religion and libertarianism are incompatible

[Immanuel Can]

To explain the second point, if the two of us are trying to cure a patient of cancer, and you do it by chemotherapy and radiotherapy and surgery, and I do it by killing a chicken by moonlight over a silver basin, and somehow, both of our patients survive, that doesn’t make my chicken-killing into a rational medical procedure. Yours will still be objectively right, and mine foolish, even if we got the same result. Because in your case, the procedures are producing the cure, and in my case, my killing a chicken has absolutely no causal link with the fact that my patient somehow shed the cancer.

An EXCELLENT example. Medicine.

HERE we are discussing the case where waving the chicken ALWAYS is working.

It isn’t working at all. It never did.

But we can give no rational explanation. But because we don't KNOW of a causal link, and see no rational explanation, you say we should deny causality EVEN IF IT ALWAYS WORKS.

Secularism doesn’t work at all, when it comes to morality. It has nothing to say.

Let’s take a very simple one: what is there is Secularism that would give us reason to think it intersects with any objective moral conclusion? You can pick it yourself, if you like. It could be “Thou shalt not murder,” or “Thou shalt not steal,” or “Thou shalt not cross the street against the lights”…anything you can imagine. Then try to explain how Secularism binds you morally to that axiom. And you can’t. It never works, not even once.

That is to say, in Secular moral “medicine,” the “patient” always dies; or rather, never gets to be alive, and is always stillborn.

Do you know the place of Ignaz Semmelweis in the history of medicine? Shortly BEFORE "germ theory" he observed a lower infection rate in maternity patients seen by midwives rather than doctors. He looked for some difference to account for this. He ordered his staff "wash your hands between patients and autopsies and patients. He could not give a RATIONAL reason...

But here’s the difference: there WAS a rational reason, even though he couldn’t GIVE one at the time. Ontologically, such a reason pre-existed his level of knowledge, and it was there, waiting to be discovered.

But no such parallel exists with Secular moralizing, I suggest: there’s no evidence at all that it will suddenly burst forth with an ontological revelation that it could ground a moral precept at all. And there’s every evidence it never could. That evidence is reinforced every time a person tries to make a rational link between Secular worldview assumptions and a moral axiom, and fails.

Moreover, Secularism/Subjectivism denies that any such objective moral code as might intersect with a Secular/Subjectivist ones can even exist. So it undercuts its own legs, if that argument even worked.

But it doesn’t, obviously.

If something always works, or simply works better than chance, we should assume causality.

No, because the axiom “Correspondence is not causality” still applies, of course. We don’t want to be lapsing into the causal fallacy. That would be an obvious lapse of rationality.

But even if we ignore the implied causal fallacy, we would have to say that Secularism falls at the first gate: it never “works” in the required sense. It never grounds a single moral axiom, so there’s a 0% chance we’ll find it has some intersection with an objective moral code — even if we deny Secularism/Subjectivism’s own assumption that such things simply don’t exist.

[Immanuel Can]

Secular people do not, by definition, believe Jesus Christ was anything special,
or that what He did was in any way morally meritorious.

Nor have they, by definition, any criteria by which they could ground such a judgment, even were they to want to make it. For Secularism offers nothing that would allow you to evaluate any one person as "morally better" than any other.

The first is untrue.

If it’s untrue, then that person is merely a behaving irrationally, and denying his on secularity. For somebody cannot be Secularist, and at the same time believe that there are any moral standards by which we could be obligated to judge Jesus Christ as morally exemplary. Secularism has no such standards.

A RELIGIOUS PERSON need not believe in Jesus being divine or particularly morally meritorious. Remember IC, a religious person need not be a Christian. Does not even have to be a monotheist or any sort of theist.

That’s the sense in which Christianity is not religious. And outsiders will find this hard to grasp: but one of the Christian and Biblical distinctives is to believe that salvation comes from God, not from human moral merit. So being “religious” floats no boats, in a Christian world. And being moral does not save souls, in a Christian world; rather, being moral proceeds from having been saved by God. Man never merits salvation; rather, he has to receive it first, then be transformed in his moral state.

