Can the Secularists be Trusted?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Why should I? That's only one of the things that happens when an agnostic declares himself such. He loses a whole lot of other things, too: the uniqueness of his humanity, his human rights, all criteria of judgment, any way of appealing any abuses against him, any reason to believe in fairness...lots of things. But morality is certainly one of them.

Second, the notion that "objective criteria" are the only criteria with any value is nonsense.

This isn't mere aesthetics. This is about much bigger things, such as the moral status of God Himself, human rights, criteria of judgment...

They (perhaps) note which criteria appeal to them, out of fairness, but it need not be objective.

"Out of fairness"? Who establishes what is "fair" for you? You can't just decide it yourself, subjectively, you know: because nobody has to agree with the merely subjective.

In any case, why are God's criteria any more objective than anyone else's?

Because He's never wrong. He's the basis of existence itself, including the existence of objective criteria and morals. By definition, it's not even POSSIBLE for Him to be wrong -- assuming, of course, that He exists, which the agnostic says he doesn't know and the Atheist says he does not believe.

...the Norse followed them anyway. That seems a manly religion. Side with and protect the weak, not the strong!

Hmmm...do you know much about the Norse? They were a little hard on the weak, for sure. They preferred to side with the strong...like Nietzsche did. In fact, Nietzsche even talked about the "Scandanavian" paganisms in that context. But let that be. It's unimportant here.

But let's take that. Let's make our own subjective moral out of it. You believe that it's moral to side with the weak? Let's call that "Thou shalt protect the weak." That's the new first commandment.

Now, tell me: what authority does that commandment we've just invented have?

[Alexiev]

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

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.
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.

Why should I? That's only one of the things that happens when an agnostic declares himself such. He loses a whole lot of other things, too: the uniqueness of his humanity, his human rights, all criteria of judgment, any way of appealing any abuses against him, any reason to believe in fairness...lots of things. But morality is certainly one of them.

Second, the notion that "objective criteria" are the only criteria with any value is nonsense.

This isn't mere aesthetics. This is about much bigger things, such as the moral status of God Himself, human rights, criteria of judgment...

They (perhaps) note which criteria appeal to them, out of fairness, but it need not be objective.

"Out of fairness"? Who establishes what is "fair" for you? You can't just decide it yourself, subjectively, you know: because nobody has to agree with the merely subjective.

In any case, why are God's criteria any more objective than anyone else's?

Because He's never wrong. He's the basis of existence itself, including the existence of objective criteria and morals. By definition, it's not even POSSIBLE for Him to be wrong -- assuming, of course, that He exists, which the agnostic says he doesn't know and the Atheist says he does not believe.

...the Norse followed them anyway. That seems a manly religion. Side with and protect the weak, not the strong!

Hmmm...do you know much about the Norse? They were a little hard on the weak, for sure. They preferred to side with the strong...like Nietzsche did. In fact, Nietzsche even talked about the "Scandanavian" paganisms in that context. But let that be. It's unimportant here.

But let's take that. Let's make our own subjective moral out of it. You believe that it's moral to side with the weak? Let's call that "Thou shalt protect the weak." That's the new first commandment.

Now, tell me: what authority does that commandment we've just invented have?

Now you are blathering incoherently. It's fair to inform your readers on what basis you choose to criticize a work because your readers might want to know. Also, it illustrates the nature of your critique. For example, if you believe in a moral principle because it was promulgated by Jesus in the Bible, it helps your reader evaluate your critique if he or she knows where you got it.

Also, the God of the Bible is often wrong. In the old Testament, the God searches for Adam and Eve because he doesn't know where they are (he is wrong about their location). There are many other examples, of which, since you are the Bible thumper, you are probably aware
The new commandment has your authority -- since you just wrote it. Hmmm. That's the same authority that God has, come to think of it.

The Norse did not side with the strong. They were on the side of the Gods, not the Giants. Of course the Gods were quite strong -- but not as strong as the Giants, the Midgaard serpent, or Fenris the Wolf. Siding with the ruler just because he (or He) is the ruler (or creator) makes no sense. That's why Milton made Satan a noble character. He was a supporter of Cromwell and an anti-royalist, whose poetic skill allowed him to narrowly avoid the axe during the restoration.

Siding with the all-powerful JUST BECAUSE they are powerful is wimpy, Yet the God of the Old Testament seems to suggest that it is proper.

[Immanuel Can]

Now, tell me: what authority does that commandment we've just invented have?

Now you are blathering incoherently.

All that means is that you don't want to answer the question.

Point made, I think.

The Norse did not side with the strong.

So Nietzsche got it wrong, you say? Well, well...

So...From whence do we derive the duty to follow the axiom, "We must side with the weak"?

Go ahead, if you've got anything. (But I know you don't.)

