If we are to go down this "biblical worldview", we are to go down a road whereby suffering for humans is warranted. This is deemed as good, but then this does not bypass the dilemma of two views of suffering.. The subjects of suffering (humans), and the one who wants to see the suffering.

Many times the abused identifies with the abuser- they deserve it. It's their fault. They should have done better.

Many times the abused excuses the abuser- it's their nature. Who are we to disagree. — schopenhauer1

I think you nailed it. Certainly this seems how one of the more prominent theistic fictions would have it.

By human standards (do we know of any others?), the Biblical god is often evil and seems to be compelled to do evil. Why else would he drown all men, women and children with a great flood - just one example? His omnipotence gave him the power to end all life painlessly, but he decided to opt for cruelty and drown them all, babies included. We really only know this god is good because he tells us he is. But isn't that what an abusive parent/spouse says? 'I'm doing this, because I love you.'

Of course many who defend such a malevolent deity will argue that humans don't have the capacity to judge god and that he has his own special wisdom or celestial discernment, which humans couldn't possibly understand. It's that kind of thinking, I suspect, which leads to mass murdering children because god says it's ok.

And before anyone says it is only crass atheists who argue like this, I have met more than my share of Christians who consider Yahweh to be a cosmic berserker and scourge. My favourite (now dead) Episcopal bishop, formerly of Newark, John Shelby Spong, viewed the Bible as a collection of frequently awful stories which should be ignored:

The Bible says that women are property, that homosexuals ought to be put to death, that anybody who worships a false God ought to be executed, that a child that talks back to his parents ought to be stoned at the gates of the city. Those ideas are absurd.

JS Spong

I've seen this argument. I find it very persuasive. But I don't think that a "pro-lifer" would. — Ludwig V

Fair point. A 'pro-lifer' is a member of a tribe, no matter how persuasive an argument might be, the matter is settled for them.

:up: Very interesting.

There's also the boldly autonomy argument to defend pro-choice.

In this it doesn't matter when a fetus 'becomes human' what matters is the bodily autonomy of the mother. In other words, no person is morally obligated to use their body to sustain another life against their will, even if that life is dependent on them. Just as one cannot be forced to donate organs to save another person, a woman cannot be compelled to use her body to support a fetus.

.

Otherwise, please highlight where these words: abortion, slavery, women's rights etc appeared in the OP. I'll be waiting. — Benj96

Of course you didn't. You seem determined to not understand the point.

I am saying that truth may be deliberately and carefully rejected by people because it is assessed as appalling.

One such account of 'truth' allegedly from god is The Bible with its evil stories and directives (slavery, genocide, etc).

This goes to my point about an Option 4 - that people may reject truth in full knowledge of what they are rejecting. You don't seem to understand this point and keep banging on about ignorance.

But this point would work just as well with The Koran or any other holy book full of despicable information, generally held to be truth directly from god.

You cannot assume that a god represents goodness. The so called truth may well be despicable. Which is how many view the alleged truth contained in the Koran or the Bible.

I think the best we can do is be aware of them. Even when we examine our beliefs, we cannot do so by stepping outside of them. Philosophical dialogue can help, but we often tend to defend our beliefs because they are our own rather then test them to allow them to stand or fall based on the strength of the argument. Easier said than done. — Fooloso4

Thank you. Nice to read I'm not the only one with this view.

On the whole, though, it seems that others' are more inclined to pick apart my beliefs than I am, so the idea of an individual overcoming their biases isn't even necessary because the individual doesn't do that alone. — Moliere

Agree, but it only works if you have access to others with whom you are in dialogue. I suspect most people's beliefs go unchallenged, probably because we tend to stay in our tribes.

What in particular do you find unassailable in introspection? — Jafar

I didn't find anything unassailable.

I said this -

I question the extent to which we are capable of examining our own beliefs - our cognitive biases and our unconscious processes might well be unassailable. — Tom Storm

I wonder if we can get past these factors? I'm framing it as a question, not as a claim.

You’re doing great so far, by the way.

The Emerson doesn’t do it for me, I’m afraid. Too cryptic. Many of the people I have known who championed introspection have been breathtakingly arrogant and appear to lack self-knowledge. (I don’t think you’re one of those.)

I question the extent to which we are capable of examining our own beliefs - our cognitive biases and our unconscious processes might well be unassailable. I do think that people can change, but this process may well be separate from whatever introspection they might imagine they are pursuing.

