It's tough to be true to yourself, but I hope in the end, your will — Questioner

It's tougher to be true to other people than to be true to yourself.

"Let your inner convictions maintain your soul's integrity." — RadicalJoe

What if your soul's integrity is to, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Then you are caught on the horns of a dilemma. Your desire for solitude is in conflict with your desire to help your friend. "Boundaries" may be self-serving; ignoring them may be altruistic.

However, predestination does preclude free will. Also, determinants (i.e. genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences) preclude free will because biological organisms do not choose all of their determin — Truth Seeker

Of course our environment and experiences and biology influence our choices. How could it be otherwise? That's not what we mean by "free". "Free" means "not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes." What we wish for may be the result of our biology and environment -- but our ability (or lack thereof) to act on it is either "free" or "constrained".

When Martin Luther said, "Here I stand and I can do no other," he was constrained not by "another", but by his own conscience. No doubt his conscience developed based on certain variables, but so what? That doesn't make his will less "free".

The problem with reductionist explanations for (in this case) choices is that they fail to explain anything. WE don't know what experiences, biological nuances, or environments lead to which choices. So what good does it do to claim they control us? You might as well say, "God controls us." Each statement is meaningless, because it is beyond our comprehension. and fails to allow us to predict or explain behavior.

This is.... not the case. there's some vague, unfounded assumptions in Braeber among others, that travel reports were somehow assimilated as philosophically serious — AmadeusD

If nothing else, the age of exploration exposed Europeans to cultures with which they had previously been unfamiliar -- including pre-civilization societies. This doubtless influenced Hobbes and Rousseau to speculate about the essential nature of humans. Both notions -- that of the Noble Savage, and that of the brutish savage -- were called into question by reports (often confused and contradictory) about actual cultures. Graeber and Wengrow suggest that the popularity of the travel reports, as well as the information from actual Indians who travelled back to Europe, could very well have influenced philosophy (although it's not certain).

Simply asserting that closer to nature = less egalitarian is unconvincing. — Jamal

Not only were simple societies more egalitarian, but they were also healthier. Average height (a reasonable measure of health) decreased by 3-4" with the advent of civilization. Why? Probably a diet based on single grains, disease caused by increased population density, and polluted water supplies were the culprits. Of course the elites were healthier than the hoi palloi, but they constituted a small percentage of the population.

Neither did Austrailian aboriginees or the theoretical inhabitants of distant galaxies but when the majority population of a society prospers then that is, without qualification, a historically massive achievement for any society to ever be able to claim anywhere. — BenMcLean

I disagree. A society in which 51% prosper and 49% starve does not represent a "massive achievement", nor did the U.S. of the '50s and '60s. Besides, the well-paying working-class jobs of that era were well-paying by dint of the efforts of unions, which were all leftist. Also, the global economy and computerization have made such working-class jobs obsolete.

Wengrow and Graeber argue persuasively that the liberal, individual rights European philosophers of the 17th century were influenced by Native American philosophy. I won't bother to repeat their arguments; if you're interested, get the book. IN general, the book is an anti-Neo-Marxist approach to anthropology. It argues that instead of being shaped by class conflict or the economic infrastructure, simple cultures (like our own) are more intentional. People (philosophers?) think about the society they want, and work to achieve it.

• God creates the person,
• God creates their temperament,
• God creates their environment,
• God foreknows every outcome,

then ultimate moral responsibility cannot rest on the creature. — Truth Seeker

We've had this argument before. Foreknowing the outcome does not preclude free will. The sentence, "I freely chose to go to the store yesterday," is coherent and meaningful, even though no other
"choice" can now be made.

The standard Christian response is that God made humans in His own image -- and therefore gave them free will. Love, faith and hope (these three, Paul called them in his letter to the Corinthians) lose their merit if they are not freely chosen. This is obvious. Those of us who have had love affairs marvel at the miracle that (as Jerome Kern wrote), "Out of all the world you've chosen me." Whether God can see the future (as we can see the past) is irrelevant to freedom of choice, and the moral responsibility of the individual.

No, they really dont. The category of "indigenous" means "oppressed by whites" and nothing else. Their only interest in so-called "indigenous peoples" is simply anti-white: they do not want to roll back feminism to return to the ultra-patriarchal ways of life that were in fact the near universal historical norm for humanity. — BenMcLean

Perhaps the past admired by progressives is "mythical" -- but so is the past conservatives admire. Both pick and choose. "Make America Great Again" worships a mythical past of working class prosperity, but African-Americans and Hispanics did not share in it.

The "liberal" individual rights proponents the modern right admires (Locke, Mill, Rousseau, etc.) borrowed "liberally" from Native American philosophers. One Jesuit missionary wrote, "They (the Montagnais-Naskapi) imagine they ought by right of birth, to enjoy the liberty of wild ass colts, rendering no homage anyone whomsoever, except when they like."

This was anathema ot Europeans, trained on the Divine Right of Kings, and obedience to authority. Hence the reference to "ass colts".

Father Lallemant wrote of the Wendat, "I do not believe that there is any people on earth freer than they.... so much so that fathers have no control over their children, or Captains over their subjects, or the laws of the country over any of them, except in so far as each is pleased to submit to them."

The Jesuits, who believed in submission to law, were shocked by this liberty -- especially the right of women to control their own bodies leading to sexual liberty for the unmarried and at-will divorce. (Lallemant apparently thought many Wendat women were out to seduce him (his own secret desires may have led to these delusions).