[Wizard22]

I wouldn't apply 'secular' to science. It could be that a god created the universe, in which case science becomes the study of that god's creation. That aside 'sciences' such as anthropology, psychology, sociology and economics study human behaviour; they are not for that reason religious faiths.

That type of reasoning sounds more Agnostic than Secular to me... Human sciences were never considered "the Hard Sciences" back when I was in Academia; and the comparison was disdained by the STEM majors. That's why Religion and Secularism tend to divide on the matter of 'Determinism', as a phenomenon mostly applied to (physical) Objects but not (spiritual) Subjects, aka. Humanity.

To refer to Humanity as 'mere objects' is also 'Dehumanizing', something the Religious are not inclined to do or presume. Secularists on the other hand...

Secularism inherently denies the 'Sanctity' of Life, hence the split on Abortion, for example.

What upsets the religious is not that science denies the existence of any god, it is that science demonstrates that some beliefs the religious consider important to their religion are not true. Science is not secular, it just isn't tied to any particular religion.

In my opinion, it comes down to a Historical matter between Protestants and Catholics, when Catholicism ruled, dominated, and owned "The Sciences" for 1000 years. Science and Religion were one-in-the-same. Thus, it's largely a contingent of Protestants, today, that want to completely divorce and separate "The Sciences" from Religion (what used to be Catholic-dominated culture and educational power).

[Wizard22]

I would go further. Any "holier than thou" attitude that perhaps used to characterize the more conservative religionists is now considerably abated by confusion and relativism within their own fold; most of them are becoming insular and withdrawn from public life, and trying to survive. Meanwhile, the insane fervour of the Left has overtaken anything you find among most of them.

For example, I don't know of any religionists (outside of Islam, perhaps) that are silencing, devoicing, deplatforming, rioting, censoring, doxxing, abusing, burning down, beating up, and so on...

But the Lefties are doing it. It's in the news every day.

I suspect that Conservative-Right win in America, politically, may shift things to the Right once again, or at least hold ground... I'm hoping anyway.

The point that Secularists take their belief-systems as granted, de facto, demonstrated by this thread, is a critical point.

Science requires a very large subset of presumed beliefs, despite atheists and agnostics denying this--because 'Belief' is a taboo for them in the first place, hence their attachment to "Secularism" as perhaps a form of self-destruction.

[Impenitent]

... Thus, it's largely a contingent of Protestants, today, that want to completely divorce and separate ...

oh the irony...

-Imp

[Wizard22]

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

Gary wouldn't you agree though, that the US Constitution, is Anti-Secular? Secularism cannot include "God-given Human Rights", correct?

[Immanuel Can]

Science requires a very large subset of presumed beliefs, despite atheists and agnostics denying this--because 'Belief' is a taboo for them in the first place, hence their attachment to "Secularism" as perhaps a form of self-destruction.

Not only science, but life itself requires belief.

The secularist couldn't get out of bed in the morning and put his feet on the floor, unless he was willing to believe it would be there to support his feet. He couldn't go downstairs with a guarantee there isn't an invader in his house who might kill him, so he has to believe he's safe. He couldn't eat his breakfast, unless he was prepared to believe his wife wasn't trying to poison him. He couldn't walk out the door to work, without the belief that this was not the day a car would kill him...

Belief is the constant demand of life itself. And the secularist believes he believes nothing.

[Immanuel Can]

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

Gary wouldn't you agree though, that the US Constitution, is Anti-Secular? Secularism cannot include "God-given Human Rights", correct?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."

[Alexiev]

Now, tell me: what authority does that commandment we've just invented have?

Now you are blathering incoherently.

All that means is that you don't want to answer the question.

Point made, I think.

The Norse did not side with the strong.

So Nietzsche got it wrong, you say? Well, well...

So...From whence do we derive the duty to follow the axiom, "We must side with the weak"?

Go ahead, if you've got anything. (But I know you don't.)

What are you yammering about now? I never said we must side with the weak. Instead (which is quite different, as anyone familiar with logic could tell you) I said that we should not side with the strong simply because they are strong. The king might be worthy of approval, or he might not be. To worship him (or Him) merely because he is king is sycophantic. The God of the Old Testament demands worship not because he is omni-anything (He isn't) but because he is a powerful God -- more powerful than those wimpy Gods with whom He is competing.

The Norse Gods were less powerful than the competition (as anyone familiar with Norse mythology is aware), but worthy of worship anyway (acc. to the Norse).

[Immanuel Can]

Now you are blathering incoherently.

All that means is that you don't want to answer the question.

Point made, I think.

The Norse did not side with the strong.

So Nietzsche got it wrong, you say? Well, well...

So...From whence do we derive the duty to follow the axiom, "We must side with the weak"?

Go ahead, if you've got anything. (But I know you don't.)

What are you yammering about now?

