that doesn't mean you need to proselytize it to others because it is likely some are not constructed as you are and they do find meaning in what you think to be delusions.

"Knowing" gods created the universe does nothing to comfort someone when you don't know the motives behind them creating the universe. — Harry Hindu

How can you speak for @Haglund? If you tell me that you are not comforted by knowing there was a motive for creating the universe when you cannot know what the motive was, I can only believe you. By the same token, I'm not sure how you can tell someone else they are not comforted when they've told you they are.

I guess your argument is that it does not logically follow that he be comforted, which only means he fails logically to explain why his belief is comforting, but it doesn't mean that he's not. The best you can argue is that he's found comfort where he should not have and his response would be that comfort is comfort regardless of whether logically it should be.

Whether the creator of morality is bound by morality is a philosophical question for example.
— Hanover

It is a question that philosophical analysis shows to be ill conceived and question begging. — Fooloso4

Generically I see it as a logical puzzle where an entity is defined as having an essential element that cannot ever vary and the paradoxical conclusions that arise from it. It need not be argued as a theological construct.

For example, what happens when Pinocchio says "my nose is now growing"?

One aspect of the debate on forum quality that might be addressed is the preponderance of low quality thread of a theological bent.

Here's a few titles, by way of example:
Was Judas a hero and most trusted disciple, or a traitor?
Is Yahweh breaking an objective moral tenet?
An Argument Against Eternal Damnation
Was Jesus aware of being Yahweh?
Does Yahweh/Jesus live by the Golden Rule?
How much is Christ's life, miracles, and resurrection a fraudulent myth?

These threads take scripture or revelation as a starting point for discussion; theology, not philosophy. — Banno

Since it's been a good couple of years since you asked the question, I'll revisit it.

As to your examples, I don't agree they're all purely theological. Whether the creator of morality is bound by morality is a philosophical question for example.

If we take faith and reason to be stark distinctions in a Kierkeegardian way, I think you're faced with any attempt to understand the sacred in a logical way as being philosophical and not theological. That is, if we challenge the teachings of Jerusalem with the reasoning of Athens we're beyond the purely theological.

It just seems the inevitable result that if you ban entry to certain people, that if they illegally enter, they're not going to be able to go to law enforcement and complain about their treatment without fear of facing punishment for their illegal entry.

I would expect this problem to exist in any affluent nation that did not have open borders.

Next: why would they put up with these conditions? — frank

It beats other options I guess.

The Civil Rights Movement was driven in part by national security concerns in the context of the Cold War. There was international pressure on the US to clean up its act wrt segregation in the South (much of it from France). The US responded to this pressure because its fairly monstrous appearance (regarding lynching, for instance) was driving neutral areas of the world toward the USSR and China. — frank

The pressure for social change was largely internal. Honestly I'd expect external pressure (especially from the French)to result in stubborn backlash.

1.A monotheistic God is one distinct being
2.The Trinity is three distinct beings
3.God cannot be both one and three distinct beings
4.Therefore, the Trinity is contradictory — tryhard

This doesn't follow. What follows is that if the trinity is true, polytheism is true. This means that the trinity is inconsistent with monotheism, but not that it is self contradictory.

Polytheism isn't necessarily inconsistent with Christianity.
https://mormonchurch.com/668/are-mormons-polytheists

If we are going to evaluate children's books as philosophy, I put my money on "Goodnight Moon." — T Clark

That's on my reading list. I've started it a few times, but I haven't been able to get completely through it yet.

Go Dog Go is a book I highly recommend for its life study and discussion of basic philosophical truths. Consider the following quotes:

“The sun is up. The sun is yellow. The yellow sun is over the house. It is hot out here in the sun.”

Who among us haven't noticed these very same things yet never were able to put them in verse?

“The dogs are all going around, and around, and around.”

Ha! What a whimsical thought! Dogs spinning, turning, and doing such non-dog things! Who doesn't love this imagery?

“A dog party! A big dog party! Big dogs, little dogs, red dogs, blue dogs, yellow dogs, green dogs, black dogs, and white dogs are all at a dog party! ”

We're all thinking the same thing! Why wasn't I invited to this canine fiesta? Dogs of all stripes and colors partying at the most diverse of galas!