Can the Secularists be Trusted?

[Immanuel Can]

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 reworded it, and other than the substitution for the word "just" for "simply," which you can change back, it's EXACTLY your claim, verbatim.

Stop whining and ante up. Sez who?

[Alexiev]

Those who worship God because he is almighty should perhaps worship Satan, instead. Isn't the fallen Lucifer the ruler here on Earth?

I like Blake's Proverbs of Hell. Here are a few of them:

"The road of excess leads to the palace of wisdom"

"Prudence is a rich, ugly old maid courted by Incapacity."

Those who think God has enlightened them with an objective (and ideal) moral code are deluding themselves. Perhaps they are on the Satanic "road of excess" mentioned by Blake.

Two of Blake's proverbs of Hell may justify participation on this forum, though:

" The tigers of wrath are wiser than the horses of instruction."

" Listen to the fool’s reproach! it is a kingly title!"

Thank you, IC, for providing me with a crown.

[Gary Childress]

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.

What does "tell that to Stalin" mean? It seems like a "red herring" to me. I think few, including most Atheists, would dispute that the Soviet Union was a dungeon and that the society that the Bolsheviks created was horrible. Stalin and his regime were horrible by anyone's standards, religious or not. We humans are able to discern good and bad and the fact that such bad regimes have existed and propagated themselves through the use of terror, isn't exactly a testament to the existence of any benevolent God who cared about the millions that the bolsheviks murdered. It doesn't appear to be the case that any god intervened to save the victims or punish the perpetrators during their lifetimes. Whether the bolsheviks or their victims received any kind of divine justice after they died is unknowable. It would be nice if they did but the world doesn't seem to be a very nice place that caters to human conceptions of justice on and of its own accord all the time.

It takes human beings to determine what is just and what isn't. And it's not always clear. There are moral dilemmas out there that we are sometimes presented with also. The world itself is not a very hospitable place in some respects until humans come together and try to agree on fair and just rules and a system that applies those rules fairly and justly.

[Wizard22]

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

#1 The US Constitution was written and created by a bunch of hardcore Protestant Christian extremists. They never intended "Freedom of Religion" for Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Etc. Their "Freedom of Religion" specifically meant Protestantism, free from the Catholic Church. Their Sectarianism was specifically Christian fundamentalism.

#2 The US Constitution 'Human Rights' are endowed by God, the Christian God, as interpreted by these sectarian Protestants. So if you, and all other Humanists believe in and agree with 'Human Rights', the you are defaulting to a Religious-Right, Conservative-Christian position. This is American "Classical Liberalism". That was/is the original basis of Western Liberalism.

Once you get rid of God, and rail against 'Christianity' in general, then you can no longer support nor defend Human Rights (Humanism/Liberalism), and your 'Secularism' inherently becomes Anti-American (against Constitutional Republicanism), and Anti-Christian.

[Alexiev]

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

#1 The US Constitution was written and created by a bunch of hardcore Protestant Christian extremists. They never intended "Freedom of Religion" for Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Etc. Their "Freedom of Religion" specifically meant Protestantism, free from the Catholic Church. Their Sectarianism was specifically Christian fundamentalism.

#2 The US Constitution 'Human Rights' are endowed by God, the Christian God, as interpreted by these sectarian Protestants. So if you, and all other Humanists believe in and agree with 'Human Rights', the you are defaulting to a Religious-Right, Conservative-Christian position. This is American "Classical Liberalism". That was/is the original basis of Western Liberalism.

Once you get rid of God, and rail against 'Christianity' in general, then you can no longer support nor defend Human Rights (Humanism/Liberalism), and your 'Secularism' inherently becomes Anti-American (against Constitutional Republicanism), and Anti-Christian.

Huh? James Madison, the primary author, was a champion of religious freedom and a Deist. Alexander Hamilton was probably raised Jewish, although he occasionally attended an Episcopalian church.

The third main author, John Jay, was a practicing Protestant, raised as a Hugenot.

[FlashDangerpants]

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).

Who cares? You will decide he's a wokie next week and then you will have never liked him.

[accelafine]

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).

Who cares? You will decide he's a wokie next week and then you will have never liked him.

Who asked you to 'care'? Wokies are never intelligent. A lack of intelligence is one of their most obvious traits.

