Social Conflict Among Believers In God

Opinion regarding: Why can’t Christians get along, 500 years after the Reformation? (THE ATLANTIC) https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/luther-reformation-500-ecumenical-dialogue/543876

Reports of social conflict among believers in God seem considered by some to discredit believers' claim that belief in God eliminates social conflict.

To me, the criticism might be reasonable, but might warrant being levied at possible error in implementing the life approach rather than at the life approach itself.

To explain, the Bible's wealth of various anecdotes and guidelines seem to reflect many (if not most, or even all) social issues and circumstances, and address

both desirable and undesirable behaviors. An important issue apparently present in the attempt to use these writings to ascertain individual optimal path forward seems to be determination of which depictions and guidelines are to be adopted.

Some seem to reject the Bible as a guide to optimal human experience due to its apparent suggestions that God calls for human-to-human harm, such as slavery and misogyny. To me, this rejection might also seem reasonable except that it, too, seems likely misplaced, based upon my analysis of the Bible.

To me, the Bible seems more likely best considered a collection of perspectives regarding the proposed God/human relationship rather than a how-to-behave handbook. Further, per my assessment, some of these perspectives' value might not be delineation of optimal path forward, but rather, documentation of the path's having been travelled and the perceived result. When viewed thusly, per my experience, every life issue seems clearly and very simply resolved in a fashion that cooperative analysis (with apparent advocates of other lifeviews) seems to reveal as more thorough and consistent with my awareness of science's findings than any other lifeview.

This Biblical view seems to resolve the issue of social conflict among believers in God by highlighting the apparent extents to which human belief in God seems accompanied by acceptance of God as priority relationship and priority decision-maker, perhaps a fundamental, yet underemphasized (and perhaps therefore, under-implemented) Bible principle.

To me, this assessment seems reasonably reached because logic seems to suggest that acceptance of this principle would result in acceptance of the sovereinty of other individuals' God/human relationship. This acceptance seems to logically preclude social conflict since social conflict seems comprised of disagreement with another individual's path forward, and sovereign God/human relationship seems to render, by definitions, (a) the individual's path forward to be the exclusive purview of God and the individual, (b) the impact of another's path forward on one's quality of life to be the exclusive responsibility and purview of God, and (c) one's optimal response to perceived impact of another's path forward upon one's quality of life to be known solely by God and, due to human capability limitations, to be optimally ultumately entrusted to God to manifest.

This social construct seems to loically preclude social conflict and guarantee optimal outcomes. In practice, departure from that social structure seems to stem from human perception of humanly-envisioned benefit that may at times seem less forthcoming via human estimation of God's current path than via human action, and in which humanly-perceived comparative cost-benefit ratio seems to favor human action over waiting for less-humanly-perceived benefit suggested to be forthcoming via God's management.

Per personal experience, the stress resulting from forfeiture of humanly-perceived resolution in favor of non-humanly-perceived management by God might seem daunting. In other circumstance, God's management might seem (even humanly) the obvious and easier path forward.

The proposed value of this interpretation of the Bible's writings seems to be that it seems to demonstrate that the cause of social issues in general, and among believers in God, is not that God-managed human experience is ineffective, but that God-managed human experience seems to have been abandoned in order to avoid misperceived stress from a misperceived loss of net benefit.

Workplace Sexual Harassment And Other Social Injustice

10:04:15 AM <@ SIDPMod> Morning, all. ☺ I read a perspective that seems to propose reasons for the (apparently suggested) ineffectiveness of workplace sexual harassment claims.

The (apparently-proposed) reasons seem common to every intentional instance of social injustice: consideration of administrator quality of life as more valuable than that of those being administrated.

10:14:07 AM <@ SIDPMod> To me, the Bible seems to offer highest-value insight regarding this issue.

