Can the Secularists be Trusted?

[Immanuel Can]

"Finally, if you're all in knots over the "environmental crisis," was it God or man that created that?"

Please show me in the bible where it says, "thou shalt not build factories or drive wheeled gasoline powered contraptions"

Please show me where it allows them.

[Gary Childress]

Well, seeing you're an agnostic, there's no logical reason you should "admire" anybody, and no reason you should criticize any "track record" either. By your own admission, you don't know of any objective criteria by which anything should be "admired" or "criticized." Like the Atheists, you're simply in no position to complain or object, and no position to applaud or admire, either.

That's the old "praise and blame" problem that is so familiar to ethicists. Absent any objective moral realities, there are no grounds that can identify anything as worthy of either approval or of criticism. You're just in a moral vacuum, then, like you're floating in empty space, with no sense of "up" or "down."

That being so, you should stop complaining, right? Except that, just like the Atheists, nobody lives as an agnostic either. We all try to praise and blame all kinds of things -- even those who claim there are no moral truths.

Finally, if you're all in knots over the "environmental crisis," was it God or man that created that?

I have every right to complain or whatever I want to do in this world. Don't tell me what I can and can't do.

Sorry, Gary: there are no such things as human rights in an Atheist world, and no knowledge of anything that could ground any in an agnostic one. So no, you actually have neither the right nor the criteria to do so...assuming you're an agnostic, as you say.

And I proclaim you supreme asshole. What a jerk!

[Immanuel Can]

I have every right to complain or whatever I want to do in this world. Don't tell me what I can and can't do.

Sorry, Gary: there are no such things as human rights in an Atheist world, and no knowledge of anything that could ground any in an agnostic one. So no, you actually have neither the right nor the criteria to do so...assuming you're an agnostic, as you say.

And I proclaim you supreme asshole. What a jerk!

Hey, I didn't do it. You did. You claim to be an agnostic. So you give up your human rights, and you give up your criteria of judgment, right?

Except you don't. And why don't you? Because you know, in your heart of hearts, that there is a God. So you have the right to complain, and there are objective criteria for you to do so.

Sorry about what happened to your agnosticism, though.

[Gary Childress]

Sorry, Gary: there are no such things as human rights in an Atheist world, and no knowledge of anything that could ground any in an agnostic one. So no, you actually have neither the right nor the criteria to do so...assuming you're an agnostic, as you say.

And I proclaim you supreme asshole. What a jerk!

Hey, I didn't do it. You did. You claim to be an agnostic. So you give up your human rights, and you give up your criteria of judgment, right?

Except you don't. And why don't you? Because you know, in your heart of hearts, that there is a God. So you have the right to complain, and there are objective criteria for you to do so.

Sorry about what happened to your agnosticism, though.

Every human being has his or her own life to endure and every human being has a right to complain about the suffering in this world. You make pronouncements denying others' rights unsupported or backed by sound logic. It's your choice to deny the legitimacy of human beings who complain about suffering, and nothing more.

[promethean75]

"Please show me where it allows them."

But first, list all the other things we humans do that we are not given explicit instruction to do in the bible, but do nonetheless, that you have no problem with.

Then name some things the bible doesn't say we can't do (like engage in pedophilia), but which we don't do anyway.

See where this is going? It would be ridiculous to try and evaluate a deed based on whether or not there is explicit instruction to do it in the bible.

You'd end up saying, "The bible doesn't say you can't" whenever someone does what you approve of and "the bible doesn't say you can" whenever someone does something you don't approve of.

How silly.

[Immanuel Can]

And I proclaim you supreme asshole. What a jerk!

Hey, I didn't do it. You did. You claim to be an agnostic. So you give up your human rights, and you give up your criteria of judgment, right?

Except you don't. And why don't you? Because you know, in your heart of hearts, that there is a God. So you have the right to complain, and there are objective criteria for you to do so.

Sorry about what happened to your agnosticism, though.

Every human being has his or her own life to endure and every human being has a right to complain about the suffering in this world.

Only because agnosticism is actually very foolish, and is wrong as well. Only if there's a God do you get any "human rights." Otherwise, there are none. And you claim not to know which is true...

...unsupported or backed by sound logic...

Au contraire: the logic is inescapable. If you don't know whether or not there's a God, you also don't know whether there are any criteria of complaint, or any reason why you have "rights" at all.

I didn't do it: you did.

[Immanuel Can]

"Please show me where it allows them."

But first, list all the other things we humans do that we are not given explicit instruction to do in the bible, but do nonetheless, that you have no problem with.

Hey, it was your challenge, not mine. But I can actually do it; you cannot.

