Christianity

[MikeNovack]

But man is also now fallen and alienated from God. He knows, for the first time, what good and evil really are; but he’s chosen evil. And consequently, as Romans says, he’s warped his moral awareness as well.

No, I don't have to go there. Granting you all you can get from your definition of god and the sacred text is one thing. While true over Christian history some sects and heresies have taken the "man is essentially evil"position, never a majority position. No difficulty finding plenty of Christian philosophers arguing against "man is essentially evil". So you can't use that add on to back the claim secular morality is impossible.

NOTE: "essentially evil" is NOT the same as "not without sin".

[Alexis Jacobi]

But Secularism doesn’t do any of that. It has no opinions about God, man’s condition, sins, salvation, Heaven or Hell. It just consists in refusing to believe any of that. But in so doing, it strip-mines the possibility of any values or meaning in life. So Secular man almost always finds it necessary to embrace a supplementary ideology to fill the void Secularism creates — and this can be anything from Solipsism to Socialism to Satanism. Whatever it is, it will likely be embraced enthusiastically, though, and treated as the salvation of Secularism from the dread of anomie.

Sorry you asked, yet?

You are either dishonest or you are not thinking things through sufficiently. What you really want to say is that the dread Secularist does not believe in your fanatical and supposed version of metaphysical reality. (The version you suppose is “true” in an absolute sense). You are a rather classic, close-minded hard-core believer in a unique Christian interpretation of the world, and what you advocate for is a theocratic-like revolution in culture which will, again and perhaps like it might have been in the past, understand “sin” as you do; believe literally and not metaphorically in The Fall, the reality of Adam & Eve in a Garden, and take as literal fact every story in Genesis as representing actual history.

You say that if they or I or any of us here drawn to this lengthy debate, do not accept all that as Literal Truth, that we are “secularists” as well, and therefore doomed to spend our eternities in Hell.

You say that if we do not believe in those fables and stories, and a law-giving supernatural power, that we “strip-mine the possibility of any values or meaning in life”.

Yet this is totally — not partially but totally — false. It is really as simple as that, Immanuel.

I doubt that you read anything I write or consider my perspectives (or anyone else’s). How could you? Your religious fanaticism makes you into one thoroughly self-centered. My view, nevertheless, is that the structure of your metaphysics is essentially, and in many respects (not all but many) quite easily explained with greater clarity through Vedanta. I mean by that the extraction of the metaphysical principles from The Story.

That would be — could be — the only way that you could reach and communicate with your intended audience, and the only means by which the core principles could be made intelligible to those you pretend you want to reach. And frankly to convert.

I will be sending down glorious knowledge tid-bits quite soon. Patience!

[Immanuel Can]

It's a valid deductive argument. You can disagree with the premises if you want, but I can disagree with yours, too. Fair enough?

Actually, it’s not. Neither in form nor in content. But I can show you the form, even if I can’t help you with the content. It should go:

P1: IF X, then Y.
P2: X,
C: Therefore, Y.

So it would go something like:

P1: If a moral axiom can be produced that is premised on Secularism alone, Secularism can ground morality.
P2: I can produce at least one moral axiom premised on Secularism.
C: Therefore, Secularism can ground morality.

That would be a valid argument, in that the form would be correct, even if the content remained untrue. (In philosophy, “valid refers only to form, not to content). But it would never be either true (content correct) or sound (meaning both valid and true), because P2 is false, as we have seen already. However, that example will at least show you what the right form would look like.

Modus ponens, what I used is considered a valid argument. What you are contesting are the premises; you're saying it's not a sound argument. However, it is a valid argument. Look it up yourself.

Sorry, Gary…you’re just wrong. Look it up, indeed.

The form of modus ponens is exactly as I have given it. And it’s governed by the rule that hypotheticals cannot issue in a firm conclusion unless one is able to affirm the hypothetical condition, and to do it in the second premise.

You cannot affirm that there is a link between Secularism and any moral precept, just as you have already confessed. So you can’t have that necessary second premise, and can’t conclude what you wish to conclude.