10:29:52 AM <@ SIDPMod> The Bible seems to emphasize via principle and example the subjectivity to perceptual error, including perception of comparative ethics-relevant value, that seems science-acknowledged as being intrinsic to humans, and the extent to which such non-omniscience seems to render humans unqualified for personal much less aggregate decision-making without omniscient God's guidance.

10:33:51 AM <@ SIDPMod> The Bible seems to suggest that the optimal decision-making structure seeks God's guidance regarding personal decisions and leaves God to manage the decisions of others, including the extent to which others' decisions seem to impact personal quality of life.

11:04:11 AM <@ SIDPMod> The Bible seems to also suggest that human dissatisfaction with the human (and apparently, quite likely short-sighted) perception of God's circumstance management seems incorrectly accepted by some as sufficient basis upon which to replace God with some other point of reference as priority decision-maker.

11:10:16 AM <@ SIDPMod> 1 Samuel 8 seems to offer a crystal-clear example of God directly addressing the potential for such perception and subsequent decision-making and explaining what the result would (apparently inevitably) be.

11:14:00 AM <@ SIDPMod> After thousands-to-millions of years of human existence and innovation, reports of intentional social injustice throughout human history seem to suggest that the apparently-suggested warning from God seems not to have been proven wrong.

Potential Danger Of The Attempt To Replace God With AI

6:33:24 PM <@ SIDPMod> To me, the premise: "How to root out hidden biases in AI" seems illogical since it seems to rely upon using a flawed guage to gauge the gauge's flaws.

6:34:56 PM <@ SIDPMod> For example, the excerpt "I believe the great use for machine learning and AI will be in conjunction with really knowledgeable people who know history and sociology and psychology to figure out who should be treated similarly to whom" seems to overlook the limitations of human perception. If any humans could "figure out who should be treated similarly to whom", social conflict seems unlikely to exist.

6:47:26 PM <@ SIDPMod> Technology seems to have been developed to help humans determine the factors relevant to decision-making. If, with the factors currently humanly and technologically perceived, we still haven't rooted out the biases in human intelligence that seem suggested as the tool for rooting out biases in artificial intelligence that exist via human intelligence.

6:56:22 PM <@ SIDPMod> Goals that are suggested to have been technologically achieved, such as locomotion and computation might be presented on AI's behalf to propose AI's ability to be eventually fool-proofed.

7:11:03 PM <@ SIDPMod> Without suggesting that goal to be irrefutably unreachable, achievement seems illogical due to apparently limited human understanding of what optimal future circumstance consists of, and perhaps as a result, what decision-relevant factors are, and apparently much less so, the relevant state of those factors.

7:12:34 PM <@ SIDPMod> Re: "How do you know when you have the right model, and when it’s capturing what really happened in society?" to me, therefore, an even more important question might be "How do you know when your model is capturing what really should happen in society?"

Returning To God's Economic Design

It seems that humans might have become dissatisfied with and abandoned God's economic design only to have their own ideas lead them right back to the very design they abandoned. Leaders seem to suggest that the labor-based economic strategy is being voided by the technological labor force strategy and may require replacement by a less humanly administrated economic strategy, which seems closer to God's apparent design of economics administrated by God at the level of the individual.

My interpretation of Genesis chapters 1 and 2 and other information that I've encountered seems reasonably interpreted as suggesting that (a) God's economic system design for the human experience seems to be individual, discretionary access to resources, and that (b) economic systems other than that are human innovation intended to replace rejected guidance from God with regard to real-time, individual decision-making.

Apparently, similarly to humanly-developed systems in general, humanly-developed economic systems seem subject to dysfunction due to the apparent impact of human fallibility upon system design and operation. The above article seems to acknowledge the extent to which technological advancement seems to reveal the limitations of marketplace economics as an approach to resource distribution. The emergent conclusion seems to suggest returning some portion of resource allocation to comparative general access. That suggested return, however, seems to seek continued administrated rather than individual allocation as a behavior-shaping tool. My thought seems to be the extent to which human behavior-shaping attempt seems most logically inferior to God-administrated behavior-shaping due to the non-omniscience and omniscience of the administrators, respectively. For example, the video speaker seems to suggest behavior-shaping by allocating resources based upon education-completion choices.

