Haven’t those who reject morality just because of its religious roots ended up constructing another belief system

[iambiguous]

So, for example, a religious moralist is going to say that what makes things "good" or "evil" is some sort of supernatural fact or authorization. But what is a secular moralist going to say? If he believes that our universe is a giant cosmic accident that proceeds on no particular moral imperatives and with a view to no particular purpose or telos, what can he say "morality" is? It can be no more than a contingent artifact of human invention, that no person is rationally obligated to pay attention to longer than he wishes to.

Here I basically agree with this. In other words, No God, no objective morality.

Only I don't come in here claiming there is scientific and historical proof of it.

Then the part where IC goes on and on and and on discussing the Christian God from many different angles...theological, historical, Biblical, philosophical, etc.

But that changes absolutely nothing at all in regard to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior. You either do or your soul is damned.

I just think it's important to remind him of this because I for one want to be born again.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Haven’t those who reject morality just because of its religious roots ended up constructing another belief system — under the name of ethics — which might itself have mystical foundations?

Btw, science was also 'another belief system' extracted, then is independent from its mother system, i.e. philosophy.
As Popper alluded, the product of the scientific belief system are merely scientific facts which are at best 'polished conjectures' [hypotheses].
There is no certainty, finality and finitude with scientific facts, knowledge or claims. They are always open ended hypotheses, i.e. more polished conjectures.

Despite the above limitation, the scientific system and framework [prefer framework and system] is the most credible and objective as the gold standard.

If the scientific FS is indexed at 100/100, relative the theistic FS would be 5/100 given empirical evidence is the highest weighted criteria in such a relative comparison.

In my case, morality is the Pure aspect while Ethics is Applied Morality.
If we give up the theistic moral system, we are moving towards non-theistic moral system of which there are many with varying degrees of credibility and objectivity.

What I had proposed is a non-theistic moral system, i.e. the moral-realist system that has high degrees of credibility and objectivity relative to the gold standard, say 80/100 because all the inputs into the moral-realist system are from the science-FS. This moral-realist system is supported by valid and sound arguments. I have raised >300 threads in this section in relation to the argument.

So the answer to your OP is 'No' -taking into account the above.

Moral Skepticism or moral nihilism is not critically an epistemological issue but rather more of a psychological one where moral skeptics are the ones who has moral deficiencies in their brain.

[Immanuel Can]

So, for example, a religious moralist is going to say that what makes things "good" or "evil" is some sort of supernatural fact or authorization. But what is a secular moralist going to say? If he believes that our universe is a giant cosmic accident that proceeds on no particular moral imperatives and with a view to no particular purpose or telos, what can he say "morality" is? It can be no more than a contingent artifact of human invention, that no person is rationally obligated to pay attention to longer than he wishes to.

Here I basically agree with this. In other words, No God, no objective morality.

Your wisdom on the subject will be complete when you realize it means that it also means that morality has no warrant at all, of any kind.

Only I don't come in here claiming there is scientific and historical proof of it.

Nobody else claimed that secular morality could be proved or disproved on those grounds either, so that seems arbitrary, as comments go.

[iambiguous]

So, for example, a religious moralist is going to say that what makes things "good" or "evil" is some sort of supernatural fact or authorization. But what is a secular moralist going to say? If he believes that our universe is a giant cosmic accident that proceeds on no particular moral imperatives and with a view to no particular purpose or telos, what can he say "morality" is? It can be no more than a contingent artifact of human invention, that no person is rationally obligated to pay attention to longer than he wishes to.

Here I basically agree with this. In other words, No God, no objective morality.

Your wisdom on the subject will be complete when you realize it means that it also means that morality has no warrant at all, of any kind.

Come on, morality is everywhere! Though it might be called something else, i.e. traditions, customs, mores, folkways, conventions, the law of the land, etc.

These practices generally revolve around democracy [and the rule of law], religion, ideology, deontology and/or biological imperatives. After all, every human community I've ever been familiar with has established rules of behavior. Some behaviors are rewarded, others punished.

And while I generally share your assessment regarding God and religion pertaining to morality, I have no illusions that my own frame of mind here is actually anywhere near the...objective truth?

Which is not to say that objective morality -- God or No God -- does not exist. I'm only pointing out that "here and now" I have yet to come upon a demonstrable argument that convinces me that there is.

And, sure, the Christian God in turn may well exist. You claim there is substantial evidence that He does. Only that's as far as you will go...claiming it.

Nobody else claimed that secular morality could be proved or disproved on those grounds either, so that seems arbitrary, as comments go.

Any number of the secular folks here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...will claim that their own "grounds" need be as far as it goes in order to establish and then sustain their own One True Path.

On the other hand, how many of them have the equivalent of WLC and the RF folks YouTube videos?

[Skepdick]

Your wisdom on the subject will be complete when you realize it means that it also means that morality has no warrant at all, of any kind.

OK, then morality has no warrant. So what?

To demand/expect a warrant of any kind is to engage in an unwarranted normative social game.

[Immanuel Can]

Here I basically agree with this. In other words, No God, no objective morality.

Your wisdom on the subject will be complete when you realize it means that it also means that morality has no warrant at all, of any kind.