The outcome may look the same, to outsiders especially: the “religious” person looks (by some vague standard) “moral” to him, and so, perhaps, does the devout Christian. But the outsider is unaware of the difference, because he’s judging purely by external evidence. The Christian is being moral because he’s been saved; and the religious person is merely behaving morally in the hopes that will earn him salvation. Only one of them will turn out to be right. But their external behaviour may look identical.

It is the Bible says, so pithily: “Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart."

The second is just your position that secularists cannot have a moral system.

Not one they ground in Secularism. Yes.

That doesn’t mean they couldn’t “steal” or “adopt” somebody else’s moral code. It just means they’ll never have one that is grounded in Secularism.

More strongly, you argue that they could not have one EVEN IF they could demonstrate one "that always worked correctly" (because they could not show you from where

No, I say they cannot derive anything moral from Secularism. Whether or not it’s “to your/my satisfaction” is irrelevant. I’m asserting a rational fact, not stating a personal preference. And you can see I am, if you try to assert any moral axiom on the basis of Secularism: you’ll find you can’t, and anything you try, you’ll see cannot be asserted rationally.

There is no definition secular <=> unable to make moral judgements.

Actually, there is. But you have to add an adjective: rationally-consistently Secular. Not all Secularists are rationally-consistent, of course.

A rationally-consistent Secularist is unable to make moral judgments. That’s the claim.

...the secularist would say "you've just (re)defined "morality"

Maybe he’d say that.

And I’d point out that when he uses the word “morality” he actually doesn’t know what he’s talking about, because Secularism cannot explain its relation with any such a thing as morality, so has to cause him to assume no such exists, if he were a consistent Secularist. So if there’s any truth to his claim that I’ve “defined” it wrongly, he’s been unable to “define” it at all.

How then is he ahead? He’s not. He’s worse off than the redefiner. For the redefiner might, plausibly, get some part of his definition right; but the Secularist can have no definition of it at all.

[Belinda]

Your response has nothing to do with anything I said.

Jesus of Nazareth is not peculiar to, or the property of , believers in a supernatural way of being ; Jesus of Nazareth is an icon for secular people too.

Secular people do not, by definition, believe Jesus Christ was anything special, or that what He did was in any way morally meritorious. Nor have they, by definition, any criteria by which they could ground such a judgment, even were they to want to make it. For Secularism offers nothing that would allow you to evaluate any one person as "morally better" than any other.

But I did not say Jesus Christ I said Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus of Nazareth was a part of man's past, a historical individual. Can you understand that?

[Immanuel Can]

Jesus of Nazareth is not peculiar to, or the property of , believers in a supernatural way of being ; Jesus of Nazareth is an icon for secular people too.

Secular people do not, by definition, believe Jesus Christ was anything special, or that what He did was in any way morally meritorious. Nor have they, by definition, any criteria by which they could ground such a judgment, even were they to want to make it. For Secularism offers nothing that would allow you to evaluate any one person as "morally better" than any other.

But I did not say Jesus Christ I said Jesus of Nazareth.

Exactly the same comments apply. You can't say he was anything special, from a Secular perspective, because Secularism allows no place for warrant for such an assessment. There are no moral values within the Secular worldview; so how can you imagine anybody has specially met such values?

[MikeNovack]

Let’s take a very simple one: what is there is Secularism that would give us reason to think it intersects with any objective moral conclusion? You can pick it yourself, if you like. It could be “Thou shalt not murder,” or “Thou shalt not steal,” or “Thou shalt not cross the street against the lights”…anything you can imagine. Then try to explain how Secularism binds you morally to that axiom. And you can’t. It never works, not even once.