[Immanuel Can]

God is love . What does that mean to you?

Many things. Among them, that God is too loving to allow sinners to die in darkness. But also that He is too loving to force them to obedience. He’s also too loving to wink at evil. And He’s too loving to allow injustice to prevail.

Is your conception of love as specific as that in the Bible? Or does it begin and end with the sort of mushy emotion that allows evil to flourish, and will accept anything, just so it has to sacrifice nothing?

[Immanuel Can]

But man is also now fallen and alienated from God. He knows, for the first time, what good and evil really are; but he’s chosen evil. And consequently, as Romans says, he’s warped his moral awareness as well.

No, I don't have to go there.

“There”? Where are we “going”?

Granting you all you can get from your definition of god and the sacred text is one thing. While true over Christian history some sects and heresies have taken the "man is essentially evil” position, never a majority position.

Au contraire: the sinful nature of man is one of the universal basics among Christians.

No difficulty finding plenty of Christian philosophers arguing against "man is essentially evil".

I’d be interested in seeing whom you have in mind.

So you can't use that add on to back the claim secular morality is impossible.

I don’t. All I have to do is to understand Secularism on its own terms, and I can show that that is the case. I need no reference at all to Christianity or to any other “religion.” Secularism fails on its own two feet.

Test it. Ask yourself for one precept or axiom that Secularism requires of us. If you can’t find one, then the conclusion is obvious, regardless of anything any other system of thought can or cannot do.

[Immanuel Can]

But Secularism doesn’t do any of that. It has no opinions about God, man’s condition, sins, salvation, Heaven or Hell. It just consists in refusing to believe any of that. But in so doing, it strip-mines the possibility of any values or meaning in life. So Secular man almost always finds it necessary to embrace a supplementary ideology to fill the void Secularism creates — and this can be anything from Solipsism to Socialism to Satanism. Whatever it is, it will likely be embraced enthusiastically, though, and treated as the salvation of Secularism from the dread of anomie.

Sorry you asked, yet?

What you really want to say is that the dread Secularist does not believe in your fanatical and supposed version of metaphysical reality.

No. All I really want to say is exactly what I’ve said. All you have to do is read the words, and you know that.

Secularism fails on its own terms. And those who try to save it from anomie are forced to accept some other ideology to supply the sort of moral compass that Secularism itself simply does not have.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No, Immanuel, what I have expressed is exact and clear truth. In fact, my summary or encapsulation will help anyone else reading here to understand precisely what you are up to: i.e. the background of your views (metaphysical predicates) and therefore why you have immense issues with this Secularist.

In my way of seeing and understanding things — I also operate from my grasp of ‘metaphysical reality’ except mine is not tied to a fantasized pseudo-history as yours is — I can discern the metaphysical elements that motivate you very much and in fact I sympathize (intellectually) with them. Not only in regard to your peculiar brand of fanatical belief, but also with Christianity Lite, with Catholic metaphysics, and of course with other metaphysical religions.

In order to understand what is going on in our cultural struggles is it imperative to understand that what people are grasping after is metaphysical foundations. They turn back, quite naturally, to the Foundations they discover in their own traditions. Or, they jump to different, more satisfying ones.

The science perspective and any level of understanding of Nature (where no intelligible metaphysics operate nor can be discovered) does not, cannot, provide any metaphysical grounding.

And in this sense you are in numerous senses right about the secular orientation: it rejects metaphysics because metaphysical principles are non-intelligible within its system.

I think there is really more here though. I took the liberty of extracting $1,599.00 from your bank account and will soon expound more fully on metaphysical principles.

I simply ask that you be patient!

You are perfect for all this!

Secularism fails on its own terms. And those who try to save it from anomie are forced to accept some other ideology to supply the sort of moral compass that Secularism itself simply does not have.

Excellent! You are already incorporating a correction. You are less frozen than I’d imagined. Good for you.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Test it. Ask yourself for one precept or axiom that Secularism requires of us. If you can’t find one, then the conclusion is obvious, regardless of anything any other system of thought can or cannot do.

