Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

But let us assume the opposite: can you provide even one moral precept that a secular person is morally obligated to follow? Just one. Only one. Whatever you want.

First, am I that “secular person”?

I have no idea. That’s for you to decide. Confine the case to ANY secular person.

[accelafine]

Doesn't matter when I login, this stupid boring thread is at the top of 'active topics'. Isn't there a religion forum somewhere that you can post your crap? Religion isn't philosoophy. It's the opposite. After 4 years and 1209 pages isn't it time it was locked?

[MikeNovack]

It is true, however, that if there is no Authority with the power to decide on such matters, and to punish those who violate the Law, that it will have to be decided by men themselves. How? By processes of reasoning and discussion and the establishment of laws. And laws that have consequences.

Laws without justification are just tyranny. It’s just power being used to force things to happen or not happen, but no question of moral rightness is being settled at all. In other words, there’s no morality being asserted — just power.

Unless you can answer the question. Have you got one precept, just one, that every secular person is morally obligated to follow? Can you suggest anything at all?

If you can’t, then I think even you have to concede that secularism is morally bankrupt — in the sense that it has nothing to tell us about good or evil.
[/quote]

Immanuel, if you think that basing morality on a religion makes it objectively true, you re missing part of what relative means. This is true even if your religion, as it does, includes claiming to be the only true valid religion.That claim doesn't make it so.

You do understand, I hope, that I do not share your religion. Its truths aren't my truths, and this difference is shared by billions of other humans that are other than Christian, belong to other religions or none. That's why I am arguing that your objective truth is still relative truth, true for you but not necessarily true for me or any of the other non-Christians.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, this isn’t for me. It only happens if one is a moral subjectivist, or if one insists that secular society can generate legitimate, objective morals just by wanting to. But it’s the real and central problem of secular morality.

I think I have been clear, circumspect, rational and balanced in describing my position.

I honestly feel — i.e. it seems rational to me — that if one presents God as the genuine arbiter of morals, this can only function if that authority actually intervenes in instances where the moral code is violated.

The God you refer to, in this specific sense, always remains outside and beyond the practice of morality. It is only you (i.e. some human actor) who makes declarations about punishments, retributive justice, etc.

The entire population of the Earth is clearly ‘moral subjectivist’ in practice. That seems factual to me.

And it is quite possible for thoughtful people (human authority) to define moral values.

Easy-peasy.

And in no sense would I assert that the generation by humans in culture of moral systems is not problematic! It would be lovely if there were a manifest metaphysical and supernatural authority that acted as judge and authority. But that Authority is silent.

In lieu of such a Judge, man rises to the occasion.

I see no other alternative: one way or another men will make the decisions.

[Immanuel Can]

It is true, however, that if there is no Authority with the power to decide on such matters, and to punish those who violate the Law, that it will have to be decided by men themselves. How? By processes of reasoning and discussion and the establishment of laws. And laws that have consequences.

Laws without justification are just tyranny. It’s just power being used to force things to happen or not happen, but no question of moral rightness is being settled at all. In other words, there’s no morality being asserted — just power.

Unless you can answer the question. Have you got one precept, just one, that every secular person is morally obligated to follow? Can you suggest anything at all?

If you can’t, then I think even you have to concede that secularism is morally bankrupt — in the sense that it has nothing to tell us about good or evil.

Immanuel, if you think that basing morality on a religion makes it objectively true,...

Not on “a religion.” There are many types of “religion” that couldn’t do it, anymore than secularism could.

But that’s my point. Whoever could or couldn’t do it, secularism is a “couldn’t.” And even if we suppose nobody else could either, that would not help secularism to do it, or make the problem less serious for secularism. In fact, it would make it worse for everyone: it would mean that Moral Nihilism is reality.

So secularism can extinguish morality; it can’t justify any. “Relative truth” is an impossibility. If it’s “relative,” then, by definition, it is not attended with any corresponding objective reality. And truth always refers to reality.

You do understand, I hope, that I do not share your religion.

I was not assuming, either way. Shall I accept your word that your view is secular, then?

[Alexis Jacobi]

[*]

But let us assume the opposite: can you provide even one moral precept that a secular person is morally obligated to follow? Just one. Only one. Whatever you want.

First, am I that “secular person”?

I have no idea. That’s for you to decide. Confine the case to ANY secular person.

I meant, obviously, that I do not see my personal stance as classically secularist.

