Both secular ethics and religious ethics rely upon the subjective (or intersubjective) preferences of human beings. — Tom Storm

In Genesis it is very clearly stated multiple times that man was created in the likeness of God. There is no possible secular counterpart to this.

"What you find [harmful], do not do to others."
~Hillel the Elder — 180 Proof

You all realize Hillel doesn't just derive his maxims ex nihilio? He was a Jewish religious scholar heavily steeped in Torah. He wasn't just picking out sayings from midair against an atheistic metaphysic. You can't view his teachings independently from the background in which he taught them. I mean you can, but it doesn't make sense.

At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter whether there's a perfect secular moral system (even it was "objective"). Even if there was, why should anyone care? Born from oblivion, pass to oblivion. Spend your time how you see best fit. Who am I to tell you how to live? I would say the same about religious frameworks if it were not for the fact that all get called to account before God according to Scripture.

n Genesis it is very clearly stated multiple times that man was created in the likeness of God. There is no possible secular counterpart to this. — Moses

An old book says a thing. Why should anyone care what Genesis says?

Because we're having a conversation on religious ethics?

Because we're having a conversation on religious ethics? — Moses

An old book says a thing. Why should anyone care what Genesis says? — Tom Storm

And your answer is?

I'm not trying to convince you if you're an atheist. That would be too big of a task for me. All I'm saying here is if we're going by the Bible then that carries certain implications, one of which grounds man's value via a divine being.

If you're asking me why you should believe it that's a whole different question. I can't be just given the task of convincing you to believe it all, that's too much for me. I don't believe in all the literal truth of Genesis.

Personally I basically have to believe in God otherwise I would probably be dead.

Oops typo, meant to write totalizing not totalling.

Fixed and accidentally deleted my response about subjective religious morality. Which included:

Until you can demonstrate -

1) which god is true;
2) which understanding of that god is true;
3) which religion is true;
4) what that god wants;
5) which holy book is true;
6) which interpretation of that holy book is true

- you don't have a reliable basis for moral behaviour. What you have is a claim coalescing around a series of subjective interpretations, in search of a totalizing meta-narrative.

have also described Genesis a myth not to be taken literally. It's not just atheists. — Tom Storm

Oh absolutely. Jews, who have been studying this text far longer than Christians, have been operating under this assumption since the beginning. You never hear Jews describe Genesis as literal truth. Maybe days in Genesis are more like "periods" or "epochs" maybe some the flood in Noah was regional as opposed to worldwide? There are ancient Mesopotomian flood stories. What would truth mean in this regard i.e. what would it mean for the flood story to be true? It's an interesting question to think about.

Until you can demonstrate -

1) which god is true:
2) which understanding of that god is true
3) which religion is true;
4) what that god wants;
4) which holy book is true,
5) which interpretation of that holy book is true -

you don't have a reliable basis for moral behaviour. What you have is a claim coalescing around a series of subjective interpretations, in search of a totalling meta-narrative. — Tom Storm

:fire:

You all realize Hillel doesn't just derive his maxims ex nihilio? He was a Jewish religious scholar heavily steeped in Torah. He wasn't just picking out sayings from midair against an atheistic metaphysic. You can't view his teachings independently from the background in which he taught them. I mean you can, but it doesn't make sense. — Moses

This statement, which I mostly agree with, has nothing to do with the post from which you've quoted me quoting Rabbi Hillel's "maxim" (which is almost identical to that of Confucious and the Mahābhārata).

Sorry Moses, trying to fix a typo, I accidentally deleted my earlier response and have only restored some of it. I forget the rest. :wink:

Until you can demonstrate -

1) which god is true;
2) which understanding of that god is true;
3) which religion is true;
4) what that god wants;
5) which holy book is true;
6) which interpretation of that holy book is true

- you don't have a reliable basis for moral behaviour. What you have is a claim coalescing around a series of subjective interpretations, in search of a totalizing meta-narrative. — Tom Storm

But in order to make such a demand for demonstration, you're already working out of a totalizing meta-narrative.

IOW, you're already decided which god is true, which understanding of that god is true, which religion is true, etc.

Personally I basically have to believe in God otherwise I would probably be dead. — Moses

How do you know that?

I would actually certainly be dead. Suicide.

IMHO the greatest affirmation of the dignity of the disabled occurs in a dialogue between God and Moses beginning in Exodus 4:10. I am disabled. Likely the same disability as Moses. I need a way to frame that, and my experiences/observations are simply not a sufficient answer to that question. Gotta throw in with God on this one.

IMHO the greatest affirmation of the dignity of the disabled occurs in a dialogue between God and Moses beginning in Exodus 4:10. I am disabled. Likely the same disability as Moses. I need a way to frame that, and my experiences/observations are simply not a sufficient answer to that question. Gotta throw in with God on this one. — Moses

How do you know that you don't just like the authors of Exodus (various others and editors that compiled it from various sources presumably), and not the actual events? Does that matter to you, or is i the usefulness of the literary devices that enamor you (plot, character, narrative, theme, etc.).