Uh IC, if you JUST have that list of divine commands, "=thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not lie" etc. YOU don't have a link to morality either. You need something in the list like "a choice of action made according to these rules is right and a choice made against these rules is wrong". You want an "it is right to obey god". And while you claim not to be seeing the secularist having a base statement like that I have never seen a secularist try to construct a moral system without stating some basis (a secular basis).

Are you perhaps saying that you cannot imagine the secularist producing a secular basis that YOU would consider true? That's another kettle of fish.

I am still bothered by your interpretation of chicken waving, how you KNOW there is no causality. And in the case of hand washing, that it was there to be subsequently discovered. HOW DO YOU KNOW IN THE MEANTIME. By what means can you know NOW whether hand washing or chicken waving are causal. And BTW, there have been mistakes in medical theory that persisted for more than a thousand years. And in reverse, medical causalities that took thousands of years to demonstrate (some willow bark tea for your fever)

Actually, science NEVER gives a final answer. Maybe it will change its mind about what the causality is.

I will say "if X works better than chance" I have a probabilistic belief in a cause being real << how high I rate that belief depends on by how much X works better than chance >> I live without CERTAINTY about anything. But that's OK because I don't have religious beliefs that require certainty.

BUT -- a theoretical "perfect match" DOES imply causality << the probability of no causality => 0 >>

[Immanuel Can]

Let’s take a very simple one: what is there is Secularism that would give us reason to think it intersects with any objective moral conclusion? You can pick it yourself, if you like. It could be “Thou shalt not murder,” or “Thou shalt not steal,” or “Thou shalt not cross the street against the lights”…anything you can imagine. Then try to explain how Secularism binds you morally to that axiom. And you can’t. It never works, not even once.

Uh IC, if you JUST have that list of divine commands, "=thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not lie" etc. YOU don't have a link to morality either.

Well, we'll see what I have. But for the moment, it doesn't matter what I have, because it's what Secularism DOESN'T have that's the issue.

Let's assume, just for silliness sake, that it's not the 10 Commandments but the precepts of the Buddha, or the virtues of Aristotle, or whatever that articulate the supposed "one true objective morality." In fact, we could even do it if we assumed the code of the Boy Scouts or the Nazi creed. It won't matter. Secularism has nothing to offer by way of moral knowledge of any of them.

Or, show that it does, and I'll admit my error.

I am still bothered by your interpretation of chicken waving, how you KNOW there is no causality.

Then wave a chicken. I'll never stop you. But if you expect it to cure cancer...well...

But if you think I'm wrong, then again: feel free to suggest the causal link that might exist between killing a chicken by moonlight and curing cancer. I'll consider it for you. But if you can't find one, then does not your supposition that there might be such a link start to look awfully tenuous? And doesn't that objection start to look petty and irrelevant?

Actually, science NEVER gives a final answer. Maybe it will change its mind about what the causality is.

It's not "science" that you mean. It's logic. And again, if you have a better road to knowledge than logic, I'm ready to hear what it is.

In the case of the causal fallacy, I'm always reminded of an old joke.

• A woman (I won't say her colour of hair) goes to her doctor, and says, "Doctor, I have a problem: every time I drink tea, my right eye really hurts."
  
  And the Doctor says, "Well, take the spoon out of the cup."

You see, the woman's assuming that coincidence of tea and pain is causality...the tea is causing the pain. But it's not, obviously; it's the spoon she's too dumb to take out of her cup, after she's finished stirring in her sugar.

That's the causal fallacy.

I don't have religious beliefs that require certainty.

Certainty of the kind you're demanding is not available to human beings. You're correct about that. What we have is very high probability of this or that, not absolute certainty. But we must not then get silly, and imagine that there's no advantage to high probabilities over even vanishingly low ones. The chances that my killing a chicken by moonlight is effecting cancer cures is vanishingly small, you'd have to admit; but the chances that one of your chemo, your radiotherapy or your surgery are contributing something to the deliverance of the patient are much, much higher, and are scientifically warranted; because as you say, science is all about high-probability knowing, not about absolute knowing.

