Christianity

[Gary Childress]

But so what? Maybe you’re one of those (blessedly) inconsistent people who professes secularism, but still hopes to be a good person anyway, so doesn’t follow though logically on his own worldview. I can hope you are.

But who says it’s wrong for you to make other people suffer, particularly when it advantages you? Secularism doesn’t tell you that’s wrong. It doesn’t tell you it’s right. It doesn’t tell you anything at all.

It does follow logically.

What’s the “it” in your sentence? Certainly the conclusion is logically verifiable. Even you were unable to suggest one moral precept entailed from Secularism.

NOTHING about morality “follows logically” from Secularism. You just admitted as much.

Morality is not based on secularism. Morality is a tool for objectively improving the world for all of us. It's separate from both religion and secularism.

[Immanuel Can]

Morality is not based on secularism.

It can’t be, of course. Secularism has nothing to tell us about morality.

Morality is a tool for objectively improving the world for all of us.

Who gets to define what is an “improvement”?

[Gary Childress]

Morality is not based on secularism.

It can’t be, of course. Secularism has nothing to tell us about morality.

Morality is a tool for objectively improving the world for all of us.

Who gets to define what is an “improvement”?

Morality is defined by everyone and mediated or negotiated through the public sphere. If I want to live in peace from my neighbor then I have to ensure that my neighbor has reason to think he will get peace from me.

[Immanuel Can]

Morality is not based on secularism.

It can’t be, of course. Secularism has nothing to tell us about morality.

Morality is a tool for objectively improving the world for all of us.

Who gets to define what is an “improvement”?

Morality is defined by everyone and mediated or negotiated through the public sphere.

Like it was in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, you mean?

[Gary Childress]

It can’t be, of course. Secularism has nothing to tell us about morality.
Who gets to define what is an “improvement”?

Morality is defined by everyone and mediated or negotiated through the public sphere.

Like it was in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, you mean?

No. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were failed states. Nazism embodied tribalism to the extreme and the Soviet Union embodied totalitarianism to the extreme. It seems pretty clear that neither of those states were successful historical experiments. Wouldn't you agree.

[Alexiev]

Morality is not based on secularism.

It can’t be, of course. Secularism has nothing to tell us about morality.

Morality is a tool for objectively improving the world for all of us.

Who gets to define what is an “improvement”?

I do, obviously.

Of course "secularism" (per se) has nothing to tell us about morality. Same with "deism". That neither means nor suggests that agnostics and atheiats cannot have moral codes, just as we cannot infer that deists do not have moral codes.

[Immanuel Can]

Morality is defined by everyone and mediated or negotiated through the public sphere.

Like it was in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, you mean?

No. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were failed states.

There’s no such thing, if we start with Secularism.

Secularism has no opinion on what outcomes are appropriate, either morally or pragmatically. History just goes where it goes. There’s no right or wrong to it — at least, none we can discern from Secularism. Both states killed millions and crashed their economies: was that “bad”? Not according to Secularism, because Secularism has no opinion about what outcomes are right. It doesn’t promise human beings success on their terms, does it?

This is the point. Secularism provides no criteria for morality, or rightness, or success, or outcomes...

[Immanuel Can]

Morality is not based on secularism.

It can’t be, of course. Secularism has nothing to tell us about morality.

Morality is a tool for objectively improving the world for all of us.

Who gets to define what is an “improvement”?

I do, obviously.

Of course "secularism" (per se) has nothing to tell us about morality. Same with "deism". That neither means nor suggests that agnostics and atheiats cannot have moral codes, just as we cannot infer that deists do not have moral codes.

Actually, I agree with you. Both can choose to adopt or not to adopt moral codes. But they can’t justify either choice from Secularism. Secularism has no moral views to offer.

[Gary Childress]

Like it was in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, you mean?

No. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were failed states.

There’s no such thing, if we start with Secularism.

Secularism has no opinion on what outcomes are appropriate, either morally or pragmatically. History just goes where it goes. There’s no right or wrong to it — at least, none we can discern from Secularism. Both states killed millions and crashed their economies: was that “bad”? Not according to Secularism, because Secularism has no opinion about what outcomes are right. It doesn’t promise human beings success on their terms, does it?

This is the point. Secularism provides no criteria for morality, or rightness, or success, or outcomes...

As I stated, morality is based neither on secularism nor on theism. That should be coming into clarity by now. Secularism cannot claim to be the basis for morality no more than theism can. A secularist can't claim that theists are necessarily immoral any more than a theist can claim that of a secularist. Both can can be morally mistaken.

Morality is not the same thing as "God says." As demonstrated by many religious texts we can tell the difference between an immoral commandment by God and a moral one. If "God says", were truly the basis for morality then we mortals would just follow holy books and never think twice about their content.

Nazism and Stalinism are failed states because they both engaged in fundamentally immoral behavior that ended badly for both of them and everyone who dealt with them. That's objective evidence that morality matters.