[Alexiev]

Who asked you to 'care'? Wokies are never intelligent. A lack of intelligence is one of their most obvious traits.

Studies show that wankers, on the other hand, are geniuses.

[FlashDangerpants]

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

Who cares? You will decide he's a wokie next week and then you will have never liked him.

Who asked you to 'care'? Wokies are never intelligent. A lack of intelligence is one of their most obvious traits.

Ok then. I don't care.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

What does "tell that to Stalin" mean?

Very simple: Stalin liked causing suffering. It was useful to him to do so. You say he should have known it's wrong to inflict suffering. He might very reasonably ask you, "Why"? And it's not obvious what answer you would be able to offer.

Not everybody's a Stalin. But at some time, many people find it useful or in their perceived interest to inflict suffering on others. If you want them to believe they should resist that impulse, you need to tell them why it's wrong; because the question doesn't answer itself.

I think few, including most Atheists, would dispute that the Soviet Union was a dungeon and that the society that the Bolsheviks created was horrible.

But what they can't explain is why it was wrong.

It takes human beings to determine what is just and what isn't.

Stalin 'determined' that killing people was not only just fine, but very useful. So did his many followers, and the torturers in Romania, Albania, East Germany, Cuba, Chile...and a host of other such places. And it continues today. As a subjectivist, how are you going to be able to decide they're wrong for doing that? Because you personally don't like it? Do you really think that's an explanation they should accept -- don't hurt others, because Gary doesn't like it when you do that?

And what about justice? Is it no more than "whatever Gary thinks is just"? And if justice for somebody else means something very different, or even opposite to what Gary thinks, then which one of the two is actual justice? How can you even know when justice has been served, or when it has not yet been?

[Gary Childress]

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?

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?

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.

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.
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.

What does "tell that to Stalin" mean?

Very simple: Stalin liked causing suffering. It was useful to him to do so. You say he should have known it's wrong to inflict suffering. He might very reasonably ask you, "Why"? And it's not obvious what answer you would be able to offer.

Not everybody's a Stalin. But at some time, many people find it useful or in their perceived interest to inflict suffering on others. If you want them to believe they should resist that impulse, you need to tell them why it's wrong; because the question doesn't answer itself.

I think few, including most Atheists, would dispute that the Soviet Union was a dungeon and that the society that the Bolsheviks created was horrible.

But what they can't explain is why it was wrong.

It takes human beings to determine what is just and what isn't.

Stalin 'determined' that killing people was not only just fine, but very useful. So did his many followers, and the torturers in Romania, Albania, East Germany, Cuba, Chile...and a host of other such places. And it continues today. As a subjectivist, how are you going to be able to decide they're wrong for doing that? Because you personally don't like it? Do you really think that's an explanation they should accept -- don't hurt others, because Gary doesn't like it when you do that?

And what about justice? Is it no more than "whatever Gary thinks is just"? And if justice for somebody else means something very different, or even opposite to what Gary thinks, then which one of the two is actual justice? How can you even know when justice has been served, or when it has not yet been?

If you think there's no such thing as morality because Stalin was a monster, then fine. I'm tired of arguing with your nonsense. Bye.

[Immanuel Can]

What does "tell that to Stalin" mean?

Very simple: Stalin liked causing suffering. It was useful to him to do so. You say he should have known it's wrong to inflict suffering. He might very reasonably ask you, "Why"? And it's not obvious what answer you would be able to offer.

Not everybody's a Stalin. But at some time, many people find it useful or in their perceived interest to inflict suffering on others. If you want them to believe they should resist that impulse, you need to tell them why it's wrong; because the question doesn't answer itself.

I think few, including most Atheists, would dispute that the Soviet Union was a dungeon and that the society that the Bolsheviks created was horrible.

But what they can't explain is why it was wrong.

It takes human beings to determine what is just and what isn't.

Stalin 'determined' that killing people was not only just fine, but very useful. So did his many followers, and the torturers in Romania, Albania, East Germany, Cuba, Chile...and a host of other such places. And it continues today. As a subjectivist, how are you going to be able to decide they're wrong for doing that? Because you personally don't like it? Do you really think that's an explanation they should accept -- don't hurt others, because Gary doesn't like it when you do that?