[Alexiev]

Well, seeing you're an agnostic, there's no logical reason you should "admire" anybody, and no reason you should criticize any "track record" either. By your own admission, you don't know of any objective criteria by which anything should be "admired" or "criticized." Like the Atheists, you're simply in no position to complain or object, and no position to applaud or admire, either.

This is one of the stupidest statements I have ever read. An agnostic cannot "criticize" someone who says 1+1=3? Why would an agnostic be any less able to criticize someone's arithmetical error than a religious person?

For that matter, why must critiques be based on objective criteria? What's wrong with subjective criticism? Most literary critics, film critics, social critics (etc.) don't use objective religious criteria as the basis for their critiques. Yet, somehow, these critiques are often entertaining, enlightening and cogent.

A rational God cannot possibly approve of IC's nonsensical claims in His behalf. If He hadn't Risen, he would be turning over in His grave.

[Gary Childress]

Hey, I didn't do it. You did. You claim to be an agnostic. So you give up your human rights, and you give up your criteria of judgment, right?

Except you don't. And why don't you? Because you know, in your heart of hearts, that there is a God. So you have the right to complain, and there are objective criteria for you to do so.

Sorry about what happened to your agnosticism, though.

Every human being has his or her own life to endure and every human being has a right to complain about the suffering in this world.

Only because agnosticism is actually very foolish, and is wrong as well. Only if there's a God do you get any "human rights." Otherwise, there are none. And you claim not to know which is true...

...unsupported or backed by sound logic...

Au contraire: the logic is inescapable. If you don't know whether or not there's a God, you also don't know whether there are any criteria of complaint, or any reason why you have "rights" at all.

I didn't do it: you did.

You have forwarded no sound logical argument to deny that other human beings can have the rights that we humans give each other. As moral agents we grant others rights in this world to say or do what we all have a right to say or do. It's your decision as an individual whether or not there are rights to others around you. Whether there is a God or not, how you wish to view the world that you and the rest of us live in is your decision. You have decided that others do not have rights unless they believe in a god. You saying so is you saying so and nothing more. God isn't putting those words in your mouth (unless it's written somewhere in your Bible that humans can't have rights).

In any case, we know where you stand, IC. And it's not with all your fellow human beings in this world. Fair enough.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, seeing you're an agnostic, there's no logical reason you should "admire" anybody, and no reason you should criticize any "track record" either. By your own admission, you don't know of any objective criteria by which anything should be "admired" or "criticized." Like the Atheists, you're simply in no position to complain or object, and no position to applaud or admire, either.

This is one of the stupidest statements I have ever read.

Only because you're not really thinking. If you did, you'd realize it's inevitable.

An agnostic cannot "criticize" someone who says 1+1=3?

Of course they can. They believe in mathematics, as do we all, because mathematics are universal. But the agnostic does not, by definition, believe in God...he claims uncertainty. So he also has to claim uncertainty about the criteria of morality, and uncertainty about whether or not there's any justification for his complaint.

For that matter, why must critiques be based on objective criteria?

Because if they're not, they have no power. You might say, "I criticize you for X." The response is, "But I like X." And there's no further discussion possible: one person's liking is the equal of another's disliking. And in a world without God, neither has any authority.

[Immanuel Can]

Every human being has his or her own life to endure and every human being has a right to complain about the suffering in this world.

Only because agnosticism is actually very foolish, and is wrong as well. Only if there's a God do you get any "human rights." Otherwise, there are none. And you claim not to know which is true...

...unsupported or backed by sound logic...

Au contraire: the logic is inescapable. If you don't know whether or not there's a God, you also don't know whether there are any criteria of complaint, or any reason why you have "rights" at all.

I didn't do it: you did.

You have forwarded no sound logical argument to deny that other human beings can have the rights that we humans give each other.

You haven't thought about what a "right" would require. If one human can "give" another any rights, then another can take those "rights" away, and there's no basis of protest. In fact, those "rights" have no objective reality at all.

You have decided that others do not have rights unless they believe in a god.

No, it's obvious. They can't have.

Let me turn it back to you: which "right" do you have? And where will you get criteria for making the judgment that "right" requires?

God isn't putting those words in your mouth (unless it's written somewhere in your Bible that humans can't have rights).

Actually, it is. Human beings have all the rights God has given them. You can read John Locke on that, so I won't explain it all again.

[Gary Childress]

Only because agnosticism is actually very foolish, and is wrong as well. Only if there's a God do you get any "human rights." Otherwise, there are none. And you claim not to know which is true...
Au contraire: the logic is inescapable. If you don't know whether or not there's a God, you also don't know whether there are any criteria of complaint, or any reason why you have "rights" at all.