Human beings cannot live and move without the action of faith. They can only operate on the high probability assumptions they have, and avoid the low probability ones. But they never know for sure. All of life has to be ventured on faith.

But that doesn't mean that there isn't good and bad faith: to have faith in modern medicine is high probability (though not absolute certainty) knowledge; putting your faith in my dead chicken is vanishingly low probability faith. And it's clear to both of us which merits our trust.

[MikeNovack]

In the case of the causal fallacy, I'm always reminded of an old joke.

• A woman (I won't say her colour of hair) goes to her doctor, and says, "Doctor, I have a problem: every time I drink tea, my right eye really hurts."
  And the Doctor says, "Well, take the spoon out of the cup."

You see, the woman's assuming that coincidence of tea and pain is causality...the tea is causing the pain. But it's not, obviously; it's the spoon she's too dumb to take out of her cup, after she's finished stirring in her sugar.

That's the causal fallacy.

An EXCELLENT example, and I was not being precise.

A perfect correlation (only theoretically possible) between A and B does NOT determine that A causes B or that B causes A. Possibly BOTH are consequences of some unknown cause C. But a perfect correlation DOES imply causality is involved.

[Immanuel Can]

In the case of the causal fallacy, I'm always reminded of an old joke.

• A woman (I won't say her colour of hair) goes to her doctor, and says, "Doctor, I have a problem: every time I drink tea, my right eye really hurts."
  And the Doctor says, "Well, take the spoon out of the cup."

You see, the woman's assuming that coincidence of tea and pain is causality...the tea is causing the pain. But it's not, obviously; it's the spoon she's too dumb to take out of her cup, after she's finished stirring in her sugar.

That's the causal fallacy.

An EXCELLENT example, and I was not being precise.

A perfect correlation (only theoretically possible) between A and B does NOT determine that A causes B or that B causes A. Possibly BOTH are consequences of some unknown cause C.

So far, so good.

But a perfect correlation DOES imply causality is involved.

Whoops. Same error. What assures you that there isn’t also a perfect correlation with a third factor? Nothing.

[Belinda]

Secular people do not, by definition, believe Jesus Christ was anything special, or that what He did was in any way morally meritorious. Nor have they, by definition, any criteria by which they could ground such a judgment, even were they to want to make it. For Secularism offers nothing that would allow you to evaluate any one person as "morally better" than any other.

But I did not say Jesus Christ I said Jesus of Nazareth.

Exactly the same comments apply. You can't say he was anything special, from a Secular perspective, because Secularism allows no place for warrant for such an assessment. There are no moral values within the Secular worldview; so how can you imagine anybody has specially met such values?

Jesus of Nazareth was a special man because he was the inspiration behind Paul's and Constantine's Christianisation of the huge Roman Empire.

Many or perhaps even most 'secular ' people alive today hold a moral code based on the Judeo Christian moral code.

Concerning the definitive resurrection event ; to interpret the resurrection narratives literally is to apply a modern mindset to ancient texts whose primary purpose was to express what the resurrection meant for the early Christian community, rather than to provide a scientific account of how it happened. From a naturalistic viewpoint, a physical resurrection contradicts all established biological and physical laws, so it’s more plausible that the disciples’ profound conviction arose from a transformative spiritual experience or visionary encounter—not the reanimation of a dead body. Regardless of the physical reality, the resurrection symbolizes the triumph of life, love, and meaning over the powers that sought to silence them.

[MikeNovack]

Whoops. Same error. What assures you that there isn’t also a perfect correlation with a third factor? Nothing.

NO, you (accidentally?) reversed what I said.

I did NOT say C was in perfect correlation with A and B (which were in perfect correlation)

I said A and B in perfect correlation => A is the cause of B or B is the cause of A or there exists some C such that C is the cause of A and B

That doesn't identify C for me, just guarantees C's existence. For PERFECT correlation, the probability by chance is 0 (chance is impossible so must be a cause).

