Tracie Harris Blog post - some thoughts

[hundreth]

This isn't meant to be a rebuttal or anything like that, just some thoughts on what was written and how we can express some of these ideas with less confusion and pain.

https://actualized.org/insights/the-genius-of-tracie-harris

Quote

There is zero scientific evidence that child rape is wrong. If you were serious about science, you would admit this.

Unclear what is meant by "scientific evidence" here. Science says nothing about morality - but science can tell you about the suffering inflicted on the child, their psychology, and their outcomes as adults.

Quote

The reason God doesn't stop child rape is because God is too conscious to judge it as wrong. For God to judge child rape, God would  have to lower itself to an atheist's level of intelligence. Which is not much higher than that of a baboon.

What's not being understood by humans is that human whining is so petty in the grand scheme of things that it cannot influence God's designs. You want God to care about whatever you're whining about. But God has bigger fish to fry and you are too narrow-minded to appreciate that. Hence you call God evil or say it cannot exist.

Why the duality between us and God here? A form of the absolute does care about this issue. The distinction is confusing.

Quote

Which is why the least developed people are moralists. It's ironic that atheists, rationalists, and scientists take moralistic stances, since it is a perversion of rationality, objectivity, and science. The whole point of science is to be objective. If you're gonna be objective then you have to admit that child rape is not objectively wrong, it's subjectively wrong.

Atheism, and valuing science is just one aspect of a person's life. Some atheists believe morality is objectively based on some set criteria like "well being" or "reducing suffering". Other atheists believe morality is relative, and that we can come to the same subjective ideas about morality without a divine authority.

Quote

Here's what typical human moralistic whining is like: You're whining that the ice cream store has too much chocolate ice cream and not enough vanilla, and you blame God for this. But from God's POV, the flavors are perfectly allocated. See, you made the mistake of thinking that God is supposed to allocate those flavors FOR YOU. But God didn't allocate them for you, God allocated them for itself. And God loves all the flavors equally. So again, the problem only exists in YOUR MIND. But you are too narcissistic to see that. So you gaslight God. Quite the douche that makes you.

What is the problem here? We are humans having a human experience. We effect change in our relative human domain by having opinions and fighting for whatever cause we find ourselves in. It is reminiscent of Krishna reminding Arjuna of his duties as a warrior in the Bhagavad Gita:

Quote

Considering also your duty as a warrior you should not waver like this. Because there is nothing more auspicious for a warrior than a righteous war.

Only the fortunate warriors, O Arjuna, get such an opportunity for an unsought war that is like an open door to heaven.

If you will not fight this righteous war, then you will fail in your duty, lose your reputation, and incur sin. People will talk about your disgrace forever. To the honored, dishonor is worse than death.

The great warriors will think that you have retreated from the battle out of fear. Those who have greatly esteemed you will lose respect for you.

Your enemies will speak many unmentionable words and scorn your ability. What could be more painful to you than this?

You will go to heaven if killed on the line of duty, or you will enjoy the kingdom on the earth if victorious.

Therefore, get up with a determination to fight, O Arjuna.

 

I guess your overall point is that there's more to the world than our relative human concerns which is of course true. I do agree with morals being subjective. I guess my issue is with reducing all human concerns to pettiness as opposed to being an important and integral part of the absolute which is doing as we should 

 

@Leo Gura feel free to clarify.

Edited January 23, 2023 by hundreth

[Leo Gura]

4 hours ago, hundreth said:

I guess my issue is with reducing all human concerns to pettiness

That was exactly the point I wanted you to see.

Treating human concerns as important is the default bias of the ego. So I offered you an alternative. Your ego didn't like it and went right back to business as usual.

Edited January 24, 2023 by Leo Gura