I didn't do it: you did.

You have forwarded no sound logical argument to deny that other human beings can have the rights that we humans give each other.

You haven't thought about what a "right" would require. If one human can "give" another any rights, then another can take those "rights" away, and there's no basis of protest. In fact, those "rights" have no objective reality at all.

You have decided that others do not have rights unless they believe in a god.

No, it's obvious. They can't have.

Let me turn it back to you: which "right" do you have? And where will you get criteria for making the judgment that "right" requires?

God isn't putting those words in your mouth (unless it's written somewhere in your Bible that humans can't have rights).

Actually, it is. Human beings have all the rights God has given them. You can read John Locke on that, so I won't explain it all again.

And if there is no God, then human beings cannot have rights. Is that correct?

[Alexiev]

Well, seeing you're an agnostic, there's no logical reason you should "admire" anybody, and no reason you should criticize any "track record" either. By your own admission, you don't know of any objective criteria by which anything should be "admired" or "criticized." Like the Atheists, you're simply in no position to complain or object, and no position to applaud or admire, either.

This is one of the stupidest statements I have ever read.

Only because you're not really thinking. If you did, you'd realize it's inevitable.

An agnostic cannot "criticize" someone who says 1+1=3?

Of course they can. They believe in mathematics, as do we all, because mathematics are universal. But the agnostic does not, by definition, believe in God...he claims uncertainty. So he also has to claim uncertainty about the criteria of morality, and uncertainty about whether or not there's any justification for his complaint.

For that matter, why must critiques be based on objective criteria?

Because if they're not, they have no power. You might say, "I criticize you for X." The response is, "But I like X." And there's no further discussion possible: one person's liking is the equal of another's disliking. And in a world without God, neither has any authority.

First of all, you did not qualify your statement by saying it applies only to morality. Second, the notion that "objective criteria" are the only criteria with any value is nonsense. Literary critics, movie critics, and political critics are capable of writing good criticism using subjective criteria. They (perhaps) note which criteria appeal to them, out of fairness, but it need not be objective. Same with critics of ethics and morals.

In any case, why are God's criteria any more objective than anyone else's? He favors one group of people over another. Must we all do the same?

The notion that because God is all-powerful and can confer great gifts on the faithful we should obey his moral codes seems a little cowardly to me. In the Old Norse religion the God's were not all-powerful. They were doomed to lose out to the giants on Ragnorok. But the Norse followed them anyway. That seems a manly religion. Side with and protect the weak, not the strong!

[accelafine]

It's not a jab at anyone. If you ask a bunch of physicists who the greatest ever of their number was, many of them will say Isaac Newton. Here's something I wrote for Philosophy Now:
...
Long story short: the explanation, hypothesis, story, call it what you will, that you attach to scientific theory can be useful in that it is much easier to manipulate a concept like warped spacetime, than it is to jiggle the numbers. However, it makes no difference to the utility of Einstein's field equation whether gravity is actually caused by warped spacetime.

Will, your point is well-taken, and the historical perspective you offer is both thoughtful and relevant. I’ve always admired Newton’s hypotheses non fingo stance—it’s a reminder that science is fundamentally about utility and predictive power rather than metaphysical explanations.

The thing is... you have been telling us that the story you like (determinism; rendered absolute across all sorts of domains where it cannot possibly be observed, by conservation laws which likewise cannot be observed in all domains). And you have been very mean about anybody not accepting it as the perfect all-encompassing argument you wish it was.

I would say he's been the perfect gentleman (and I'm not convinced about his apparent contradictions).

[Immanuel Can]

You have forwarded no sound logical argument to deny that other human beings can have the rights that we humans give each other.

You haven't thought about what a "right" would require. If one human can "give" another any rights, then another can take those "rights" away, and there's no basis of protest. In fact, those "rights" have no objective reality at all.

You have decided that others do not have rights unless they believe in a god.

No, it's obvious. They can't have.

Let me turn it back to you: which "right" do you have? And where will you get criteria for making the judgment that "right" requires?

God isn't putting those words in your mouth (unless it's written somewhere in your Bible that humans can't have rights).

Actually, it is. Human beings have all the rights God has given them. You can read John Locke on that, so I won't explain it all again.

And if there is no God, then human beings cannot have rights. Is that correct?

No objective rights. They can imagine anything they want...a "right" to free speech, a "right" to a living wage, a "right" to education...but nothing that cannot be taken away by the same means that allegedly gave those "rights."

A subjective right is never going to be worth the tissue-paper it is written on. If you say, "I have a right to life," then the despot simply says, "Now you do not." And that's the end of your "right."