Well, here is sort of one. This seems to me to be one major Axiom, stated or not, of dreaded Secularism:

That “we” disassociate ourselves from unprovable and dictatorial Commands made by a supposed God-Authority that does not ever, at any point, intervene and show himself and express his will, and also disassociate ourselves from those fanatics who demand that we bend a knee to what they say they have bowed to …

… and that we deal with our moral codes, our ethics and moralities, our senses of right and wrong and also of evil, strictly within the confines of “what is”, not an ancient picture-system more proper to children’s story books.

(I extracted an additional $99.00 for that. But you understand of course).

[Immanuel Can]

Test it. Ask yourself for one precept or axiom that Secularism requires of us. If you can’t find one, then the conclusion is obvious, regardless of anything any other system of thought can or cannot do.

Well, here is sort of one. This seems to me to be one major Axiom, stated or not, of dreaded Secularism:

That “we” disassociate ourselves from unprovable and dictatorial Commands made by a supposed God-Authority that does not ever, at any point, intervene and show himself and express his will, and also disassociate ourselves from those fanatics who demand that we bend a knee to what they say they have bowed to …

I don’t think that Secularism requires of you any such thing. Would it be “unsecular” of you to take on a quasi-religious ideology like Socialism, or even to join a cult? How about becoming a Humanist, and imagining that the human race has god-like potential it has not yet realized? Would Secularism forbid you from any of those alternatives? What about becoming an Atheist? That’s a faith-position, since it’s totally non-evidentiary. Would Secularism allow you to be an Atheist? Or only an agnostic? But it couldn’t be an agnostic, could it; that would readmit the possibility of an objective truth, and Secularism can’t have that.

I don’t think it does prescribe anything in the moral realm. I think all it implies is that one already denies the authority of God in matters of morals or justice. And I don’t see that it imposes that as a moral duty, but rather operates descriptively, not prescriptively. “Secular” is what one is already identifiable as, when one already ignores God; it’s not something that one has to rise to, or that comes with duties, deontology and prescriptions. It really doesn’t positively tell you to do anything at all.

But if you think it does, I’m ready to see your rationale.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Oh it does, trust me on this one.

[Immanuel Can]

Oh it does, trust me on this one.

Yeah…you haven’t proved exactly trustworthy. I’ll take the evidence/rationale/logic if you’ve got any of those.

But you’re a subjectivist, too, aren’t you? So whatever axiom you come up with, you can’t believe it’s objectively obligatory. If it were, there would be one objective moral axiom or duty, and Subjectivism would thus be falsified.

So…I’m not holding my breath in believing you have anything at all. It looks obviously self-contradictory even to say you do. It certainly would ruin your Subjectivism.

[Gary Childress]

Actually, it’s not. Neither in form nor in content. But I can show you the form, even if I can’t help you with the content. It should go:

P1: IF X, then Y.
P2: X,
C: Therefore, Y.

So it would go something like:

P1: If a moral axiom can be produced that is premised on Secularism alone, Secularism can ground morality.
P2: I can produce at least one moral axiom premised on Secularism.
C: Therefore, Secularism can ground morality.

That would be a valid argument, in that the form would be correct, even if the content remained untrue. (In philosophy, “valid refers only to form, not to content). But it would never be either true (content correct) or sound (meaning both valid and true), because P2 is false, as we have seen already. However, that example will at least show you what the right form would look like.

Modus ponens, what I used is considered a valid argument. What you are contesting are the premises; you're saying it's not a sound argument. However, it is a valid argument. Look it up yourself.

Sorry, Gary…you’re just wrong. Look it up, indeed.

The form of modus ponens is exactly as I have given it. And it’s governed by the rule that hypotheticals cannot issue in a firm conclusion unless one is able to affirm the hypothetical condition, and to do it in the second premise.

You cannot affirm that there is a link between Secularism and any moral precept, just as you have already confessed. So you can’t have that necessary second premise, and can’t conclude what you wish to conclude.

I affirmed both hypothetical conditions.