Prima facie, this might seem a positive behavior-shaping strategy, but it seems to overlook the extent to which valued societal contributions seem reported to have been made by following a path forward other than traditional education. Limited human perception seems most logically suggested to be incapable of distinguishing that path from the perhaps stereo-typically depicted ne'er-do-well, perhaps especially in light of the apparently reported perceived ne'er-do-well that subsequently made a valued contribution... the "late-bloomer".

I respect the apparently-God given choice to hang one's hat on human rather than God's administration, but mentioning the perceived and apparently unsurmountable flaws of that life-approach seems appropriate.

Deriving Human Values From Science

The perspective that human values can be derived from scientific observation seems based upon misleading and unsubstantiated terminology and assumption.

For example, one such case presented for the perspective seems to describe values as a type of fact related to the well-being of conscious creatures. To me, this seems consistent with the Bible's apparent suggestion that human values are indisputable assertions related to the well-being of conscious creatures that are given to humans by omniscient God.

However, the presented reasoning then seems to offer a human values example, then describe it as a factual claim: something that we could be right or wrong about. Google seems to first-define "fact" as "a thing that is indisputably correct" and Merriam-Webster seems to suggest "a piece of information presented as having objective reality", seeming to me to prevent misrepresentation (about the fostering of well-being of conscious creatures) from being appropriately categorized as a valid human value.

To me, the presenter seems to later clarify this seeming terminology misassociation of fact and opinion by asserting the (apparently by definition) indisputable propriety or impropriety of behavior. An appropriate summary seems to be that human values seem, by definition, perhaps most reasonably suggested to refer to behavioral outcome goals and guidelines such as justice that seem to apply indisputably and identically to well-being species-wide; personal values such as favorite foods seem to refer to facts pertaining to well-being that is potentially as unique as the individual to whom the dynamic applies; and misrepresentation of well-being dynamics might best be referred to simply as misrepresentation.

The next issue might seem somewhat of an aesthetically sticky sidebar. The presenter seems to suggest that corporal punishment is explicitly religious, apparently citing the Bible for reference. I respectfully propose that this suggestion seems unreasonably misleading, seeming likely, if not intended, to build negative sentiment toward belief in God and toward the Bible regarding corporal punishment. To me, the reference seems otherwise valueless, seeming to ignore the apparently perspective-balancing apparent likelihood of corporal punishment in societies pre-dating or otherwise not impacted by the Bible, the apparent findings of psychological science that seem to suggest an importance in child development of appropriate yielding of personal will to externality (which seems reasonably suggested to be achievable in some or all cases without corporal punishment), and the possibly genuine testimony of those who suggest being grateful for the capacity to yield personal will that they associate with having experienced corporal punishment during their child development (Note: This perspective does not support unnecesary punishment in any context).

The presenter addresses the issue of the objectivity of morality in light of the apparent lack of and differences in morality-related understanding. The issue seems simple: limited and fallible human perception seems reasonably suggested to be the cause of lack and variance in morality understanding. Level of understanding regarding the mechanics of optimal well-being seems reasonably expected to impact understanding of how to personally contribute to optimal well-being. Assuming that well-being dynamics are objective reality (as apparently established above) morality (the path that fosters well-being) seems most logically suggested to also be objective reality, whether applicable species-wide, applicable uniquely among individuals, or not perceived at a particular point in time.