[Alexiev]

It can’t be, of course. Secularism has nothing to tell us about morality.
Who gets to define what is an “improvement”?

I do, obviously.

Of course "secularism" (per se) has nothing to tell us about morality. Same with "deism". That neither means nor suggests that agnostics and atheiats cannot have moral codes, just as we cannot infer that deists do not have moral codes.

Actually, I agree with you. Both can choose to adopt or not to adopt moral codes. But they can’t justify either choice from Secularism. Secularism has no moral views to offer.

Deism offers no moral codes also. Specific religions and specific secular ideologies do though. Christianity does. So does Marxism ("From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."). A preference for one over the other is subjective.

By the way, since all laws are coersive and violent, and coersive violence is ipso facto a bad (or at least imperfect) thing, utopla must be an anarchy. If God is King, and His word is law, that rules out the Christian heaven.

[Immanuel Can]

No. Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were failed states.

There’s no such thing, if we start with Secularism.

Secularism has no opinion on what outcomes are appropriate, either morally or pragmatically. History just goes where it goes. There’s no right or wrong to it — at least, none we can discern from Secularism. Both states killed millions and crashed their economies: was that “bad”? Not according to Secularism, because Secularism has no opinion about what outcomes are right. It doesn’t promise human beings success on their terms, does it?

This is the point. Secularism provides no criteria for morality, or rightness, or success, or outcomes...

As I stated, morality is based neither on secularism nor on theism.

Well, at least we can see for sure it’s not based on Secularism. Even you have already recognized that.

But let’s say you’re right: let’s say no other system or ideology can ground morality either. If that were so, how would it allow morality to exist? There would be no grounds for it anywhere. How is that an improvement on the world-picture that Secularism paints for us? And how can it let us recommend Secularism itself, since no belief system is objectively right or wrong?

Both can can be morally mistaken.

Secularism says that’s impossible. Nobody can be “mistaken” about a thing which simply does not exist outside the subjective delusions of some individuals’ minds. Whatever they think, however outrageous we may feel it is, is just as unreal as what every body else thinks. The outrage is unjustifiable, therefore.

As demonstrated by many religious texts...

What has “many” got to do with the truth? There are many wrong answers to many questions. It doesn’t ever imply there’s no right answer.

we can tell the difference between an immoral commandment by God and a moral one.

How do you do that? I mean, how do you, personally, manage this business of ferreting out the truth among all these texts you mention? I’m curious.

Nazism and Stalinism are failed states because they both engaged in fundamentally immoral behavior

Not according to Secularism. It has no judgment for them.

...that ended badly for both of them and everyone who dealt with them.

So? Secularism has no view of that, either. Let states rise and fall, Secularism has no particular advice to offer, and no assessment of whether that was right or wrong.

You’re thrashing about in a moral vacuum, if you rely on Secularism. It has no help for you in justifying these judgments you’re making.

[Gary Childress]

There’s no such thing, if we start with Secularism.

Secularism has no opinion on what outcomes are appropriate, either morally or pragmatically. History just goes where it goes. There’s no right or wrong to it — at least, none we can discern from Secularism. Both states killed millions and crashed their economies: was that “bad”? Not according to Secularism, because Secularism has no opinion about what outcomes are right. It doesn’t promise human beings success on their terms, does it?

This is the point. Secularism provides no criteria for morality, or rightness, or success, or outcomes...

As I stated, morality is based neither on secularism nor on theism.

Well, at least we can see for sure it’s not based on Secularism. Even you have already recognized that.

But let’s say you’re right: let’s say no other system or ideology can ground morality either. If that were so, how would it allow morality to exist? There would be no grounds for it anywhere. How is that an improvement on the world-picture that Secularism paints for us? And how can it let us recommend Secularism itself, since no belief system is objectively right or wrong?

Both can can be morally mistaken.

Secularism says that’s impossible. Nobody can be “mistaken” about a thing which simply does not exist outside the subjective delusions of some individuals’ minds. Whatever they think, however outrageous we may feel it is, is just as unreal as what every body else thinks. The outrage is unjustifiable, therefore.

As demonstrated by many religious texts...

What has “many” got to do with the truth? There are many wrong answers to many questions. It doesn’t ever imply there’s no right answer.

we can tell the difference between an immoral commandment by God and a moral one.

How do you do that? I mean, how do you, personally, manage this business of ferreting out the truth among all these texts you mention? I’m curious.

Nazism and Stalinism are failed states because they both engaged in fundamentally immoral behavior

Not according to Secularism. It has no judgment for them.

...that ended badly for both of them and everyone who dealt with them.

So? Secularism has no view of that, either. Let states rise and fall, Secularism has no particular advice to offer, and no assessment of whether that was right or wrong.

You’re thrashing about in a moral vacuum, if you rely on Secularism. It has no help for you in justifying these judgments you’re making.