At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter whether there's a perfect secular moral system (even it was "objective"). Even if there was, why should anyone care? — Moses

It does matter, so that people can direct their lives best.

Spend your time how you see best fit.

Except that it's often not clear what that is; people sometimes wonder, sometimes they are deeply perplexed, about what that would mean to "spend one's time how one sees best fit".

Unless one is very fortunate, the set of moral principles that one was raised with will probably sooner or later be challenged, or even proven counterproductive, so that one will end up in a moral crisis. And then one will possibly try to resolve that moral crisis, such as by reading various philosophical and religious texts and discussing them.

How do you know that you don't just like the authors of Exodus (various others and editors that compiled it from various sources presumably), and not the actual events? Does that matter to you, or is i the usefulness of the literary devices that enamor you (plot, character, narrative, theme, etc.). — schopenhauer1

It's not about the authors to me. It's about the bigger picture message. I'm mainly looking for bigger picture themes to extract. It's a truth-claim regardless of whether it was written by the Yahwist, Elohist or Priestly - the three authors identified.

I believe it is the best dialogue in disability ever written - and in the 8th or 9th century BCE nonetheless which is amazing to me.

I would actually certainly be dead. Suicide. — Moses

Yet there are people with a speech disability who don't believe in God, and yet seem to be doing just fine.

Belief in God isn't necessary in order to cope with a disability.

Sure they haven't killed themselves but how's their mental health? How do they view their own condition and place in society? That's the real question.

How healthy are they, mentally? IMHO the exodus narrative is the best one for mental health.

At the end of the day, it doesn't even matter whether there's a perfect secular moral system (even it was "objective"). Even if there was, why should anyone care? Born from oblivion, pass to oblivion. Spend your time how you see best fit. Who am I to tell you how to live? I would say the same about religious frameworks if it were not for the fact that all get called to account before God according to Scripture. — Moses

It's not about the authors to me. It's about the bigger picture message. I'm mainly looking for bigger picture themes to extract. It's a truth-claim regardless of whether it was written by the Yahwist, Elohist or Priestly - the three authors identified. — Moses

Why are ancient Israelite authors/editors immune from making shit up like any other authors of ancient times? The stories themselves might be compelling as profound mythological-history.. But the mythology might be a large part in that history. Perhaps there was a "Moses"..Perhaps not.. Perhaps there was a real person for which these stories are trying to apply.. But the archaeology and non-Biblical historical documents don't conform exactly to the stories.

Perhaps it is compelling because it is simply the most "complete" and "coherent" mythological history.. Not so much with the Greco-Roman myths perhaps.. And the ethical commands that go with it are unique in that it is from a god, and not simply human reason. People take that for granted. But that is not necessarily proof that it is actually what happened.

By the way, I'm not trying to devalue what gives you hope or what not.. If these stories are important truths that help you, so be it.. Believe what you're going to, but this is a philosophy forum, so some debate, even on strongly useful and helpful beliefs, can be debated.. I hope you agree with me there.

But the archaeology and non-Biblical historical documents don't conform exactly to the stories. — schopenhauer1

How would archaeology confirm or deny God talking with Moses? What would that even look like?

Who knows whether it's true but I'm throwing in with it. We all have to throw in with something. The difference is my philosophy traditionally promotes growth and wisdom while yours just leads to trying to make humanity extinct. You make your own truth claims and I make mine. Mine are concerned with helping others while yours are seemingly aimed at nullifying humanity and existence. Maybe you're right, but mine leads to a happier life if I had to bet. That's why I'm not so much a philosopher anymore.

People take that for granted. But that is not necessarily proof that it is actually what happened. — schopenhauer1

I don't even know what proof would be. What would qualify as proof? I have no idea, I just have this beautiful dialogue. I don't even know what talking to God would be like. I'm just massively impressed with the Bible even if we can never confirm all the truth or claims written within it. We have confirmed some of the genealogy though, even as far back as Genesis. There's at least some truth in it, but a lot of it we'll never be able to confirm.

Sure they haven't killed themselves but how's their mental health? How do they view their own condition and place in society? That's the real question.

How healthy are they, mentally? IMHO the exodus narrative is the best one for mental health. — Moses

"Mental health", as assessed by secular, atheist psychology/psychiatry?

IMHO the exodus narrative is the best one for mental health.

Perhaps if one first believed in the Bible, and only later became afflicted with a disability.
But having a disability first, and then trying to cope with it via adopting a religious narrative that was until then foreign to one doesn't seem like a viable course of action to me.

How would archaeology confirm or deny God talking with Moses? What would that even look like? — Moses

No proof of a phenomenon that has never empirically been verified except in ancient sources (or in claims from the Enquirer), seems a bit dubious to hang your hat on.