[Immanuel Can]

But I did not say Jesus Christ I said Jesus of Nazareth.

Exactly the same comments apply. You can't say he was anything special, from a Secular perspective, because Secularism allows no place for warrant for such an assessment. There are no moral values within the Secular worldview; so how can you imagine anybody has specially met such values?

Jesus of Nazareth was a special man because he was the inspiration behind Paul's and Constantine's Christianisation of the huge Roman Empire.

When did “huge” become a moral quality? What makes Jesus Christ a “special” man, according to Secularism? And how does a Secularist arrive at the conclusion that “Christianization” is a “good” thing? There are no criteria in Secularism for any of that sort of judgment.

Many or perhaps even most 'secular ' people alive today hold a moral code based on the Judeo Christian moral code.

Now you’ve got it. They’re borrowing a moral code that doesn’t rationalize at all with Secularism. It’s the one they grew up with, and so they adopt it habitually, and without reasoning through that it doesn’t square with their Secularism. They’re on auto-pilot. But how is being unthinking and culturally -conventional amount to a “morality” for Secularism?

You’re not thinking critically about your own culture, it seems. The very thing Secularism is supposed to enable you to do, you aren’t doing. And maybe that’s because the conclusion to which critical reflection would invite you, when you direct it to Secularism, is just too unpleasant?

[Immanuel Can]

Whoops. Same error. What assures you that there isn’t also a perfect correlation with a third factor? Nothing.

NO, you (accidentally?) reversed what I said.

I said A and B in perfect correlation => A is the cause of B or B is the cause of A or there exists some C such that C is the cause of A and B[/quote]
Or, as in the case I suggested to you with the joke, C causes A, but not B. Or C causes B, but not A. Or there is a D,E or F that is the real cause behind A or B. We just never know which it is, if all we go on is “correlation,” even if that “correlation” is perfect.

For PERFECT correlation, the probability by chance is 0 (chance is impossible so must be a cause).

Same error.

Let’s say we take the old axiom, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” Does that tell us that smoke is the cause of fire? Or that fire is the cause of smoke? Or is it combustion that is the cause of fire and smoke? What about oxygen? Or what about the kid with a can of gasoline, who started the fire? Is the kid or the gasoline the cause? What about the dryness of the surrounding brush? What about the forest management policies in the region? Or how about the dry summer?

What’s the cause of the smoke? Is it the fire, the combustion, the oxygen, the brush, the kid, the gasoline, the summer, or the forest management policies?

Even if all of these always occurred in the case of every fire,”perfectly correlating," how would we decide the answer to that? And what would we be meaning by “cause” in each case?

[Belinda]

Exactly the same comments apply. You can't say he was anything special, from a Secular perspective, because Secularism allows no place for warrant for such an assessment. There are no moral values within the Secular worldview; so how can you imagine anybody has specially met such values?

Jesus of Nazareth was a special man because he was the inspiration behind Paul's and Constantine's Christianisation of the huge Roman Empire.

When did “huge” become a moral quality? What makes Jesus Christ a “special” man, according to Secularism? And how does a Secularist arrive at the conclusion that “Christianization” is a “good” thing? There are no criteria in Secularism for any of that sort of judgment.

Many or perhaps even most 'secular ' people alive today hold a moral code based on the Judeo Christian moral code.

Now you’ve got it. They’re borrowing a moral code that doesn’t rationalize at all with Secularism. It’s the one they grew up with, and so they adopt it habitually, and without reasoning through that it doesn’t square with their Secularism. They’re on auto-pilot. But how is being unthinking and culturally -conventional amount to a “morality” for Secularism?

You’re not thinking critically about your own culture, it seems. The very thing Secularism is supposed to enable you to do, you aren’t doing. And maybe that’s because the conclusion to which critical reflection would invite you, when you direct it to Secularism, is just too unpleasant?