A book about the Wendat by Gabriel Sagard was popular among European intellectuals, and although Sagard disapproved of the libertine Wendat ways, he praised their powers of eloquence and reasoned argument.

Of course "freedom" is not admired by some factions of the left wing -- "Progressives" long for the lockstep they admire to be enforced. Communism and anarchism are both features of the left wing, although they are about as different as they can be.

(The Native American philosophy and its European influence is gleaned from "The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity" by David Graeber and David Wengrow. HIghly recommended.)

To disprove it, you would need historical counterexamples, not psychology. — BenMcLean

"Progressives" often laud the pasts of indigenous peoples: matrilineal and egalitarian Native Americans, for example. Personally, I dislike the label "Progressive", because it implies "progress" toward a predetermined goal, and marching in lockstep to reach the goal. I picture jackboots stomping in progressive unison down the street. The old-fashioned "liberal", on the other hand, suggests open-minded generosity, acceptance of new ideas and differing opinions, and a willingness (but not a necessity) to change.

In the post to which Philosophim took umbrage, when I described Ecurb as, "Noble, kindly Ecurb (who is also brilliant and handsome)" was I presenting my "true self"? Or was I sarcastically lampooning my narcissism? Maybe I should have whined that I was "bullying" myself.

I agree, though, that no warning was necessary, although I appreciate Jamal (and Javi) for recognizing that my clearly fictional hypotheticals were on point. Besides, look at the discussion they've engendered! It's more interesting (philosophically?) than "manipulative language", or whatever it was we were discussing.

As a literary critic, I'd suggest that using "Ecurb" and "Philosophim" as characters in my hypotheticals added a little (a very little) zing to the stories, and made them more (very slightly more) entertaining. The reactions show that -- yes! -- my literary instincts are intact!

Did you really try to bully, then when you were called out on it say, "I was just joking bro?" — Philosophim

. "Bully"? This is nonsense. I was trying to write a mildly entertaining post that was also on point. You must be thin-skinned indeed to think it constituted "bullying".

Looking at your examples I feel like you're trolling at this point and not taking the conversation seriously. — Philosophim

Examples of situations in which "manipulative language" is clearly the only morally correct choice prove that manipulative language is not evil ipso facto. You are taking the discussion too seriously. It's not worth it. A little humor can liven it up. Humor does not constitute "trolling" -- unless someone (you, for example) takes himself too seriously.

All you did was reverse the definitions I gave you on the terms. Let me explain it another way. A fact deals with knowledge. What you know is not necessarily the truth. What is true exists whether you know it or not. A fact cannot exist if no one knows about it. Truth does. — Philosophim

Well, we can define words however we want to, as long as we agree. I'd say that "a fact is a statement that can be proven or verified through evidence or data, while truth is a more abstract concept that is subjective and can vary depending on individual perspectives." Since this discussion is about "my truth", the standard distinction I've noted here is significant.

Using the words this way, all facts are truths, but not all truths are facts. In court, witnesses present the "facts of the case", but the jury must decide on the "truth" of the defendant's guilt or innocence.

Here's a link to a discussion about this usage:

https://thisvsthat.io/fact-vs-truth

manipulative - especially : serving or intended to control or influence others in a deceptive and often unfair or selfish way
a clever and manipulative child
manipulative behavior — Philosophim

You've chosen the most negative definition of "manipulative" -- which, in my previous post - I noted. Nonetheless, even using this definition, "manipulative speech" is not evil, as the following hypothetical examples will demonstrate:

Noble, kindly Ecurb (who is also brilliant and handsome) was being questioned by a jack-booted, ugly Gestapo who looked suspiciously like Philosophim. "Where are zee Jews hiding?" asked the Gestapo. "If you don't tell me now, you vill be tortured until you talk!"

Ecurb assessed the options. He could either tell the truth, refuse to talk (in which case he would be tortured and might spill the beans), or deceive the predatory gestapo and send him on a wild goose chase, which would give him a chance to move the Jews to a safer hiding place. "Last I saw, they were hiding in the basement of the church in the next village," Ecurb lied. He was using "deceptive speech to control or influence others". Was this evil?

Here's another example:

A masked man who looked suspiciously like Philosophim had seized a young child and was holding a knife to her throat. "I am kidnapping this child, and will molest and murder her," he crowed. Such would have been the eventuality, except that noble Ecurb happened to be nigh. Thinking quickly, Ecurb pulled his phone out of his pocket and pointed it at the villain. It was dark, and in the dim light, the phone could be mistaken for the barrel of a gun. "Release her, or I will shoot you," lied Ecurb, using manipulative language to deceive the predator. "I don't want to die," moaned the cowardly villain, who released the child due to Ecurb's manipulative speech.

-------------------

Now, it is not a 'fact" that Ecurb's use of manipulative language is justified, but perhaps you will agree that it is a "truth" (using my definitions).

Given these examples, it is clear that using "manipulative language" is not wicked ipso facto. Lying and deceiving are evil only if the intent or result is evil -- not in and of themselves. Telling young children that Santa Claus will bring them presents if they are good is controversial -- but not evil. It's fun. It adds to childhood joy and wonder (although it is also "manipulative").