It's a very simple question. I can't imagine why you find it hard to understand. I'm just asking you to justify your claim. Can't you do it?

I never said we must side with the weak. I said that we should not side with the strong simply because they are strong.

Okay, let's reword the axiom: "Thou shalt not side with the strong just because they are strong."

Sez who?

[Gary Childress]

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

Gary wouldn't you agree though, that the US Constitution, is Anti-Secular? Secularism cannot include "God-given Human Rights", correct?

why do you say the US Constitution is "anti-secular"? What's anti-secular about it?

[Gary Childress]

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.
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?
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."

There's no difference between the rules of the Bible and any other rules that a society agrees to. The Bible is no more "objective" than any other human created rules because in the end it was human beings who wrote the Bible and it's human beings who observe the rules of the Bible or not. Humans can create rules for our societies. We humans have been doing it for thousands of years. Every society has rules and not all of them derive from the Bible. Rules are handed down over centuries because the same rules seem to be necessary for human society to flourish. Rules such as prohibiting murder and incest and other terrible things that people don't want done to themselves govern every society. The only difference between the 10 commandments and the US Constitution is that they're written in different documents and the former requires observing the Sabbath day and other things that maybe don't apply to a modern multicultural society.

If there are people who disagree with the prohibition against murder, then they themselves open themselves up to being murdered. That's as "objective" as rules get--even the ones in the Bible. If someone is going to commit murder, then they're going to commit murder whether the rules are written in the Bible or whether they are written in the US Constitution. And it's wrong either way because it inflicts extreme and unnecessary suffering on another human being.

[Immanuel Can]

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."

There's no difference between the rules of the Bible and any other rules that a society agrees to. The Bible is no more "objective" than any other human created rules because in the end it was human beings who wrote the Bible and it's human beings who observe the rules of the Bible or not.

Well, the second part is true: until the Judgment, it's certianly up to human beings whether or not they observe the objective moral truths. But the rest is the point we're debating, not a given conclusion. I believe the Bible is the Word of God. You believe it's not. But IF it is, then it's certainly vastly more objective than anything men invent, and it's not human beings who wrote it.

So you need to prove your case, not merely assume it. What's your evidence to say that the Bible does not articulate objective moral truths?

Humans can create rules for our societies.

Stalin created rules. Hitler created rules. Mao, Xi and the Kim Jongs had plenty of rules. But I don't suppose you're going to want to say that their rules were all the right rules, are you? But if you don't, then you are presented with a logical problem: how do you know what the right rules are, and what the wrong rules are?

If there are people who disagree with the prohibition against murder, then they themselves open themselves up to being murdered.

Stalin may well have realized that. And for that reason, he was all the more diligent about murdering his enemies, and anybody of whom he had even a suspicion. But it did not stop him murdering. And likewise the others.

Likewise theft: if everybody realized that stealing stuff "opens them up" to being stolen from, you'd suppose they wouldn't steal. But they still do, and do very often. They simply consider that the chances they will actually be stolen from are considerably less than the gains they stand to get from stealing. And you can add in all the different vices, and you'll find it's the same in every case.

That's as "objective" as rules get--even the ones in the Bible.

But it's not at all objective. And my contention is that the Bible does articulate the objective moral truths. So again, you need to prove that, not just ask me to assume it with you for free.

And it's wrong either way because it inflicts extreme and unnecessary suffering on another human being.

Tell Stalin. He won't believe you. Neither will anybody else who's contemplating anything immoral...unless you can give them evidence that "Thou shalt not kill," or "Thou shalt not steal," or whatever else you choose, is objective.

"Subjective" never means more than "what I (or my friends) feel at the present moment." And to say to somebody, "You shouldn't steal from me, because that's what I feel at the present moment" is never going to be good enough. That much is surely obvious.

[Alexiev]

All that means is that you don't want to answer the question.

Point made, I think.


So Nietzsche got it wrong, you say? Well, well...

So...From whence do we derive the duty to follow the axiom, "We must side with the weak"?

Go ahead, if you've got anything. (But I know you don't.)

What are you yammering about now?

It's a very simple question. I can't imagine why you find it hard to understand. I'm just asking you to justify your claim. Can't you do it?

I never said we must side with the weak. I said that we should not side with the strong simply because they are strong.

Okay, let's reword the axiom: "Thou shalt not side with the strong just because they are strong."

Sez who?

You're not asking me to justify my claims. You are asking me to justify YOUR misrepresentation of my claim, as I clearly pointed out.

I can easily justify your rephrased claim. Sauron is strong, but evil -- enslaving and harming people which, in my subjective opinion, is evil. Therefore I will not side with him. Good grief! This is nonsensical.

IF I can't justify my claims, you can't justify your moral claims, either, because the existence of your God is not objectively justifiable. Also because you appear to be unable to use logical inference properly.