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

[Skepdick]

Too bad for you, I just did.

Everyone but you fails to see that you haven't done what you claim to have done.

Well, let's see about that.

OK. Lets see.

Lets accept that your deduction is valid.

Justify its soundness.

[agora]

@Ben JS; you wrote:

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

My answer:

Just think about Newton for a moment:
The man discovered the laws of motion, and at the same time, he was trying to interpret the prophecies of Daniel.

Mysticism is the human ability to relate to and manage energy. (inner/subtle energy)
The more deeply and consciously this ability is developed, the more progress becomes possible in science as well.
Let us not forget that Isaac Newton was not only a great physicist, but also a mystic who studied and interpreted the Bible.
Likewise, Jabir ibn Hayyan, who first spoke of the atom being divisible — and even said that, if split, it would release enough energy to shake all of Baghdad — was also an Islamic mystic.
Alchemy, which he practiced, later became the foundation of modern chemistry.
So mysticism is not irrational — it is one of the intuitive roots of scientific insight.

Plato, a scientist in his own time, was also a deeply mystical figure.
His concept of the World of Forms (Ideas) was later echoed in Ibn Arabi’s notion of the ‘alam al-mithal’ (the imaginal realm).
It is even said that Plato was initiated by ancient Egyptian priests…”

[Immanuel Can]

Everyone but you fails to see that you haven't done what you claim to have done.

Well, let's see about that.

OK. Lets see.

Lets accept that your deduction is valid.

Justify its soundness.

I'll wait to hear from others on that. You're just trolling anyway.

[CIN2]

Let's take a "religion" neither you nor I believes is true, just so we're not partisan. Let's call it the religion of "Moo."

The god Moo made everything. (Of course, all Mooists would have to believe this, by definition of being a "Mooist.")
Moo made women only 1/2 the value of a man. (This could be both given in Mooist revelation, and perhaps deducible from the natural world Moo is said to have made, in that women are made smaller and weaker than men.)
Therefore, to value men by a 2-1 ratio over women is moral. (This is deducible from the two previous claims.)

Now, neither you nor I believes in Moo. But we'd both have to concede that if Moo existed, had made the world, and said that he made women to be only half the worth of a man, the rest would logically follow.

No, I wouldn't concede this, because you've actually got two arguments here, not one, and they aren't the same:

Argument 1
The god Moo made everything
Moo made women only 1/2 the value of a man
Therefore, to value men by a 2-1 ratio over women is moral

Argument 2
Moo made the world
Moo said that he made women to be only half the worth of a man
Therefore, to value men by a 2-1 ratio over women is moral

The first argument is valid, but is unsound because the second claim cannot be true. The second is invalid: just because Moo said that he made women only 1/2 the value of a man is no reason to believe that he actually did.

It's just that easy to get a morality out of a religion or ideology that holds that the universe has some kind of teleological or purposive creation. And all of them do. We don't even have to agree that their morality is genuinely moral; we can see that, if we believed what Mooists believe, they'd be right.

No. If we believed what Mooists believe, they would still be wrong, because their belief that Moo made women less valuable than men cannot be correct.

We just think they're wrong, because you and I don't believe in Moo.

That is not why I think they are wrong; I would think they were wrong even if I believed in Moo. The issue is not whether a deity exists, nor what intentions or other attributes the deity has; the issue is whether a deity can determine moral values. You appear to think that the Christian God can actually set the moral values of people and actions simply because, unlike Moo, he exists and has certain intentions, including moral intentions. But none of this amounts to the ability to determine moral values, any more than my existing and intending to run a mile in four minutes means that I am actually able to run a mile in four minutes.

If you wish to convince me that the Christian God can determine moral values, you are going to have to explain how he does it. Until you do, I have no reason to believe that he can.

[Immanuel Can]

Let's take a "religion" neither you nor I believes is true, just so we're not partisan. Let's call it the religion of "Moo."

The god Moo made everything. (Of course, all Mooists would have to believe this, by definition of being a "Mooist.")
Moo made women only 1/2 the value of a man. (This could be both given in Mooist revelation, and perhaps deducible from the natural world Moo is said to have made, in that women are made smaller and weaker than men.)
Therefore, to value men by a 2-1 ratio over women is moral. (This is deducible from the two previous claims.)

Now, neither you nor I believes in Moo. But we'd both have to concede that if Moo existed, had made the world, and said that he made women to be only half the worth of a man, the rest would logically follow.

No, I wouldn't concede this, because you've actually got two arguments here, not one, and they aren't the same:

Argument 1
The god Moo made everything
Moo made women only 1/2 the value of a man
Therefore, to value men by a 2-1 ratio over women is moral

Argument 2
Moo made the world
Moo said that he made women to be only half the worth of a man
Therefore, to value men by a 2-1 ratio over women is moral

The first argument is valid...

That's the point.