The presenter next seems to address the logical basis upon which limited- perception attempt to enforce their understanding of what constitutes optimal well-being. The answer seems to me to lie within the apparently underlying issue of whether God exists as the infinitely-existent, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent established and sovereign authority of and intended real-time decision-making guide regarding reality. If so, an individual seems most logically described as doing self and society a disservice by shifting personal guidance from God to another point of reference. If not, then there seems most logically to exist no objective morality, for there seems to exist no logical basis upon which any human among apparently-suggested equal humans can substantiate determining for another the definition of the apparently baseline concept "flourish" in a purposeless existence, and if any equal humans disagree, the definition seems incapable of being considered universal and therefore objective. The apparent logical preclusion of objective knowledge without an omniscient, sovereign authority seems reasonably suggested to be the reason that apparently fundamental social issues seem suggested to have persisted throughout the thousands to millions of years of apparently suggested human existence in an existential purpose context as apparently simple as fueling one's body with apparently logical resources and doing whatever else (appropriate) comes to mind with other apparently plentiful resources.

To me, perhaps in pursuit of circumvention of the apparently escapable logical link between universal acceptance of God as sovereign authority and optimal human experience, the presenter then seems to propose and question a number of principles over which so many lives seem suggested to have been lost, have suffered and still suffer both as a result of the implemented, proposed principles and the absence of the questioned principles, and as a result of the attempt to protect us from reemergence of the proposed principles and from the absence of the questioned principles:

(a) Moral expertise/talent/genius: this seems to essentially seems to equate to "I tell you what to do". Historical and current events seem suggested to report too much harm proliferated by both secular and religious humanly-established behavioral authority to embrace human moral leadership.

(b) Valuing every human perspective: seemingly too many examples of reported harm via suggested inappropriate disenfranchisement to embrace human management of others' right to form and hold perspective.

The presentation next seems to address a vision for balancing moral objectivity with appropriate lifestyle diversity. To me, the quality of the human experience's future seems logically tied to acceptance of God as priority relationship and decision-making guide. Without such acceptance, a human managed future seems logically likely to suffer from the same unresolved fundamental social issues because human limited and perspectives perception seems insufficient to identify the optimal related balance point, much less the path to achieving it.

Gaining insight into mind behavior and into that which seems to foster specific desired behavior doesn't seem to eliminate the individual choice to choose whether or not to adopt that behavior. Embracing involuntary/technologically administered compliance as the path toward shaping the human experience seems to forfeit any logical basis for criticizing God for requiring a specific range of behavior.

The presentation seems to address the value of moral standard in light of the big picture. Apparently, limited, fallible human perception seems possibly the insurmountable obstruction that prevents humans from perceiving the big picture and perceiving and achieving optimal human experience without accepting God as priority relationship and decision-making guide.

AI As Critical Issues Decision-Maker

Perception of and concern for apparently potential hazards of artificial intelligence critical issues decision-making seem to inspire the goal of ensuring development of AI decision-making that we can live with. However, this goal might be logically unachievable, because limited, fallible human perception seems to preclude identification of what we *should* live with.

Apparently, as a result, conflicting human perspective thereregarding as well as human conflict fight/flight response seem likely passed on to AI.

The God Discussion Today

Some seem to suggest that humanity doesn’t need God as real-time decision maker and top-level authority. However, tech leaders seem to increasingly acknowledge the need for greater-than-human decision-making and authority and try to fulfill the need with technology, AI possibly perceived as its central development. However, AI seems to me to yield the same issue some seem concerned about regarding the apparently-proposed God/human relationship: not being in charge, or in agreement with God.

To explain, some AI developers seem to acknowledge not knowing what their AI is “thinking” beyond some point. Although a perceived failsafe response to undesirable AI outcomes might attempt to destroy undesired AI implementations, advances in tech hardening, along with increased tech capability, responsibility and authority, and the apparent inability to reliably predict AI thinking, seem to potentially realize sci-fi-level loss of human control over tech.

If so, the Bible's apparent depiction of the human experience seems substantiated: humans reject God as highest-level decision-maker in order to pursue misperceived benefit outside of that which God knows to be optimal, that God allowed humans to try their way so that they could see for themselves that God is logically and irrevocably the sovereign, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent authority of all reality, and as such, is optimally accepted voluntarily by each individual as the individual's priority relationship and decision-maker.