Happy to change my mind on this, if I hear a good argument.

You make me laugh.

You mean the God of the Old Testament? — Janus

Sure, that one is clearly a prick. But we can imagine any god being a nasty piece of work. It does not follow that if there is a god and that god holds the truth that this truth is ipso facto beneficial. This is only the case if you play the definitional game wherein you decide that god is identical with goodness. Which invariably makes anything god does good because he did it. Whether he's drowning all the men, women and children on the planet, or allowing AIDS to tear through the gay community.

I don't believe morality is either complex or dependent on religion. At least when it comes to the most significant moral issues. Those regarding theft, assault, rape, murder, child abuse and so on. Morality grows out of pragmatic social necessity. — Janus

Indeed. And as a social species, where strength comes through community, it would be difficult for us to survive without codes of conduct like this.

I would imagine the truth would be horrible for those that can't stand it. I imagine they would be the intolerant pissants in this case. — Benj96

That's' a very limited account. What if god is a mafia thug like Yahweh? He is evil. The truth may be horrible because it is horrible and we are correct not to stand for it. We can definitively visualize a version of reality where if there is a god that god is nefarious.

Well,

Matters like abortion, women's rights etc are all important and need due discussion but have little to do with the core of what was set out in the OP. — Benj96

You are trying to limit your accoutn so that the flaws dontl show. You have mentioned 'the truth'. The question remains what is the nature of this truth? If it advocates for slavery and genocide and violates the rights of minorities and women, then this truth is problematic and quite possibly evil.

The context is everything in this thought experiment. As they say, the devil is in the detail. :wink:

I will be clear: when you think in absolute nothing, what comes to your mind? Everything white? A sparkle? A very deep, dark, and cold ambient? — javi2541997

You are imagining something. Nothing is the absence of any qualities or attributes. It can't be imagined because by that very act you are imagining something.

Do we have any evidence that there was ever such a thing as nothing? As far as human experince is concerned the term 'nothing' is incoherent unless it is attached to a sentence like 'nothing up my sleeve' :wink:

That a simplistic picture in my view. If the person was merely saying "we should be good to one another" then that would be hard to argue with. But its not as simple as that when it comes to religion. — Janus

Indeed - there's still those matters of foreskin, the rights of women, abortion, etc, etc. How do we rule out a god (if one exists) who is also an intolerant pissant? What if the truth is horrible?

Good points.

But if the case is that you're ignorant, your "certainties" are falsely placed correct? Someone who opts for choice 2 (ignorance) can still exert what they "think" is true and ethical. That doesn't mean their actions are well rationalised. Intentions are not enough alone. — Benj96

No, as I see it. You have this scenario -

Consider someone declares they are God and that this statement is the absolute/fundamental truth or "the word". They then offer you a trinary choice: — Benj96

People may decide that this god is a prick and that the truth they are peddling is bad for humanity. I may do this in full understanding of the content of that truth.

For instance: let's pretend that the Bible is true. There are plenty of folk who consider the Bible to be full of evil advice (it's pro slavery, misogynist, homophobic, sanctions genocide, etc). People may chose to oppose this truth in full knowledge of its content. Many people would consider Yahweh (as described) to be a Mafia boss style tyrant.

You seem to make an assumption that truth - even if understood - is always welcome. They know exactly what is going on and what this God stands for but consider this god objectionable.

So option four remains on the table. The active opposition.

But a theist, creating such a thought experiment will already have made the assumption that only ignorance would oppose any truth presented by a god. I would maintain that this can't be demonstrated and is likely to be wrong.

]The options you have presented seem limited and skewed i.e., they don’t seem plausible,

I do not see how ignorance and knowledge are the same.

Well ought you be the sole/exclusive decider of whether the truth has bad consequences for society? Surely that's highly autocratic. As any democracy is based on many people being allowed — Benj96

If you are certain it is harmful you may think this is vital work. But in this scenario have you ruled out others also taking a position against the content of the word?

Ignore the word - in this case you remain ignorant and at the whim of manipulation/mis-direction/ the agenda of others. Disempowered, confused and vulnerable to being misled. — Benj96

In addition to my other comments, this to me does not follow. How would you demonstrate that ignoring the word leads to any particular outcome? Why wouldn't it lead to happiness and satisfaction? Hence ignorance is bliss?