"Pluto is a planet." Years later..."Pluto is no longer a planet". Both are facts. — Philosophim

Wrong. The subtle distinction is that "Pluto exists" is a fact; "Pluto is a planet" was a "truth", but no longer is. The description "planet" is an interpretation of the facts.

"Manipulate" means "handle or control (a tool, mechanism, information, etc.) in a skillful manner:": When the tool is language, there are some negative implications: To "manipulate" a person means to control or influence him cleverly (or unscrupulously) . Obviously, unscrupulous behavior is by definition.
wicked, but clever behavior is not.

How you are using the phrase "manipulative language" remains a mystery. But influencing and even controlling people through clever speech or writing seems the goal of a great deal of speech and writing. What's wrong with that? Aren't you trying (unsuccessfully) to influence people by posting here?

Truth it what is, and it isn't owned by anyone. There is no "My truth". — Philosophim

"Truth" and "facts" are not synonyms. Facts are objective; truth involves an interpretation of facts and is inevitably subjective.

I consider using manipulative language one of the few clear evils that people can do. — Philosophim

Manipulative: influencing or attempting to influence the behavior or emotions of others for one’s own purposes. — dictionary

A teacher lecturing to manipulate his students into passing a test is "using manipulative language". A politician trying to persuade the electorate to vote for him is "using manipulative language". A scientist writing that experimental evidence supports his theory is "using manipulative language".

These are "clear evils"? Isn't your attempt to vilify "manipulative language" and example of manipulative language (or at least an attempt at manipulative language -- I doubt your attempts actually manipulate anyone).

I am making a far more modest claim:

Certain kinds of involuntary suffering are morally incompatible with perfect love combined with perfect power and knowledge.

That claim does not require complete moral knowledge — only consistency in the concepts being used.

Calling that “hubris” mistakes logical analysis for arrogance. — Truth Seeker

On the contrary. Since you don't know what constitutes "perfect love" or "perfect knowledge" you are applying your imperfect notions of love and morality to judge God. This goes back to my principle of literary criticism: it is unfair to criticize a book for not being a different book. If we are to accept God's omni power and knowledge, we must accept his omni love. Why the first two and not the other? Once we accept these, it is our responsibility as critics to practice apologetics, not condemnations.

In addition, your hubris consists of ignorance of centuries of Christian apologetics (of which I am largely ignorant as well, though I've probably read more of them than you have). This is the same issue I have with Dawkins. He ignores apologetics written by brilliant theists, and, like Eve, eats the low-hanging fruit. The difference is that Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge: the Tree of Ignorance bears a bitter taste.

If you care to look closely into ancient Greek art objects such as sculptures drawings of humans, you will notice there is no changes in the human physical body compared to folks in recent times. — Corvus

Here in the U.S., we've become fatter.

I understand what you are arguing. I'm afraid you don't understand me (despite the clarity of my position). One additional point: omnipotent and omniscient, and omnibenevolent may be hyperbole: suppose God is just extremely powerful, loving and good (that was my point about the all-seeing Odin needing those ravens to bring him the news).? Does that make Odin a non-god? Also, if God is all-knowing, isn't it possible that He knows better than you? Read C.S. Lewis' "The Problem of Pain" (which I don't remember well enough to make his arguments). WE humans must muddle through the best we can; God (if He exists) knows better than we do. If He is even slightly less than all-knowing, all-powerful and all-good, we should understand his actions in that context (as the Christian apologists do). Who are we to judge our moral superiors? You appear to think (incorrectly) that you have morality figured out. That's not "truth-seeking". It's hubris.

We've hashed this out too much already.

Fortitude is logically impossible without suffering. If the positive value of fortitude is greater than the negative value of suffering, then a benevolent God who desires a positive balance would allow suffering.

IN other words, suffering + fortitude might reasonably be deemed morally superior to no suffering and no fortitude.

That was my point about love: love inevitably leads to suffering -- but the value of love may be (is) greater than the negative value of the suffering it causes. Your dismissal of heartbreak and grief as a form of suffering is not credible.

None of this excuses the arsonist: for us humans (who aren't omniscient) causing others to suffer is immoral for two reasons: we are unable to judge the positive vs. negative values accurately, and the hatred our acts result from and engender is wicked.

I come from a long line of agnostics and atheists, and it annoys me when Dawkins, Hitchens, and you make lousy arguments in its support. Also, unlike formerly religious people I have no axe to grind with religion, and my enjoyment of literature led me to study myth as a grad student. It annoys me when religion is contrasted to science (myth is a form of history, not of science). Many great scientists had both a scientific and a religious worldview. Despising God for creating a world in which suffering exists seems self-centered and naive. It's similar to Hitchens despising Mother Theresa for providing loving hospice care instead of medical treatment. She was a nun, not a doctor. I didn't see Hitchens providing medical treatment, either.

Courage is admirable.
Suffering is tragic.
The first does not sanctify the second. — Truth Seeker

It doesn't sanctify it, but it might justify it. Fortitude (one of the seven virtues of the Medieval Church) is defined as "courage in pain or adversity." Now, most of us admire the fortitude of an athlete who trains hard (accepting some minor pain) in order to win victory. Perhaps a benevolent God sees the fortitude of someone bravely dying of cancer as unspeakably noble. Such fortitude could not exist without "pain or adversity". Adversity might be the whetstone on which a character worthy of God's love is honed. And for the Christian, the rewards to the sufferer might make it all worthwhile. Didn't Jennifer Jones win the Oscar for "The Song of Bernadette"? (OK, it's a bad movie which I watched only because I knew Jones' grandson, but still, it makes my point.)

suffering is not necessary in principle for virtue, — Truth Seeker

If fortitude is a virtue, suffering IS necessary in principle for certain virtues, as is obvious from the definition of "fortitude".