Critical reflection is scary when it leads you to abandon a heuristic you are accustomed to.

There are influential figures in the human past including those who influenced history of ideas and also those who influenced history of power relations.Jesus influenced history of ideas. Arguably , Constantine used Christianity for political power .

Manny, do you still eat an earthworm for breakfast? I ask because earthworms are not very nourishing.

[MikeNovack]

Let’s say we take the old axiom, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” Does that tell us that smoke is the cause of fire? Or that fire is the cause of smoke? Or is it combustion that is the cause of fire and smoke? What about oxygen? Or what about the kid with a can of gasoline, who started the fire? Is the kid or the gasoline the cause? What about the dryness of the surrounding brush? What about the forest management policies in the region? Or how about the dry summer?

What’s the cause of the smoke? Is it the fire, the combustion, the oxygen, the brush, the kid, the gasoline, the summer, or the forest management policies?

Even if all of these always occurred in the case of every fire,”perfectly correlating," how would we decide the answer to that? And what would we be meaning by “cause” in each case?

NOT what I have been saying.

You are persisting in interpreting the claim "there exists a cause" with a claim "just knowing that a cause exists helps me identify it". I am NOT claiming that it helps me identify it. But it IS help (of a different sort.

Until I have ruled out "the correlation is pure chance" no point in investigating what the cause might be. Potential waste of time. Knowing for sure that there must be a cause means there is something to look for.

And in reality, always being to be a matter of probability. So in practice it is "the correlation is good enough (probability high enough) that there probably is a cause so not wasting time looking for it". Please note, the correlation "every time fire observed, smoke is observed" is NOT a "perfect correlation" because a finite number of observations. If a lot of observations, a very high probability. But still not 1.

Remember back when this "perfect correlation" business started over moral codes. I was arguing that if two moral codes had perfect correlation, you were wrong to claim one of those could be "valid" and the other not? Your argument that I had to demonstrate the validity before you would accept its existence is similar to your asking to be shown the cause before accepting its existence.

[Immanuel Can]

Jesus of Nazareth was a special man because he was the inspiration behind Paul's and Constantine's Christianisation of the huge Roman Empire.

When did “huge” become a moral quality? What makes Jesus Christ a “special” man, according to Secularism? And how does a Secularist arrive at the conclusion that “Christianization” is a “good” thing? There are no criteria in Secularism for any of that sort of judgment.

Many or perhaps even most 'secular ' people alive today hold a moral code based on the Judeo Christian moral code.

Now you’ve got it. They’re borrowing a moral code that doesn’t rationalize at all with Secularism. It’s the one they grew up with, and so they adopt it habitually, and without reasoning through that it doesn’t square with their Secularism. They’re on auto-pilot. But how is being unthinking and culturally -conventional amount to a “morality” for Secularism?

You’re not thinking critically about your own culture, it seems. The very thing Secularism is supposed to enable you to do, you aren’t doing. And maybe that’s because the conclusion to which critical reflection would invite you, when you direct it to Secularism, is just too unpleasant?

Critical reflection is scary when it leads you to abandon a heuristic you are accustomed to.

Of course. But that's what being critical and rational entails: you have to abandon whatever is irrational, and whatever critical reflection exposes as false.

Now, if somebody wants to say that it's rational to be secular and yet a moralist, then he takes on himself the burden of proving Secularism grounds some morals. He/she has to accept that he/she can't just "borrow" some stock morality from some other worldview, but rather has to justify moral precepts on the basis of nothing but Secularism.

But it cannot be done. So the critical reflector is obliged to surrender his/her conventional moral beliefs, and embrace Nihilism, or remain irrational.

But personally, I'm very thankful that Secularists remain irrational, and do not follow Secularism to its logical end. If they did, we'd have a world full of Nihilists, and I'm pretty sure that would work out badly for all of us.