Come on, morality is everywhere!

No, people who want us to believe in morality are certainly everywhere: but it's not a given that they're telling us something we're obligated to believe. After all, all their "moralities" disagree on key points. (Sociologists recognize this, and call it "moral incommensurability.") Since these various moral dicta are "incommensurable," which one do we have a duty to obey, if any?

Though it might be called something else, i.e. traditions, customs, mores, folkways, conventions, the law of the land, etc.

Nobody has any duty to obey a "custom," "tradition," "folkway," or "convention." And "mores" and "laws of the land" only count if they're grounded in something bigger than themselves: I assume you don't follow Islamist or Fascist "traditions" or "mores," do you?

[Immanuel Can]

Your wisdom on the subject will be complete when you realize it means that it also means that morality has no warrant at all, of any kind.

OK, then morality has no warrant. So what?

Then there is no such thing. Then all "moralizing" is what Nietzsche said it is: a fake, a mere power move by the weak, and nothing that the "better men" (or ubermenschen) have any obligation to take seriously at all.

To demand/expect a warrant of any kind is to engage in an unwarranted normative social game.

That's what Nietzsche said. And without "warrant" means that it's arbitrary, without authorization or basis, and thus not requisite for you and me to follow at all. We have no duty to care about anybody's moralizing...even our own.

[Ben JS]

Haven’t those who reject morality just because of its religious roots

Religion is not the origin of morality.
People are the origin of morality.

We evolved preferences that led to our survival.
We evaluate and judge the world based on these preferences.
We form practices that adhere to our preferences.

There's evolutionary advantage in treating those around you fairly -
an agreed upon set of actions that wont merit retaliation.
Cooperation increased our survivability, thus 'morality' was selected for.

It emerged not because of religion.
Religion appealed to religious constructs,
for reasons to be moral.
Not necessary.

There are plenty of reasons to be moral in the absence of religion.
The basis of morality can be rooted in needs of people,
and the rewards and consequent health produced from adopting it.

-

Do you think religion is necessary to be moral? Or that it's the only reason to be moral?

EDIT:

ended up constructing another belief system — under the name of ethics — which might itself have mystical foundations?

The needs of people are not mystical.
That we have preferences is not mystical.
Codes of conduct enabling effective cooperation is not mystical.

The health of people can be evaluated scientifically.
We can use evidence to guide our conduct.
We're not just pulling rules from the sky.

Secular morality has far different foundations than religious.
It is not founded on mysticism.

-

If you believe secular religion is founded of mysticism, please elaborate.
May you please provide examples of these 'mystical foundations'?

[Ben JS]

But what is a secular moralist going to say? If he believes that our universe is a giant cosmic accident that proceeds on no particular moral imperatives and with a view to no particular purpose or telos, what can he say "morality" is? It can be no more than a contingent artifact of human invention, that no person is rationally obligated to pay attention to longer than he wishes to.

If a person cares about the welfare of another [which is healthy],
and is aware their actions are causing the suffering of the other,
then altering one's behaviour to reduce the suffering of the other has merit.

If one recognizes that one's own health, is tied to the health of their community -
then behaving in a way that supports the health of the community has personal merit.

There's a rational reason to behave morally -
but there is no ultimate obligation to do so.
Though it's likely very much in our interests.

It's rational to avoid retaliation.
If you kill someone,
you'll risk direct harm upon yourself.

"Psychological egoism is the view that humans are always motivated by self-interest and selfishness, even in what seem to be acts of altruism. It claims that, when people choose to help others, they do so ultimately because of the personal benefits that they themselves expect to obtain, directly or indirectly, from doing so."

Everything we do is rooted in preferences that evolved because they improved survivability.
If you step beyond our preferences, all is neutral.
We want things, but our wants are biases which have no merit other than that they are indeed there.
If we remove our preferences, there's no reason to act in any way.
If we don't act in any way, it'll lead to our deaths.

If we're going to act,
it might as well be in accord with what's going to make us feel well.
And hey, what do you know -
treating others well can make us feel well and enable our health.
That's fortunate for society.

[iambiguous]

Your wisdom on the subject will be complete when you realize it means that it also means that morality has no warrant at all, of any kind.

Come on, morality is everywhere!

No, people who want us to believe in morality are certainly everywhere: but it's not a given that they're telling us something we're obligated to believe.

Again, I'm basically in agreement with this. Click, of course.

But then this part: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bi ... ng-Christ/

Now, perhaps, mere mortals are not obligated to believe any of this. Instead, they might believe in the moral commandments of another God. Or in the same God but understood differently. Or in No God at all.

So, you tell me what they can expect on Judgment Day if the Christian God is the real deal.

After all, all their "moralities" disagree on key points. (Sociologists recognize this, and call it "moral incommensurability.") Since these various moral dicta are "incommensurable," which one do we have a duty to obey, if any?

Unbelievable. Well, okay, if I do say so myself. Then the part where sociologists give way to theologians who insist mere mortals have a solemn and sacred duty to choose the One True Path to Salvation. But it's their path, not yours.

Though it might be called something else, i.e. traditions, customs, mores, folkways, conventions, the law of the land, etc.