If evolution is true, then why humans have not evolved since Socrates and Buddha were alive? — Corvus

Humans have evolved. It's just not very noticeable. Evolution is a gradual process.

Given an infinite universe the unbelievably unlikely will happen at least one time, though. (and if it's truly infinite, it will happen an infinite number of times) — Moliere

Everything that happens was once almost infinitely unlikely. What are the odds of a flipped coin coming up heads 10,000 times in a row? If you flip a coin 10,000 times, whatever sequence of heads and tails occurs was equally unlikely before the first flip. But some sequence will always occur.

You continually ascribe "arguments" to me which I have not made. Occasionally, suffering begets joy. or courage. Not always. There's no "false dichotomy".

I have never denied that modern medicine has improved human well-being. Why do you keep harping on that? Modern plumbing, water purification, and refrigeration have probably done almost as much. None of your endless posts are to the point. I have two points: 1) The "scientific worldview" is limited. 2) It is possible that since some virtues are impossible without suffering, that an omniscient God would prefer suffering and the accompanying virtue to a lack of both.

Medical and technological advances are the result of "science" -- not the "scientific worldview". The value of science is irrelevant to this discussion.

To reject suffering and death is not to reject the sentient condition. — Truth Seeker

Let's see. All living things suffer and die. That is the "sentient condition" (those of us who prefer plain English to pretentious jargon might prefer "that's life") We can avoid suffering and death only by avoiding living -- i.e., as you said earlier, not being born. This is so obvious. You simply make yourself seem foolish by arguing about it.

So the question is: how should we live? Should we obsess about avoiding suffering, or should we try to maximize joy? The two are often in conflict: falling in love is joyful, but inevitably leads to heartbreak; climbing mountains is joyful, but can lead to suffering and death. Obviously, if we can cure diseases, great. It's a short-lived stay, though. WE are all going to die.

The Puritan ethic valorizes suffering. One attains joy (in the form of worldly success) through hard "work" and suffering. Here Henry Tilney discusses the virtues of suffering with his beloved Catherine Morland, from "Northanger Abbey":

(I pity historians for being at) so much trouble in filling great volumes, which, as I used to think, nobody would willingly ever look into, to be labouring only for the torment of little boys and girls, always struck me as a hard fate; and though I know it is all very right and necessary, I have often wondered at the person’s courage that could sit down on purpose to do it.”

“That little boys and girls should be tormented,” said Henry, “is what no one at all acquainted with human nature in a civilized state can deny; — Jane Austen

OK, Henry was cracking wise -- but, as is typical of Austen -- there is also some wisdom in his joke. Children may not want to be educated -- but it's good for them. In Eden there was no suffering -- "he who lives in the present lives forever." But to eat from the tree of knowledge is to suffer. Eve knew that -- but chose knowledge and pain over ignorance and pleasure. Are we really sure she made a bad choice?

Suffering and death are part of the human condition. You are contradicting yourself.
— Ecurb

No contradiction is present.

Suffering and death are parts of the human condition — they are not the whole of it.
Likewise, they are parts of the sentient condition more broadly.

What I reject is the slide from:

“Suffering and death are part of the condition.”
to
“Therefore, rejecting suffering and death means rejecting the entire condition.” — Truth Seeker

Well, yes it does mean rejecting the entire condition, since suffering and death are universal portions of the human condition. Your point would be like saying, "I'm not rejecting the rules of basketball, but I think traveling, fouling, and double dribble should be allowed." Those are essential rules -- suffering and death are universal conditions.

I oppose the harmful components, not the existence of sentient life itself. — Truth Seeker

Almost everyone "opposes" suffering and death. So what? They remain part of the human condition. Opposing them is meaningless and irrational. Accepting them is rational.

I have saved and improved many sentient lives. — Truth Seeker

Once again, this is negative. You have "saved sentient lives" by becoming a vegan? I've "saved sentient lives" by refraining from murdering people. So what? In addition, you haven't saved any lives. Ranchers raise animals for sale. If more people became vegans, fewer animals would be raised, and there would be fewer "sentient lives". That constitutes "saving"? It's reminiscent of your earlier claim that you wish you had never been born.

I affirm life strongly enough to want it without cruelty, without injustice, and without premature death. — Truth Seeker

Well, we can agree about cruelty and injustice, but aren't all deaths "premature"? Death is a fact of life. Nobody lives forever.

Making the best of the world does not require pretending it is already good enough. It requires reducing harm, expanding care, and refusing to baptise suffering as morally ennobling. — Truth Seeker

What if suffering begets moral ennobling? Isn't fortitude one of the seven "virtues"?

Nobody thinks the world cannot be improved. But death and suffering cannot be eliminated. It's not possible.

I do not despise the human condition.
I despise suffering, injustice, and death — Truth Seeker

Suffering and death are part of the human condition. You are contradicting yourself.

So no — I do not despise the human condition.
I despise the fact that sentient beings are forced into existence, forced to endure suffering, and forced to die — and then told that the virtues developed in response somehow redeem the coercion itself. — Truth Seeker

If you regret being born, why do you object to dying? That makes no sense. Once you are dead, all that suffering to which you object will end.