Might it not also be the case that knowing and accepting the word could lead to being misled and misdirected by others? We know this is how religion works all over the world. What version of truth are you describing where there is no possibility for it to be misused by bad faith actors?

It is. And by trying to keep the truth to yourself alone whilst another actively shares it (the originator) then by default you're opposed to them spreading it as throught their action it is less ajd less in your sole posession. — Benj96

No - to me there is a fourth option - to deny it from a position of knowledge and to actively work to take it down because you beleive the truth to have bad consequences for humanity.

or object it (deny it despite knowledge of it) — Benj96

I thought your third one was keep it to yourself?

There's a big difference between deny through ignorance and deny through knowledge? Tell me how they are the same.

1). "Spread the word" that I am the fundamental truth (God). In doing so you a). Educate/teach (as true knowledge is based on the truth) and b) Are ethical - as telling the truth/being honest is as virtue that supports the greater good. In doing so you remove ignorance from those you tell - empowering them with knowledge while acting honestly/truly.

2). Ignore the word - in this case you remain ignorant and at the whim of manipulation/mis-direction/ the agenda of others. Disempowered, confused and vulnerable to being misled.

3). Keep the truth entirely to yourself. In this case you can only speak/communicate untruths/lies promoting delusion, ignorance and misdirection for others. This disempowers others by keeping knowledge away from them. And is unethical (dishonest and disabling) in self service. — Benj96

Hmmm.

4) Deny the word. — T Clark

Yes, I do think this is a fourth option. One can understand the message and spend time studying the word, but nonetheless work hard to deny its worth To deny from knowledge might be a more useful action than to ignore from ignorance. Just as some Bible scholars are atheists who consider the Bible to be largely an immoral book. Perhaps you have presented a false trichotomy?

As a non-philosopher, it often looks as if the thinkers people are drawn to seem to reflect their presuppositions. How often have you seen someone completely change their world views after exposure to a philosopher's ideas? It must happen. I don't know anyone who studies philosophy, so I have no sample group. And I'm not thinking of guys in their twenties who discover and misinterpret Nietzsche to bolster the radicalisation of their own arrogance.

I'm curious about the introspection part. How do you critically evaluate your own thoughts? — Jafar

Good question. Can it even be done? Or do we just move from one set of emotionally based presuppositions to another?

I forgot that not everyone wants to talk about philosophy all the time. — Jafar

Yes, I think philosophy, being difficult and abstruse and inconclusive, only appeals to a small number. I've only met one or two people in 40 years who have an interest in the subject. Well, that's not really true, some people will tell you they like philosophy, but it turns out that the only thing they've read is Atlas Shrugged or 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos

My goal is to become more engaged when I'm reading, as well as discussing philosophy. — Jafar

So are you saying that you lack confidence in discussing what you have read and what you believe, or is it that you lack certainty? I'm a bit unclear how you view your barrier to participation.

I mean let's stick with the Trump example then... — schopenhauer1

I don’t know if T is an asshole. Seems too mild an epithet, I think he’s more of a malignant grifter. But as I said, this assessment will always be subject to some criterion of value. I think an asshole is generally obnoxious. A narcissist may be utterly charming.

But this is not a science.

What I have noticed (and this is old school wisdom) if everyone around you appears to be an asshole... the odds are it is you that's the asshole.

I think we need to pars the notion of 'asshole' a bit more. There's deliberate assholes and accidental assholes. And there's the fact that one man's asshole is another's truth teller. How do we objectively determine who is an asshole and who is just misunderstood? :wink:

:up:

According to one apocryphal account, Jesus did run away - to France, I think, with Mary Magdalene - to live out his life under an assumed name and have kids. — Vera Mont

Yes, I wonder if they got the idea from The Last Temptation of Christ by Nikos Kazantzakis (1955), wherein Jesus imagines a normal life with Mary and children. In Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln (the book Dan Brown ripped off for his famous 'novel'), this idea is explored as a conspiracy theory.

Crucification, or a wife and children? Surely there must be something less punishing than both those extremes. :wink:

Why does most deity want to be the father of Jesus? — javi2541997

Well the father, the son and the Holy Ghost are all one God - Yaweh.

I think it would be more reasonable to ask: "If you were Jesus, what would you do?" — javi2541997

Well, if I were Jesus, I would be more inclined to say, 'Fuck this, I'm going to Hawaii!'