People know the difference between what is right and what is wrong and must work that out between each other and that is difficult to do in a totalitarian society or one that gives special privileges to some members over others. That's the way morality has always worked in the world. There are no absolute, 100% infalible or correct moral axioms. Even the 10 commandments cannot give us pefect commandments that don't have exceptions. All moral rules sometimes conflict and have exceptions. It's something that needs to be negotiated and history and practical results give us the data to make judgements for those negotiations.

If God gave us "thou shalt not murder" then, as evidenced by wars and other such problems, he didn't do a very good job of creating a world in which that rule could always be observed. There are many such dilemmas in morality.

[Immanuel Can]

People know the difference between what is right and what is wrong and must work that out between each other and that is difficult to do in a totalitarian society or one that gives special privileges to some members over others.

Wait. What part of Secularism gives you warrant to assume that totalitarianism is “wrong”?

There are no absolute, 100% infalible or correct moral axioms.

And your basis for this conclusion is…?

All moral rules have exceptions and it's something that needs to be negotiated and history and practical results give us the data to make judgements for those negotiations.

But there are no criteria in Secularism for making such “judgments” and “negotiations.” It doesn’t tell us what to “negotiate,” or how to “judge” what is better or worse.

If God gave us "thou shalt not murder" then, as evidenced by wars and other such problems, he didn't do a very good job of creating a world in which that rule could always be observed.

That’s the problem with man. He doesn’t live up to moral standards…not even his own, in many cases. And this is the attraction of Secularism/subjectivism: it lets him tell himself he’s always right, merely by dint of the fact that he’s doing what he wants to do.

Unfortunately, it also robs him of all rational knowledge of morality. That’s a tough exchange.

[Immanuel Can]

I do, obviously.

Of course "secularism" (per se) has nothing to tell us about morality. Same with "deism". That neither means nor suggests that agnostics and atheiats cannot have moral codes, just as we cannot infer that deists do not have moral codes.

Actually, I agree with you. Both can choose to adopt or not to adopt moral codes. But they can’t justify either choice from Secularism. Secularism has no moral views to offer.

Deism offers no moral codes also.

This is true. Deism believes in an “absentee landlord” kind of god, who has long ago departed this scene.

Specific religions and specific secular ideologies do though. Christianity does. So does Marxism ("From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."). A preference for one over the other is subjective.

Yes, they do. But what warrant do they have? When we look at a guy like Marx, in particular, why would we believe him? What are his credentials for presenting himself as a moral authority for us? They certainly aren’t found in his personal life, so what basis does he have?

If subjectively, one likes Marx or Stalin so much that he kills a thousand Kulaks, does that mean what he did was right? After all, he chose it, on the basis of his subjective preferences...

By the way, since all laws are coersive and violent,

Oh, that’s a bit unfair. Some laws, in fact, are anti-violent. Thou shalt not murder comes to mind: how can “not murdering” be construed as “violent”?

But perhaps you mean that all man’s laws are enforced by the use of power. That would be true enough.

[Gary Childress]

People know the difference between what is right and what is wrong and must work that out between each other and that is difficult to do in a totalitarian society or one that gives special privileges to some members over others.

Wait. What part of Secularism gives you warrant to assume that totalitarianism is “wrong”?

The part where many of us suffer for no good reason under a dictatorship that ignores our needs. Does a dictatorship seem right to you? Does the Bible say, "thou shalt not be a dictator" or where does a Christian come up with the idea that no one should be a dictator?

There are no absolute, 100% infalible or correct moral axioms.

And your basis for this conclusion is…?

The fact that my freedom to wave my fist ends where your nose begins. My freedom of speech ends where I would use it to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater where there is no fire. My right to life ends if I have kidney failure and decide to chop someone's kidneys out of their stomach involuntarily for a transplant. My right to self-defense ends where I would use a nuclear weapon to obliterate an enemy and end up killing everyone for miles around. Do you not agree that moral axioms have limits at which point they are no longer perfect guides?

All moral rules have exceptions and it's something that needs to be negotiated and history and practical results give us the data to make judgements for those negotiations.

But there are no criteria in Secularism for making such “judgments” and “negotiations.” It doesn’t tell us what to “negotiate,” or how to “judge” what is better or worse.

Secularism isn't a religion and makes no claim either for or against morality. However, as I've shown life is still more beneficial for all where all observe moral rules.

That’s the problem with man. He doesn’t live up to moral standards…not even his own, in many cases. And this is the attraction of Secularism/subjectivism: it lets him tell himself he’s always right, merely by dint of the fact that he’s doing what he wants to do.

Unfortunately, it also robs him of all rational knowledge of morality. That’s a tough exchange.

What is your evidence that morality wouldn't exist without God? Would people suddenly not feel pain anymore? Would people just stand by and let someone else murder them or steal their possessions if there were no God? There are real-life consequences to observing or not observing moral codes. We all live better in societies with the right rules in them. The right rules are arrived at through logic or trial and error telling us what the results would be.