• If suffering were preventable, it should be prevented.
• If injustice were removable, it should be removed.
• If death were avoidable, it should be avoided. — Truth Seeker

However, suffering is not preventable, nor is death avoidable. This is not "unjust" by any reasonable definition of justice.

You write that “every child is born to grant eternal life to his or her parents (through descent).”
Taken literally, this is not biologically correct. — Truth Seeker

Good grief, Joe literal! The sun will burn out and every living thing will perish. Eventually. Eternity is metaphorical and relative.

You continue to tout your negative ethos. Life is horrible! Suffering is terrible! The human condition is pathetic! I disagree. For all we know, this may be (per Candide) "the best of all possible worlds." Indeed, it may be the only possible world. Why not make the best of it?

What about those who don't want to be courageous or adventurous? — Truth Seeker

If courage is a virtue people can freely choose to eschew it, just as they can freely choose to avoid being kind, compassionate, law-abiding, and forgiving. Terror, pain, and death are forced on all of us. That's the human condition. Your position, at least, is finally becoming clear, although "injustice" does not properly describe the universal condition you detest.

Our disagreement: you despise the human condition, I don't. You think each birth is a tragedy, and, of course, you are right. But that tragedy is redeemed by the possibility of virtue: of courage, of fortitude, of kindness, and of love. The birth of a child -- tragic though it may be because of the human condition -- is also the occasion of love, the greatest of virtues. The Christian parable is reborn: every child is born to grant eternal life to his or her parents (through descent), and to save them from their sins (through love).

Yeah, and a killed woman's murderer in our society is most likely to be her intimate partner. Marital violence was legal up to a generation or two ago. And there's that history of burning witches. — Questioner

Many, if not most, cultures in the past had witchcraft taboos and killed witches. It is true that the witch-killing craze in Europe between 1520 and 1650 was extreme. According to H.R. Trevor-Roper, as many as 500,000 people were executed as witches (other historians place the total less, but still more than 100,000). However, something like 30% of those executed were men -- the notion that women were the sole victims is misguided. The classic analysis of witchcraft beliefs in Africa is E.E. Evans-Pritchard's "Witchcraft Among the Azandes".

Here's the truth about the Apache nation

Apache women were the pillars of the tribe. — Questioner

You could say the same about European women. They also had important roles -- but the roles were valued less than those of men. Same with the Apache, who were a warrior tribe. Apache women were routinely beaten by their husbands, and if unfaithful had their noses cut off. The myth of noble, matriarchal savagery is not upheld by actual research. Women were mistreated in many simpler societies -- as the difference between the number of 6-year-old boys and girls in many warlike cultures demonstrates. The notion that Christianity is a cause for sexism is simply not supported by the historical or anthropological facts (although it may be an influence among certain fundamentalist groups today).

By the way, I was once talking to an Apache man, who was going on about how the White man had invaded Apache lands. "You do know," I told him, "That white Europeans were in Arizona and New Mexicao before the Apache were." Which, according to the experts (I also told him I was just repeating expert testimony, and had no personal knowledge about this) is true. Spaniards were in Arizona and New Mexico in the 1500s; the Apache showed up in the 1700s. They moved south from Colorado, and their language is similar to those in the plains of Western Canada.

If we go back over a thousand years, we’ll find a lot of societies in which women enjoyed independence and self-autonomy. But then, Christianity – and the Bible - forced them into an oppressed role. — Questioner

This is quite obviously incorrect. Although there were some societies in which women enjoyed "independence and autonomy", there were many others in which women were oppressed far more than they have been in the Christian West. Primitive warlike societies generally undervalue women: the Yanamomo, the warring people of New Guinea, and the Apache represent examples. Among the Yanamomo (and similar Amazonian tribes), and in the New Guinea interior there are often 3 times as many boys as girls at age 6. Why? The only explanations are selective neglect or female infanticide. Of course child mortality is very high in such societies, and valuing boys more than women can lead to them being fed better and treated better. When Geronimo led Apache warriors in the last major Indian war against the U.S., his complaints about the reservation were that the soldiers wouldn't let the Apache men beat their wives or cut off their noses.

The other Mideastern religions (Orthodox Judaism and Islam) treat women even worse than Christianity does.

Christianity reflects the misogyny of its era. Codes of Christian chivalry protected women (although they also infantilized them). It is true that modern Christians tend to be conservative (religion in general is conservative, worshipping an idealized past) and therefore oppose changing gender roles. Orthodox Jews, the mullahs of Iran, and the Taliban are more extreme examples.

I am arguing something narrower and firmer:

Even if suffering exists, and even if courage arises in response to it, suffering itself does not gain moral standing from that fact.

Courage is admirable.
Suffering is tragic.
The first does not sanctify the second. — Truth Seeker

I'll go along with this. Sometimes, though, there are "necessary evils". If we value courage or adventure, suffering is a necessary evil, although, of course, it's reasonable to argue the positive and negative values case by case.

Mystical: having a spiritual symbolic or allegorical significance that transcends human understanding. — dictionary

I assume that's what Whitman is referring to. The stars are both a scientific fact, and a presence that engenders feelings of awe, in part because of their spiritual significance (i.e. cultural associations).

You worry that reducing suffering drains the world of meaning. — Truth Seeker

No I don't. Instead, I'm saying it would be reasonable for a benevolent God to value courage, fortitude, and adventure. Since pain and danger are necessary if these virtues are to exist God might have created a world in which there are pain and danger.