I never heard from Yahweh. — javi2541997

Yahweh is god of Old Testament - a tyrannical destroyer of lives and worlds. Jesus is, by some accounts, his son.

A destructive God? Interesting, because most deities are basically otherwise. People believe in God because it creates life and things. — javi2541997

But isn't Yahweh expert at genocide and death? Didn't he destroy the world and even have his own son killed? Yahweh could do anything he wants to cleanse humanity but he seems to enjoy doing his thing with a maximum amount of violence and destruction. I guess that's why he is called a vengeful God who is strong in wrath. The cosmic Mafia boss.

For most of the people personal values and beliefs have a lot of influence in their decisions but there are some people who have managed to keep their beliefs at side and make decisions while being completely neutral. — QuirkyZen

Now that you talk about it like that I think you are right and no decision can be neutral and every decision is influenced by personal beliefs — QuirkyZen

Yes.

How could 'neutrality' even work? Our values, goals, and decisions are all shaped by affective orientations, driven by what pleases or satisfies us—by dispositional factors, experiences, and cultural practices. I doubt anyone can escape these influences. What we elevate is always based on subjective preferences, cultural norms, etc, rather than some neutral or objective standpoint. I also suspect that one person's account of neutral is likely to vary from another's.

Yes but the assumption made here is that reality is "outside" and therefore we are "projecting" our sense of logic or elegance onto it — Benj96

No. I'm saying it originates from us (which might be described as 'inside') like everything seemingly outside, we play a key role in its creation.

We have access to reality because we aren't separate from it. — Benj96

I wouldn't assume that this amounts to a capital R reality. It is the reality we know and to a great extent this reality varies with eras and cultures.

I'm not a proponent of an objective and infinite multiverse, instead I propose our individual subjective frameworks are the "proverbial multiverse." — Benj96

I think I'm saying something similar. Of course, being hit by a bus, or falling down a staircase presents us with a pretty unavoidable type of reality. :wink:

Yes there is elegance in geometry, ratios and physical equations. In truth I don't think human cognition could work unless reality had inherent logic. Even the word logic comes from "Logos" -a primordial entity described by the ancients. — Benj96

Just a thought. I wonder if there are some human-centric assumptions inherent in this. If there is elegance in anything, it is surely because we have invented the notion of elegance (and cultures vary regarding what elegance looks like). We don't see elegance as such, we project ourselves onto the world and interpret or create notions of elegance.

You say human cognition may only work because reality has inherent logic. I'm not sure we can demonstrate that humans have access to reality as such or what reality even is. Isn't reality just a word we use for our attempts to make sense of things in the world we experience? It isn't surprising that we 'find' inherent logic - patterns and regularities in our experience since we seem to be pattern-finding creatures, a product or our relentless sense making. We can't even look at clouds or shadows without seeing people, creatures, shapes and faces - pareidolia.

Thanks.

:up:

This may be somewhat dumb, but isn't it also the case that we (humans) are conducting the assessment here? Notions of 'intelligence' and 'reality' and 'the universe' would appear to me to be constructs of ours based on defeasible positions and knowledge which is constantly evolving. Is it even clear that reality can be understood by human beings? We are certainly able to build tentative theories and through some of them make predictions with results, but are we perhaps getting a bit ahead of ourselves in seeking to answer the OP's question? Thoughts?

I'm a fan of "Who cares." — T Clark

Yes, I sometimes pick that one too.

I wonder if there is some way of avoiding the dichotomy of traditional religious God vs the universe as pointless accident theory. — Bodhy

Yes. My favourite, when it comes to explaining the universe is, 'I don't know'. Even if one takes the god hypothesis seriously, the problem with it is that god has no explanatory power. We have no why or how or who - it's just a claim, bereft of detail.

I think the universe simply coming into being pointlessly is the height of absurdity and would render reality fundamentally unintelligible. — Bodhy

If this leads you to gods then you're surely making a textbook fallacy - an argument from incredulity? As an aside, what makes you think reality is intelligible? Might it not be that humans merely construct a view (which we dub reality) based on contingent factors like perception, culture and linguist practices. Some ideas in this constructivist melange are more useful for certain purposes than others.

The only way a scientific cosmology could avoid that would be to accept a tenseless theory of time along with some sort of eternal universe. — Bodhy

I see no reason to rule out that the universe, or some part of it is eternal. I think some physicists (like Sean Carroll) have entertained this possibility. Can we demonstrate that it isn't?