Nobody has any duty to obey a "custom," "tradition," "folkway," or "convention." And "mores" and "laws of the land" only count if they're grounded in something bigger than themselves: I assume you don't follow Islamist or Fascist "traditions" or "mores," do you?

Please. You know full well that any number of those who fall back on this frame of mind will have absolutely no hesitation at all in reminding Christians that they themselves are the ones who are damned.

As for fascists and Islamist traditions and mores, the bottom line [mine] is that any number of them were, are and will be just as introspectively sincere and genuine regarding their own dogma as you are yours.

Only you keep claiming that in regard to the Christian God there is ample scientific and historical evidence to confirm His own existence.

[Ben JS]

Even if you believe in 'God', you're not obligated to listen.
'He' just threatens you with retaliation if you don't - 'hell'.

And if we have 'free will', and are choosing whether to obey 'God's' commandments,
then it's still us making a choice based on our own preferences.

And what are the origins of our preferences.. let us wonder.

[Immanuel Can]

But what is a secular moralist going to say? If he believes that our universe is a giant cosmic accident that proceeds on no particular moral imperatives and with a view to no particular purpose or telos, what can he say "morality" is? It can be no more than a contingent artifact of human invention, that no person is rationally obligated to pay attention to longer than he wishes to.

If a person cares about the welfare of another [which is healthy],
and is aware their actions are causing the suffering of the other,
then altering one's behaviour to reduce the suffering of the other has merit.

"Has merit"? Who is doling out this "merit"? Why can't somebody "alter his behavior" to hurt another person and benefit thereby, instead? Who says he cannot?

If one recognizes that one's own health, is tied to the health of their community -

It's not, of course. The community's "health" only depends on the community as a whole being healthy. If an individual can find a way to get advantage from being the exception, why shouldn't he?

That's the problem.

[Immanuel Can]

Come on, morality is everywhere!

No, people who want us to believe in morality are certainly everywhere: but it's not a given that they're telling us something we're obligated to believe.

Again, I'm basically in agreement with this.

Then we're done again.

[Ben JS]

Are going to ask inane questions and ignore the primary substance of my response?

"Has merit"? Who is doling out this "merit"?

Has merit is an alternate way to saying has value.
In this context of my post, it was to say has value to the person acting.
Let me repeat the statement:

If a person cares about the welfare of another [which is healthy],
and is aware their actions are causing the suffering of the other,
then altering one's behaviour to reduce the suffering of the other has merit.

Very simple.
Yet you ask this ridiculous question:

Why can't somebody "alter his behavior" to hurt another person and benefit thereby, instead? Who says he cannot?

That has nothing to do with the scenario I gave.
Thus does not affect the scenario I gave.
It is a non-sequitur.

But I'll humour you:

They very well can.
There is nothing that obligations them otherwise.
In the scenario I gave,
it would be against their self interest,
because they CARE about the other -
likely due to something called empathy & compassion [do you have it?].

Causing the suffering of the other, in my scenario, would cause the suffering of the self.

If one recognizes that one's own health, is tied to the health of their community -

It's not, of course.

Closed minded, fool.
So arrogant in your ignorance.

The community's "health" only depends on the community as a whole being healthy.

Cool. How's your reading comprehension?
As I was talking about the individual's health,
and never said society's health depended on the individual.

Are you trying to misrepresent me?
Are you communicating in bad faith?

If an individual can find a way to get advantage from being the exception, why shouldn't he?

He very well can.
It'd say a lot about that individual.
But is not the scenario I spoke about.

I believe the life of maximum fulfillment does not entail taking advantage of others.
To do so, sacrifices something greater.
I've spoken about it in the past,
but haven't the interest to repeat it to you -
primarily because I suspect you have no interest in what others think,
it's not why you're here.

-

'An organism at war with itself is doomed.'

I'm probably not going to respond.
Have a good one.

[iambiguous]

No, people who want us to believe in morality are certainly everywhere: but it's not a given that they're telling us something we're obligated to believe.

Again, I'm basically in agreement with this,

Then we're done again.

In other words, you continue to wiggle out of responding to this:

But then this part: https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bi ... ng-Christ/

Now, perhaps, mere mortals are not obligated to believe any of this. Instead, they might believe in the moral commandments of another God. Or in the same God but understood differently. Or in No God at all.

So, you tell me what they can expect on Judgment Day if the Christian God is the real deal.

Not that I really blame you. It seems rather clear you don't have a clue as to how to respond to the points I raise. I'm just curious as to how WLC might fare, if I can get him to join the discussion.

Just out of curiosity, have you ever made contact with him over the years? Do you participate in the RF forum?

Then the part that truly baffles me the most:

Only you keep claiming that in regard to the Christian God there is ample scientific and historical evidence to confirm His own existence.

Why on Earth do you persist in sweeping this under the rug?


How about this...

You start a new thread and attempt to explain the evidence that prompted you to believe it demonstrates the existence of the Christian God in Heaven as convincingly as others can demonstrate the existence of the Pope in the Vatican.

Now, why not explore that with others here? I won't participate at all. Just you attempting to save the souls of those who are not born-again Christians.