I am not closed to the notion of metaphysical moral authority. And in fact I recognize Christian philosophers and theologians as doing tremendously relevant ethical work in the domains of existential morality.

[Immanuel Can]

No, this isn’t for me. It only happens if one is a moral subjectivist, or if one insists that secular society can generate legitimate, objective morals just by wanting to. But it’s the real and central problem of secular morality.

I think I have been clear, circumspect, rational and balanced in describing my position.

But you were unable to answer my question. That much is abundantly clear. If you could have, you would have: and you’d have taken the easy win. But you couldn’t.

In other words, you and I both now know that there is not even one single moral axiom that secularism can assert. So secular moralizing (or “relativism”) is a fake. It’s actually just Nihilism. And then we have to admit that secularism cannot teach us one thing about morality.

[Immanuel Can]

[*]

First, am I that “secular person”?

I have no idea. That’s for you to decide. Confine the case to ANY secular person.

I meant, obviously, that I do not see my personal stance as classically secularist.

It doesn’t matter. You could be a Rastafarian or a Solar Temple disciple, and I could ask you exactly the same question. It’s about secularism, not about Rastafarianism or the Solar Temple, or anything else that you see yourself as being. It’s about secularism.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But you were unable to answer my question.

When you pull the “answer my question now” shtick it merely arouses my contempt, Immanuel.

I speak in relation to the questions, as I understand them, as I see fit.

Do you remember Dick Cavett’s spirited response to Norman Mailer in that classic clip from so many decades ago? Shall I dig it up for you?

[Alexis Jacobi]

In other words, you and I both now know that there is not even one single moral axiom that secularism can assert. So secular moralizing (or “relativism”) is a fake. It’s actually just Nihilism. And then we have to admit that secularism cannot teach us one thing about morality.

It is true that secular (human) authority can only make moral declarations based in arrays of means of arriving at those convulsions.

Check!

They can, however, assert many moral maxims.

Oops!

Their efforts may be “fake” in your eyes. I grant that. But as real as anything else in fact.

Nihilism is an actual condition, possibly resulting from the collapse of a belief in a specific moral giver. I grant this.

But moral incertitude, or the ideas or views I present, do not qualify as nihilistic.

Overall you get a D- today Immanuel. Get some sleep, dawg. Tomorrow is another day!

[Immanuel Can]

But you were unable to answer my question.

When you pull the “answer my question now” shtick it merely arouses my contempt, Immanuel.

You’re inventing words, and imagining things. All I said to you is, what’s your answer? And you have none. So you’re deflecting to criticizing mannerism.

Transparent ruse. You know I’m right. You’ll just never admit it.

[Immanuel Can]

In other words, you and I both now know that there is not even one single moral axiom that secularism can assert. So secular moralizing (or “relativism”) is a fake. It’s actually just Nihilism. And then we have to admit that secularism cannot teach us one thing about morality.

It is true that secular (human) authority can only make moral declarations based in arrays of means of arriving at those convulsions.

You mean they cannot actually make any sense of morality at all. Not so much as one axiom.

[Belinda]

[*]

I have no idea. That’s for you to decide. Confine the case to ANY secular person.

I meant, obviously, that I do not see my personal stance as classically secularist.

It doesn’t matter. You could be a Rastafarian or a Solar Temple disciple, and I could ask you exactly the same question. It’s about secularism, not about Rastafarianism or the Solar Temple, or anything else that you see yourself as being. It’s about secularism.

What does the Garden of Eden mean to you Immanuel? Do you know the words of the hymn "And Did Those Feet"?

[Alexis Jacobi]

AJ: It is true that secular (human) authority can only make moral declarations based in arrays of means of arriving at those conclusions.

IC: You mean they cannot actually make any sense of morality at all. Not so much as one axiom.

False. Since they cannot employ a Divine Authority to make decisions for them, they have to do what they can, with what they have.

It certainly seems true: absent that Authority all moral systems will become “local” and “contingent”.

They make the sense they do or can within limits.

An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Ancient Greek word ἀξίωμα (axíōma), meaning 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident'.

[Immanuel Can]

AJ: It is true that secular (human) authority can only make moral declarations based in arrays of means of arriving at those conclusions.

IC: You mean they cannot actually make any sense of morality at all. Not so much as one axiom.

False.

Prove it. Say what that axiom is.