And what about justice? Is it no more than "whatever Gary thinks is just"? And if justice for somebody else means something very different, or even opposite to what Gary thinks, then which one of the two is actual justice? How can you even know when justice has been served, or when it has not yet been?

If you think there's no such thing as morality because Stalin was a monster, then fine. I'm tired of arguing with your nonsense. Bye.

No, I definitely think morality is objective and real. But lots of people say they don't. Secularists theoretically don't, even though practically, many pretend they can still moralize legitimately.

Secularism would imply that NO morality real -- in the sense that morals cannot be binding, obligatory, duty-based, or even stable if they're subjective. So the secularist, if he wants to be a moralist, is going to have to end up imposing his moral preferences by force, and in the absence of any reasoning for them. Stalin was a secularist -- a devout one, as a matter of fact -- and he chose a different path from the goody-two-shoes, irrational type of secularist. Secularism has no opinion about that, either way.

What, in a secular world, would give us the assurance he was wrong to do so?

[LuckyR]

Treating those who are given dogmatic "correct conclusions" who live in search of evidence to support their conclusion to those who make observations then derive conclusions from them, then adjust the conclusions as new observations come to light, as essentially two versions of the same phenomenon, is erroneous.

Correct, and many of these Secularists are guilty of the former.

True, there are individual examples. But they are not "following the rules" of their discipline.

[Gary Childress]

Very simple: Stalin liked causing suffering. It was useful to him to do so. You say he should have known it's wrong to inflict suffering. He might very reasonably ask you, "Why"? And it's not obvious what answer you would be able to offer.

Not everybody's a Stalin. But at some time, many people find it useful or in their perceived interest to inflict suffering on others. If you want them to believe they should resist that impulse, you need to tell them why it's wrong; because the question doesn't answer itself.
But what they can't explain is why it was wrong.

Stalin 'determined' that killing people was not only just fine, but very useful. So did his many followers, and the torturers in Romania, Albania, East Germany, Cuba, Chile...and a host of other such places. And it continues today. As a subjectivist, how are you going to be able to decide they're wrong for doing that? Because you personally don't like it? Do you really think that's an explanation they should accept -- don't hurt others, because Gary doesn't like it when you do that?

And what about justice? Is it no more than "whatever Gary thinks is just"? And if justice for somebody else means something very different, or even opposite to what Gary thinks, then which one of the two is actual justice? How can you even know when justice has been served, or when it has not yet been?

If you think there's no such thing as morality because Stalin was a monster, then fine. I'm tired of arguing with your nonsense. Bye.

No, I definitely think morality is objective and real. But lots of people say they don't. Secularists theoretically don't, even though practically, many pretend they can still moralize legitimately.

Secularism would imply that NO morality real -- in the sense that morals cannot be binding, obligatory, duty-based, or even stable if they're subjective. So the secularist, if he wants to be a moralist, is going to have to end up imposing his moral preferences by force, and in the absence of any reasoning for them. Stalin was a secularist -- a devout one, as a matter of fact -- and he chose a different path from the goody-two-shoes, irrational type of secularist. Secularism has no opinion about that, either way.

What, in a secular world, would give us the assurance he was wrong to do so?

Harming others is harming others no matter whether there is a God or not. Helping others or being kind to them is also something that can exist with or without a God. There are constants in this world that exist and they exist because we exist and we share similar biology, beliefs and experiences in many cases. Getting punched in the nose is going to hurt anyone, regardless of whether they believe in a God or any particular God. If you go to New Guinea and you chop someone's arm off, they are not going to mistakenly think you did something nice to them. They're going to have the same reaction as anyone else around the globe and probably retaliate.

It's doubtful that the early writers of the Bible were listening to God recite to them. They reasoned out what sounded like common sense to them and they came up with a set of rules that they reasoned must be the rules of God based on that common sense. Just like John Locke didn't claim to hear the voice of God (as far as I'm aware), he reasoned abstractly that the values he proposed for society were good ones based on the world around him. They make sense therefore God must want them to make sense, according to someone who believes there is a God.

[attofishpi]

If you go to New Guinea and you chop someone's arm off, they are not going to mistakenly think you did something nice to them. They're going to have the same reaction as anyone else around the globe and probably retaliate.

Bullshit Gary.

Most of the rest of the world aren't going to put someone's arm into a pot with some onions and maybe some chicken stock.