Im out of town for a couple of days, typing on my phone.

But surely a "scientific worldview" sees the world in measurable terms. Science measures and categorizes. The "moist night air" in Whitman's poem is not "mystical" in such a worldview.

If by worldview you mean:

a comprehensive source of meaning, value, love, beauty, and guidance for how to live, — Truth Seeker

Actually, I take "worldview" literally: a way to view the world. Here's Walt Whitman on the "scientific worldview":

When I Heard the Learn’d Astronomer

By Walt Whitman

When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.

If we see the universe in only measurable terms -- through charts, and graphs, and diagrams -- we miss something. Like Whitman, I might grow "unaccountable.. tired and sick..." Science is a useful tool. But as a "worldview", it causes us to see the stars in terms of charts and diagrams, in terms of what can be measured. The map is not the territory, the charts are not the stars. The stars are both great balls of exploding gas, and mystical twinkles in our eyes. My worldview (like Whitman's) includes both.
------------------------------------
p.s.

Courage: 1) the ability to do something that frightens one; bravery:
"she called on all her courage to face the ordeal"
2) strength in the face of pain or grief

Since "pain and grief" involve suffering, courage is only possible given suffering. This is an obvious, logical truth. You can, of course, argue that the world would be better off without suffering, and hence without courage. You might be right. My only point was that perhaps a (mythical) benevolent God values courage, and created a world where it is possible.

A scientific worldview is not a replacement philosophy.
It is a constraint on all branches. — Truth Seeker

In that case, it is not a "worldview". Science cannot tell us how to view the world; where to find beauty, where to find love, how to behave. These are the things most of us want to know, although we may also (in a minor way) want to know how far Pluto is from the sun. Of course science can inform us. What else is new? The question is, does such information constitute a comprehensive "worldview"?

Meaning does not require victims.
Courage does not require cruelty.
And suffering does not become sacred just because humans are good at telling stories about it.

That position is not negative.
It is compassionate, coherent, and fully compatible with depth, adventure, and love.

What it refuses is the one thing you keep trying to smuggle back in:

The idea that suffering deserves reverence simply because it exists. — Truth Seeker

Well, that would be the religious worldview. Because God created the world, it is good.

I'm not religious myself, but I'm not prepared to believe that the world is an evil place because people suffer. That's what the Tree of Life taught Eve. People suffer and die. The human condition is that we know this. It is both a tragedy and a gift. The Gift of the One to men, Tolkien called it in Lord of the Rings. The elves were immortal and wise beyond the ken of men, but the men were more vital, less weary of eternal life. "Had we but world enough and time...." Andrew Marvel wrote to "His Coy Mistress". The temporary nature of life creates urgency and romance.

Of course in reality I look to prevent suffering, just like you do. Maybe I limit my concern to those sentient beings to whom I relate: dogs, cats, apes, monkeys, etc. But I cannot agree with the notion that God (if He existed) is evil for creating a world in which suffering and death exist. For who can know the Mind of God? Why be critical of the wonderful world He (probably didn't) created?

Suffering and death are our lot. This is true whether they result from childhood cancer, ICE murders, or old age. It is not the suffering that is evil -- it is natural. It is the ill will and lack of love that sometimes produces it that is wicked.

But none of them get to sanctify harm — not by age, not by beauty, not by poetry, not by romance. — Truth Seeker

How about all those self-flagellating monks? They thought they were "sanctifying harm".

Actually, nobody (including some whacky monks) chooses harm, unless the alternative is worse. Mountaineers think the benefits are worth the risk. Cancer patients think the pain of chemotherapy is worth the risk. Before the days of anesthetic, injured soldiers thought getting their legs cut off while biting on a bullet was worth the risk. Eve thought eating from the tree of knowledge was worth expulsion from Eden. (Your critique of that story emulates those of your beloved Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins; by criticizing the literalist wing of Bible readers, you are, like Eve, grasping low hanging fruit. The story is obviously a metaphorical fable.)

Pain can be psychic as well as physical. The greatest loves are the most painful. They inevitably end in heartbreak -- even if it comes 50 years into the marriage. One partner leaves, or dies (I suppose a fatal car crash could dispel this problem, but it's unlikely). Does this mean we shouldn't love?

Of course suffering and death are terrible. This is true whether they involve childhood cancer or Alzheimer's disease. But they are part of the human journey. We can rail against our fate, or face it courageously.

If suffering disappeared tomorrow, we would not mourn the loss of cruelty to give courage meaning. — Truth Seeker

WE might. Read "The Worm Ouroboros". Mountaineers might think their sport tame and puerile. And what would those self-flagellating monks do for entertainment?

“When beliefs make contact with reality, consequences, or harm, they must answer to evidence.” — Truth Seeker

Not all "evidence" is scientific. History informs us. And, yes, religion informs us (although not literally). So do fables, fairy tales, poetry and novels. They teach us morality: What is heroic? What is cowardly? Whom do we want to emulate? Whose behavior do we wish to avoid?

The five major branches of philosophy are: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, logic, and aesthetics. The "scientific worldview" can address only epistemology -- and is not very good at addressing that. Surely we can "know" (or at least reasonably believe) things about history, for example. We can trust our own experiences, even if they are not vetted by peer review. The religious worldview (with which the "scientific" is being falsely compared) at least addresses all of the branches. It is misguided, and based shaky premises, but it makes a noble attempt (unlike the scientific worldview).