I'm not saying you're a Mooist...in fact, neither of us is. But the argument is deductively valid...meaning it coordinates with the original premises. The truth or falsehood of the premises is a different question, that logicians do not call "validity" but "truthfulness." Thus, they separate the question, "Is this argument the truth," (truth-value) from the question, "Is this argument logically coherent?" (validity)

All I'm claiming for the Mooists is validity, not truthfulness.

And by contrast, cannot make a valid argument for morality based on secularism. It's impossible.

...just because Moo said that he made women only 1/2 the value of a man is no reason to believe that he actually did.

I agree. We'd have to know that Moo is not a liar, and infallible. But if we did know that, then again, there'd be no problem with the Mooists getting validity out of that argument.

...their belief that Moo made women less valuable than men cannot be correct.

"Cannot"? What makes you say so?

I agree, as a matter of fact, that women are not 1/2 the value of a man. But to say that the Mooists "cannot" be correct, if their ontology is granted, seems obviously overstated: of course women could be created to be 1/2 the value of a man, or 1/2 the value of anything, or men could be created as 1/2 the value of a woman.

In theory, either is totally possible: but maybe you and I just don't agree with that evaluation, and that's fine. It's about validity, not truth.

...the issue is whether a deity can determine moral values.

Well, if a Supreme Being exists, whether Moo or otherwise, he certainly "can" do that, else he wouldn't be "supreme" at all. You might argue he hasn't done that -- which you'd then have to give reasons to believe, or you might argue that Moo has lied -- unless Moo is incapable of lying or being wrong, of course.

But sure: if there's a Supreme Being, he can determine moral values. What else could? Secularism certainly cannot.

If you wish to convince me that the Christian God can determine moral values, you are going to have to explain how he does it.

See above.

If there's a creator God, then only He can say for what purposes and roles the creation was created. Only He can say it, because only He would know. And "morality," then, would be whatever coheres with that moral purpose and teleological orientation inherent to the design of the whole creation. "Immorality" would be whatever is oppositional to the functions, purposes and goals for which creation was created by the Creator. And that would be the moral landscape.

Certainly, no contingent being, like humans, say, would be in a better position to speak on that topic. That's surely obvious.

P.S. -- To be frank, this argument is so easy to win that I can even do it while conceding every one of your objections.

So let's suppose you're right: that no deity, and nothing metaphysical, and no religion, is capable of justifying any moral precepts. Let's pretend that's true.

How will it show that secularism can?

If no religion, no idealogy, and no secularism can justify morality, then what is "morality"? It can be nothing other than an illusion. In which case, those who believe in a "morality" are what Nietzsche said they are: fools and/or charlatans who are trying to manipulate us and seize "power" over us; but we should be smarter than they (as ubermenschen, overmen) and see through their fakery, and be "beyond good and evil" ourselves.

In which case, all that makes sense is Nihilism...complete rejection of all moral imperatives and all moral schemes.

Which is what I said secularism inevitably requires anyway.

QED.

[Skepdick]

Well, let's see about that.

OK. Lets see.

Lets accept that your deduction is valid.

Justify its soundness.

I'll wait to hear from others on that. You're just trolling anyway.

You'll wait for others to do the justification for you?

You could've just said you are wasting everyone's time...

[Immanuel Can]

..you are wasting everyone's time...

No, just ignoring you. That's quite different.

[Skepdick]

..you are wasting everyone's time...

No, just ignoring you. That's quite different.

Ignoring me and justifying the soundness of your deduction aren't mutually exclusive.

Get on with it.

[Immanuel Can]

..you are wasting everyone's time...

No, just ignoring you. That's quite different.

Ignoring me and justifying the soundness of your deduction aren't mutually exclusive.

Get on with it.

Yeah, right.

[Skepdick]

No, just ignoring you. That's quite different.

Ignoring me and justifying the soundness of your deduction aren't mutually exclusive.

Get on with it.

Yeah, right.

So far you are demonstrating failure at both ignoring me; and justifying the soundness of your deduction.

[Ben JS]

@Ben JS; you wrote:

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

My answer:

[...]
Mysticism is the human ability to relate to and manage energy. (inner/subtle energy)
[...]

Here's the etymology of mystic for you:

late 14c., mistike, "spiritually allegorical, pertaining to mysteries of faith," from Old French mistique "mysterious, full of mystery" (14c.), or directly from Latin mysticus "mystical, mystic, of secret rites" (source also of Italian mistico, Spanish mistico), from Greek mystikos "secret, mystic, connected with the mysteries," from mystes "one who has been initiated" (see mystery (n.1)).

Meaning "pertaining to occult practices or ancient religions" is recorded by 1610s. That of "hidden from or obscure to human knowledge or comprehension" is by 1630s.

When I say the needs of people are not mystical,
when I say our preferences are not mystical,
when I say conduct enabling effective cooperation is not mystical -
I mean in accordance with standard definition and origins of the word mystical.

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

According to an accurate definition of mystical, it doesn't.
If you want to redefine mystical to mean something that no one else means,
then you're just making misleading statements and questions.