This is why I prefer, 'I don't know.' And most likely neither does anyone else, even those qualified to make better guesses than anyone here.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this issue. Which position do you take in the debate between relativism and objectivism, and why? How does this debate influence your own conception of truth and reality? — Cadet John Kervensley

I don't consider it particular important to have a view of truth or reality. Apart from a basic correspondence pragmatically, truth is often elusive. Truth is an abstract; it's not a property that looks the same wherever it is found. Truth is established in different ways for different matters. Eg - mathematical truth, geographic (empirical), historical, legal, philosophical.

I think the search for the really real or the truly true is often a god surrogate and a hope for finding some form of transcendence. We seem to want access to knowledge of something outside of human experience that is in some way immutable.

I believe we can pragmatically say things are good or bad in relation to the harm they prevent or cause. I am not sure we can do much more than that. All humans really have access to is a conversation about their values and what kind of world we want to build.

But even if you hold the view that there are objective facts, this does not end debate or resolve any problems between people's values. All we have then is the ceaseless debate about which set of 'objective' facts are the 'true' facts.

My own best guess for an answer is that they know about behaviors - they have observed them. And have made observations that are essentially statistical in nature - no doubt it's not quite that simple - thus being able to make "educated" guesses by looking at the data. Not to be confused with knowledge. And not a criticism but a critique; that is, a fact, or so I think. — tim wood

I think I have mostly answered this already, but essentially a psychiatrist is a medical doctor with further specialist knowledge - so has all the knowledge of a GP and additionally has expert knowledge of mental illness and can conduct a differential diagnosis (what may be organic and what may be psychological in origin) and can conduct assessments, provide diagnosis, develop treatment plans, provide pharmacotherapy, and counselling. All of these are extremely specialized and intricate matters.

For psychiatry, the ability to make knowledge-based categorical statements a luxury they usually do not enjoy. — tim wood

I would say that is a limited lens - bi-polar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, schizophrenia, depression, etc, are fairly clear situations that can be described clearly and do respond to treatment, almost as well as diabetes can be managed by insulin.

I would agree that psychiatry is still in its infancy and that mental health treatment still has a long way to go in its development.

Personally I have provided testimony to several tribunals arguing that particular psychiatrists and hospitals have made mistakes and that the mental health system is deeply flawed and requires reform.

Ask a psychiatrist c. 1970 about a hebephrenic or a homosexual, and he will say they're sick. Except that in 2024 hebephrenia is not a thing and homosexuality not a sickness. And while that's a half-century ago, I don't think psychiatry has refined its understandings to qualify as knowledge. — tim wood

A few observations - in 1970 many psychiatrists were also reformers and challenged all kinds of notions of what qualified as 'sickness'. Psychiatry, like most disciplines, has had many reformers from within, contributing to many changes. In fact, the anti-psychiatry movement of the 1960's was led by psychiatrists. In 1970 there were psychiatrists who did not think homosexuality was an illness. Many psychiatrists I've known think that the DSM manual is inflexible and flawed.

To argue that because positions change and therefore psychiatry does not hold knowledge seems to be like the religious fundamentalists who say that science is bunk because science changes its paradigms over time.

Anyway, I'm going to leave this one here since there is no end to a debate like this and it's not really my role to defend psychiatry, which is an imperfect and evolving profession - and I am no expert. I simply know from decades of personal experince that psychiatrists can work scrupulously to provide extremely helpful life saving interventions for people. The profession is generally demonized and poorly understood. Which was my original observation.

You'd have to read the book or get a good summary. It's a long and deep study. But if you are going to say this.

My criticism being of those who represent the "witchcraft" as knowledge. — tim wood

Then you seem to be arguing that psychiatry is not knowledge. I guess there's not much to discuss then.

Yes, but always psychological reform, never social reform, because ... actually, the medical model still informs the social structure that is psychiatry - one goes to the doctor, not the politician/lawyer. — unenlightened

We weren't talking about reform but as you raised it I don't think this is right either. It doesn't describe what happens here. Reform to mental health system is generally led by people outside of medical services, by those with lived experience, by relatives, by lawyers, by community workers and by politicians. And when mental health unit workers meets a potential patient for the first time, the overarching view is ususally how can they keep people out of the system and away from the need for medication. Your question -

"how does your society fuck you up, and what are your coping strategies/self-medication?" — unenlightened

is to some extent the one which informs them.