Your list of evils that are not required for courage, adventure and romance conflates childhood cancer (huh? What about adult cancer?), slavery, torture, and factory farming. Our Western, culturally constituted moral codes agree that the first three are bad (evil in the case of slavery and torture), but "factory farming" is your idiosyncratic, subcultural belief. Science cannot support this belief -- only a moral principle that is metaphysical can. If a belief that factory farming is evil is part of your worldview, it is not "scientific".

We reserve love for those closest to us, but hate can drive an entire segment of society to wish ill upon those who they don't even know. — Questioner

Christians are commanded to "Love you enemies, do good to those who hate you." (Luke: 6:27) This kind of love (agape) is more than a mere emotion; it is also an act of will.

No serious defender of a scientific worldview denies the existence of:

ideas,
ideals,
fiction,
mathematics.

What is denied is something very specific: that these entities have causal or moral authority independent of sentient experience and empirical constraint.

Ideas exist as patterns instantiated in minds.
Fiction exists as structured imagination.
Mathematics exists as an abstract formal system.

None of this contradicts a scientific worldview. It depends on it. — Truth Seeker

It may not contradict a "scientific worldview", but it expands upon it. Science cannot create moral authority. WE must look to something else. In fact, what we do look to is moral tradition and culturally constituted rules. As we should (otherwise, like you, we think our original thoughts superior to and independent of our culture).

Mathematics is formal, not empirical.
Science is empirical, not formal.

They are complementary, not contradictory. — Truth Seeker

My point (which you appear to have missed) is that the "scientific worldview" is not "scientific", because it depends on non-scientific thinking. Everyone agrees that science is valuable. The disagreement is about whether that value constitutes a "worldview". If a proper and rational worldview depends on non-scientific things, and if any "scientific worldview" is incomplete and incoherent, then claiming a "scientific worldview" is superior to other worldviews is a dubious claim.

Joy, freedom, adventure — all are compatible with this framework. — Truth Seeker

No they aren't. You criticize God for creating a world in which people (and other "sentient beings") suffer. But without danger and suffering adventure, courage, etc. would be impossible.

Culture is not “supernatural” in any philosophically useful sense. — Truth Seeker

Unsurprisingly, you misrepresent my use of the word. If man-made things are not described as "natural", and culture is a man made thing, then we cannot describe culture as "natural". Super-natural means "beyond the natural".

Perhaps God prefers those who eat from the tree. — Truth Seeker

It is not I who am making the claim, but Milton, a practicing Christian who wrote the greatest epic poem in the English language. But, of course, you think you know better.

No worldview is morally serious if it refuses to let facts about suffering, harm, and flourishing constrain its values.

Myth can inspire.
Culture can shape.
Art can console.

But none of them get to excuse avoidable suffering. — Truth Seeker

Now you are returning to your negative morality. Through trouble we find strength. Through suffering we learn fortitude. Through danger we find adventure. Negative morality constrains romance, because romance can exist only with danger and uncertainty. Perhaps you would prefer the eternal life, lack of suffering, and ignorance of Eden. Eve (and I) prefer the alternative.

Your endless rant naively promotes all of my objections to your OP. Here are some examples:

What kinds of things exist?
How do we know what is true?
What constrains our beliefs?

A scientific worldview holds that:

Claims about reality must be answerable to evidence.
Explanations should be non-arbitrary, publicly testable, and revisable.
Appeals to authority, tradition, or revelation do not override evidence. — Truth Seeker

Of course if "reality" comprises the physical world, physics is probably the best way to understand it. But reality extends beyond the physical world. Are ideas (and ideals) "unreal"? Does such a thing as fiction "exist"? Are mathematical "truths" (upon which science depends, but which are metaphysical, beyond the realm of science) trivial, or untrue?

The scientific worldview, as you describe it, is both limiting and contradictory. Science depends on math, but math is not "scientific". Hence the contradiction.

But once you care about suffering and flourishing, science tells you:

which actions increase harm,
which reduce it,
which beliefs reliably misfire,
which social systems systematically damage lives. — Truth Seeker

Your obsession with "suffering" as the only key to moral behavior displays a negative point of view. What about promoting joy, or elation? Perhaps a little suffering is the price. Mountaineering (an example I've used before) "increases harm". Top climbers routinely suffer and die. Yet others continue to climb. Are they insane? Or do they see the joy inherent in adventure as being worth the risk and the suffering? All "social systems... damage lives". None of us is getting out alive. So, perhaps, asking what social systems promote joy or freedom might be a more positive approach.

Culture is not “supernatural” — and calling it that smuggles theology back in. — Truth Seeker

Well, that's how the word "natural" is normally used. The "natural" world is distinct from cities built by humans. "Super" means "beyond". I grant that I'm using "supernatural" in a distinct way, based on my notion that God is a metaphor for culture. But my use of the word need not incite anti-theological rants.

But again, the Eden myth frames knowledge as forbidden. — Truth Seeker

I'm the one who has just read "Paradise Lost". I explained the meaning of the story in some detail, but you insist on the literalist interpretation. If those who live in the present are immortal, and those who eat from the tree of knowledge will "surely die", isn't it heroic to eat from the tree? Mightn't a God prefer those who eat from the tree and condemn themselves to the mamby-pamby souls who want to continue living in Eden, eschewing knowledge, adventure and death?