I could redefine 'God' to mean non-existent, and then claim by definition 'God' is non-existent.
It means nothing, because the thing I'm talking about, and the thing others are talking about aren't the same concepts.

You're trying to shoehorn the word mystical into a situation where it doesn't belong,
the method by which you're doing this is redefining the term in a deceptive, misleading way.

In accordance with the etymology of the word, the foundations of secular morality are not mystical.
As outlined before, and as I'll repost at the bottom of this reply.

My answer:

Your answer is that people who considered themselves mystics contributed to society.
People who are scientologists can contribute to society - does that make scientology more credible?

A truth of reality is discovered.
Anyone, regardless of their beliefs, has the capacity to discover these truths.
Discovering truths about reality does not require a specific belief system.

"reject morality just because of its religious roots"

Religious morality has religious roots, secular morality does not.

I don't need to dissect whatever your belief system is.
I'm simply here to demonstrate you're wrong about the origin of all morality.

Morality, can & has arisen outside the context of religion.
Your assertion that the root of morality is religion, is wrong.

Your title question is transparently a loaded question.
Asking loaded questions is a logical fallacy.
You're wrong.

I demonstrated that you're wrong,
and now you're waffling about your interpretation of mysticism and people who adhered to it.

Completely irrelevant.

It's also as deceptive as those we try to redefine 'God' to mean something they clearly don't believe,
such that they can preserve / shoehorn in a term where it needn't be, to suit their agenda.

Fortunately for me, though -
it's not necessary for me to demonstrate how deceptive your definition of mysticism is.
I didn't rise to the bait of your loaded question.

I instead spoke to the assumption nested within your loaded question:
that the root of morality is religion.

And I repeat:

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.

Secular morality can be founded and rooted within the needs of people.
As soon as a person agrees that what they want is their health,
then we can establish what is conducive to health and their self-interest.

Without a goal/objective, all is neutral.
We are born biased, due to natural selection.
Our structure produces bias.

Morality does not need to some divine justification, simply 'I prefer this.'
It can function in light of the recognition that it's basis are preferences that resulted in survival - and nothing more.
We don't need a sky daddy to figure out how to build mutually beneficial relationships with others.

Morality is all about a code of interaction with others.
As if there were no others, you wouldn't need to justify anything.
You'd do what you want, and you'd need no defense.

One of the things we typically have is compassion / empathy.
It developed for a very self serving reason, but it is present nonetheless.
From this, we can be motivated to build a morality and act in a moral way.

Even in the absence of compassion / empathy,
we can recognize the utility of acting in accord with societal ethics.
Not because it is thought to be a fundamental truth of existence,
but because we decide it is in our interest to do so.

When we have common goals,
we can develop agreed upon norms.
Differentiate between that which supports or hinders our goals.
Evaluate and apply values to things, relative to their affect on our goal realization.

This is not nothing.
It is a tool that provides utility.
A very fulfilling one -
fulfillment being a typically rewarding/preferred experience.

Morality is a construct.
A useful construct.
It is not fake.

Language is a construct.
A useful construct.
It is not fake.

Neither morality nor language are an inherent aspect of reality.
Each are constructed and their meanings created,
as a means to express the will of the one utilizing them.

===

But no, agora.
I'm not going to be dragged into an argument with you.
Especially when you have no established reputation as a genuine account,
and not someone seeking to sew division.

You started the thread with a logical fallacy.
When demonstrated, you shifted the discussion to your own irrelevant beliefs.
Provided a deceptive definition, then waffled on about on people who identified as mystics.

The achievements of a person, are not evidence for the contents of their beliefs.
Another fallacy.

Not biting.

Morality's roots aren't religious.

Be better next time.

[Skepdick]

Morality's roots aren't religious.

Morality's roots are undecidable. Therefore any assertion on the matter is wrong.

The theists are wrong.
The atheists are wrong.
The anti-theists are wrong.

You are all immoral fucking idiots for getting bogged down in abstract/meta-moral nonsense; at the expense of actual moral practice.

The entire field is quite literally abracadabra - as you speak, so you are creating. A made up story about morality. Whether the narrative moves anyone is entirely audience-dependent.

[Immanuel Can]

Ignoring me and justifying the soundness of your deduction aren't mutually exclusive.

Get on with it.

Yeah, right.

So far you are demonstrating failure at both ignoring me...

I'm now merely amusing myself. I have no intention of doing any more serious business with anybody so unserious.

[Skepdick]

Yeah, right.

So far you are demonstrating failure at both ignoring me...

I'm now merely amusing myself. I have no intention of doing any more serious business with anybody so unserious.

My "unseriousness" is why you can't justify the soundness of your deduction?

Do you have a better excuse?

[Immanuel Can]

So far you are demonstrating failure at both ignoring me...

I'm now merely amusing myself. I have no intention of doing any more serious business with anybody so unserious.

My "unseriousness" is why you can't justify the soundness of your deduction?

If you'd paid attention, you'd already know I provided the justification to somebody else. But you're asleep at the switch.

Keep dozing.