Here's ChatGPT's summary.

https://chatgpt.com/share/688b9b27-1e34 ... 624bc66f26

[Immanuel Can]

Modus ponens, what I used is considered a valid argument. What you are contesting are the premises; you're saying it's not a sound argument. However, it is a valid argument. Look it up yourself.

Sorry, Gary…you’re just wrong. Look it up, indeed.

The form of modus ponens is exactly as I have given it. And it’s governed by the rule that hypotheticals cannot issue in a firm conclusion unless one is able to affirm the hypothetical condition, and to do it in the second premise.

You cannot affirm that there is a link between Secularism and any moral precept, just as you have already confessed. So you can’t have that necessary second premise, and can’t conclude what you wish to conclude.

I affirmed both hypothetical conditions.

But without reason. And erroneously. For it is not the case at all that there’s some connection between “flourishing” and moral goodness that you bothered to identify. We don’t even know what “flourishing” refers to, since there are so many different views of what one needs in order to “flourish,” and what a “flourishing” person is like.

So you don’t get that second premise handed to you just because you claimed or “affirmed” it. You need to justify it, if you expect anybody to believe it. Otherwise, it’s just gratuitous.

As for ChatGPT, I find it’s for people who have outsourced their brains to AI, and don’t even know the fallacies they’re spilling out as a result. If you can’t explain it yourself, and need ChatGPT to make up something for you, it’s already an admission of failure. But I think you can think for yourself.

[Gary Childress]

Sorry, Gary…you’re just wrong. Look it up, indeed.

The form of modus ponens is exactly as I have given it. And it’s governed by the rule that hypotheticals cannot issue in a firm conclusion unless one is able to affirm the hypothetical condition, and to do it in the second premise.

You cannot affirm that there is a link between Secularism and any moral precept, just as you have already confessed. So you can’t have that necessary second premise, and can’t conclude what you wish to conclude.

I affirmed both hypothetical conditions.

But without reason. And erroneously. For it is not the case at all that there’s some connection between “flourishing” and moral goodness that you bothered to identify. We don’t even know what “flourishing” refers to, since there are so many different views of what one needs in order to “flourish,” and what a “flourishing” person is like.

So you don’t get that second premise handed to you just because you claimed or “affirmed” it. You need to justify it, if you expect anybody to believe it. Otherwise, it’s just gratuitous.

As for ChatGPT, I find it’s for people who have outsourced their brains to AI, and don’t even know the fallacies they’re spilling out as a result. If you can’t explain it yourself, and need ChatGPT to make up something for you, it’s already an admission of failure. But I think you can think for yourself.

As I stated, you can't deny it's valid, however, your complaint is that it's not sound, which I acknowledge you can do. Premises are always subject to scrutiny even in a valid argument. I said the same of your argument. Unfortunately, I'm not as fanatical as you are about your argument, so I'm not going to defend my premises any further and neither will I defend yours. I'm agnostic. As far as I'm concerned, there are valid arguments to be made in both directions and it's not clear to me that one is more sound than the other. Sorry.

[Immanuel Can]

I affirmed both hypothetical conditions.

But without reason. And erroneously. For it is not the case at all that there’s some connection between “flourishing” and moral goodness that you bothered to identify. We don’t even know what “flourishing” refers to, since there are so many different views of what one needs in order to “flourish,” and what a “flourishing” person is like.

So you don’t get that second premise handed to you just because you claimed or “affirmed” it. You need to justify it, if you expect anybody to believe it. Otherwise, it’s just gratuitous.

As for ChatGPT, I find it’s for people who have outsourced their brains to AI, and don’t even know the fallacies they’re spilling out as a result. If you can’t explain it yourself, and need ChatGPT to make up something for you, it’s already an admission of failure. But I think you can think for yourself.

As I stated, you can't deny it's valid,

I did. Because it is. It didn’t have the correct form. But I supplied you with it, and if you looked it up in a reputable source, you know I’m right.

however, your complaint is that it's not sound, which I acknowledge you can do.

Well, that too.