Maybe you're right, but mine leads to a happier life if I had to bet. That's why I'm not so much a philosopher anymore. — Moses

Understood.

I don't even know what proof would be. What would qualify as proof? I have no idea, I just have this beautiful dialogue. I don't even know what talking to God would be like. I'm just massively impressed with the Bible even if we can never confirm all the truth or claims written within it. We have confirmed some of the genealogy though, even as far back as Genesis. There's at least some truth in it, but a lot of it we'll never be able to confirm. — Moses

Granted. I mean, you are not going off the handle doing self-referential claims, so I can leave it at that. A lot of people do something like "The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true". You don't seem to be doing that.

IMHO the exodus narrative is the best one for mental health — Moses

A story depicting an adult male conversing with and taking orders from an imaginary friend is "best ... for mental health"? :chin:

"Mental health", as assessed by secular, atheist psychology/psychiatry? — baker

I don't see mental health as a secular/atheistic concept. I see it as a human one. Mental wellness.

Perhaps if one first believed in the Bible, and only later became afflicted with a disability.
But having a disability first, and then trying to cope with it via adopting a religious narrative that was until then foreign to one doesn't seem like a viable course of action to me. — baker

You see things however you want; it's not your life at stake. You don't have that task.

A story depicting an adult male with an imaginary friend is "best ... for mental health"? — 180 Proof

Yes in terms of how one ought to frame their disability, I believe the exodus dialogue is uniquely special. You could frame a disability any number of ways, most of which are toxic.

I don't see mental health as a secular/atheistic concept. I see it as a human one. Mental wellness. — Moses

Sure. But as long as you live in a secular country, your mental health is going to be assessed by secular/atheistic standards. You don't actually have the feedom to declare yourself mentally healthy on your own.

Perhaps if one first believed in the Bible, and only later became afflicted with a disability.
But having a disability first, and then trying to cope with it via adopting a religious narrative that was until then foreign to one doesn't seem like a viable course of action to me.
— baker

You see things however you want; it's not your life at stake. You don't have that task.

On the contrary. I have tried to make sense of my predicament by turning to religion. It failed.

Yes in terms of how one ought to frame their disability, I believe the exodus dialogue is uniquely special. You could frame a disability any number of ways, most of which are toxic.

But from what you've said so far, it appears that you're framing your religiosity in a solitary, isolated way, and it's fully dependent on remaining that way. Are you a member of any organized religion?

On the contrary. I have tried to make sense of my predicament by turning to religion. It failed. — baker

I'm sorry to hear that. Did you dive into the text to get the root of the issue?

But from what you've said so far, it appears that you're framing your religiosity in a solitary, isolated way, and it's fully dependent on remaining that way. Are you a member of any organized religion? — baker

I'll likely write a paper on this to extrapolate on my views. Submit it to a journal.

Sure. But as long as you live in a secular country, your mental health is going to be assessed by secular/atheistic standards. You don't actually have the feedom to declare yourself mentally healthy on your own. — baker

I think we can certainly make meaningful observations on our mental health. My mental health has certainly improved since starting on the Bible. This is mostly just a solo endeavor now. People just need something to ground them. If you're not grounded well you're just going to be screwed. Who says value love? Why not just spend my time asserting dominance over other men? Or why not always talk about how awesome I am? A lot of the Bible is actually proper socialization that many people never received.

My mental health has certainly improved since starting on the Bible — Moses

I don't doubt it. But I've heard the same from people who have turned to Scientology, Mormonism, Pentecostalism, Buddhism, Yoga amongst others. Any belief system will provide a grounding. That's what they do... as long as you believe in them.

On the contrary. I have tried to make sense of my predicament by turning to religion. It failed.
— baker

I'm sorry to hear that. Did you dive into the text to get the root of the issue? — Moses

Of course. More below.

I think we can certainly make meaningful observations on our mental health.

Don't forget that the State owns your body. Literally.

My mental health has certainly improved since starting on the Bible. This is mostly just a solo endeavor now. People just need something to ground them. If you're not grounded well you're just going to be screwed.

From what you've said so far, it seems that what you actually have faith in is your own ability. Not in God, not in the Bible, but in yourself.

I'm unconvinced by scripture, as long as I see it as a matter of my own choice as to whether to believe what it says or not. Whether the Bible is true or not, whether it is the word of God or not is too fundamental to be a matter of my own decision.

From what you've said so far, it seems that what you actually have faith in is your own ability. Not in God, not in the Bible, but in yourself. — baker

This isn't about ability. Neither is it about me overcoming anything. It is about fundamentally framing/approaching the condition in a healthy way. The character of God frames disability wonderfully; better than any book or portrayal since - and in ~800 BC nonetheless. Very unusual for ancient lit.

I'll take other literature, fiction or not. Find me positive, strong examples of people who stutter and how the condition is presented. There's very few if any. The King's Speech was a decent attempt, but fell short -- it still perceived stuttering as a condition to be overcome through training and hard work, and that was one of the better ones.