But moral insight has progressed: — Truth Seeker

Maybe it has, maybe it hasn't. Of course we moderns think our morality superior to others. If we didn't, we would change our moral views. We can assume our descendants will be as horrified by our beliefs as we are by those of our ancestors. We can also assume that the regime in Iran thinks they are morally justified in squashing the protests. However, science cannot help us here. Our "moral insights" are culturally constituted -- and religiously influenced. As are those of the Mullahs.

Compassion comes from empathy. As a vegan, I insist that moral concern extend to all sentient beings. — Truth Seeker

Great! I'm glad you look down your nose at unscientific, indigenous people. Here in Oregon, before Lewis and Clark, the natives lived a good life, hunting and harvesting the native salmon. They could not have survived without that bounty. Veganism (is that a word?) is a luxury. I suppose you also think your "scientific worldview" superior to that of these benighted savages, just as you think your morals are superior. But the "scientific worldview" is limited and contradictory (math is necessary, but unscientific). Your insistence that limiting suffering is the essence of morality is negative and limiting. It is also old-fashioned. Christianity took the Ten Commandments (which are negative) and made them into "Love your neighbor as yourself" (which is positive). Adam and Eve left Eden, and:

Some natural tears they dropt, but wiped them soon;
The world was all before them, where to choose
Their place of rest, and Providence their guide:

They were free. The world was all before them. Perhaps an all-knowing God thought that paradise had been gained, not lost.

Consciousness arises from neurological activities, not supernatural souls.

Therefore, while religious faiths differ irreconcilably in beliefs, scientific cosmology and biology converge on a single evidence-based worldview - one that continues to expand through discovery rather than divine decree. Hence, my worldview is scientific, secular and vegan. What is your worldview? How do you justify your worldview? — Truth Seeker

This is from your OP. Science is a technique, not a philosophy. It does not constitute a "worldview". Nor can science inform us about those matters which are most important to us: whom should I befriend? Whom should I love? What constitutes love? Should I seek beauty in the world? What constitutes beauty? What are good and evil? Should I (were I given the choice) eschew eternal life in Eden to partake of the fruit of knowledge?

Plenty of scientists -- interested as they are in knowledge -- would probably choose to eat the apple, as did Eve. Also, many scientists are religious, and many religious people "believe in" science. The entire thread is based on a false dichotomy.

The problem arises when myth is allowed to dictate ontology or moral authority, rather than being interpreted in light of what we know about sentient beings and suffering. — Truth Seeker

Huh? Can science "dictate moral authority"? Philosophy has the same problem. According to G.K. Chesterton, "One can only find truth with logic if you have already found truth without it." This is obvious. Logic merely restates the postulates, and if you have discovered them you have "already found truth".

That leaves us myth and fiction and history. We learn about morals by learning about heroes. WE admire fictional characters, or mythic figures, and try to emulate them. Our admiration is not "biological": -- it is learned, and cultural. God can be seen as a metaphor for culture. Culture, after all, is supernatural. That is, "beyond nature". No one person invented it, it evolved, sort of like species evolve. So perhaps consciousness DOES "arise from supernatural (something)". To avoid seeing the world (at least on occasion) through the lens of religion is to lack understanding about yourself, because you (and all of us) are products not only of our biology, but of our cultures. We can learn about people (a subject in which most of us are interested) by studying biology -- but we can learn even more about them by studying culture: history, mythology, poetry, fiction, and (yes) religion. WE may not be "believers", but we have been shaped by our cultural histories, and religion (Christianity for most of us Westerners) has helped "create" us. IN a sense, the Creationists are right: "man" (as we define him) was created by both biological evolution, and by "God" (God being a metaphor for culture).

Wittgenstein (I think it was Wittgenstein) said, "He who lives in the present, lives forever." Our culture (language) enables us to conceptualize the past and the future. When we eat from the tree of knowledge, we "will surely die." That is, we become aware of our mortality. That is the human tragedy. We don't know if other animals share this knowledge, or if, living in the present, they are immortal (in Wittgenstein's' sense).

But perhaps truth is tragic. Does that mean we should avoid it, or ignore it? Perhaps truth causes suffering (as it did for Adam and Eve). Maybe, just maybe, the quest for truth, like other heroic quests, will involve suffering. Does that mean it should be abandoned? Or does it mean it should be limited to those truths about the physical world with which science is able to deal?

Valorizing a "scientific worldview" emphasizes the physical over the emotional, the prosaic over the fanciful. and the logical over the analogical. Are we really sure we want to do that? "In my Father's house there are many rooms."

p.s. Your sneers at "ancient authority" reveal one problem with the so-called "scientific worldview". It assumes that the modern is "better" than the ancient. Indeed, in the case of science, this is largely correct. But is it true for moral authority? Have art and literature "progressed"; or are Homer, Dante and Shakespeare still unequalled?

God didn't keep his words to Adam and Eve — Truth Seeker

See my post above.

If Satan is an essential part of human life, is God complicit with him. Is it possible that God was complicit in the initial rebellion? — Ludwig V

If God is omniscient, he surely knew what was going to happen at the creation. By the way, I posted about some of those ideas in the thread comparing scientific and religious worldviews in The Lounge. You might check it out.

Personally, I don't think God's foreknowledge contradicts free will, but others disagree.