religion and libertarianism are incompatible

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Well, we're a long way down an irrelevant rabbit trail anyway, so let's return to the main point.

Secularism denies the existence of any objective moral system anyway, so reference to an objective morality can't save it. Its coincidence with any such on this or that point will only be accidental and not at all "objective" by Secularism's own account, anyway.

Back to the main thing, then: can Secularism impart any moral knowledge? Answer: no.

But then back to the OP: is "religion," (meaning whatever) automatically incompatible with Libertarianism? The answer is, "It depends on what the 'religion' in question is." Some will be, and some will not.

But Secularism cannot tell us whether or not Libertarianism is a morally "good" or morally "bad" option, anyway: so it doesn't seem that any such alleged incompatibility, even for those, like Islam, for which it would be obvious, could be criticized on any purely Secular basis anyway.

[Belinda]

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.

Immanuel Can

That is your best argument for the supernatural God. The only way I can rebut that argument is the claim that human nature is not entirely "fallen ".
When Adam and Eve were cast out from Eden they were naked for sure, but their nakedness was skin deep only, and they retained that of God which can grow into goodness. Please see Imago Dei.

[MikeNovack]

IC, are you perhaps wanting to argue that morality does not exist?

You are arguing that the secularist is unable to logically derive a moral code starting from some secular premises (htat are "moral statements; link "oughts" to "is's" BECAUSE? You don't accept those premises?

Aren't you doing the SAME? I suspect that you don't see this because you are not realizing the extra base premises you are using. For example," God exists, and is a good god, and in any situation, to chose to act in accordance with gods rules is right" << and from THAT you are concluding that the set of gods rules is a properly justified moral code >>

WHY should the secularist accept that? Doesn't accept the God exists, and even granting that, a good god (the whole point of Cthulhu), or has any interest in providing moral guidance. You are insisting on some sort of " privilege" for your premises about god. If you say "but I believe these base premises are true" can't the secularist say the same about his or hers?

I would say that the secularist has to allow you your premises but in return, you must allow his or hers.

PREMISES are not derives from anything. You can ask the secularist to tell you his or her base premises (for the secular moral code) but not to logically justify them. That's like asking somebody to justify an axiom of a geometry (different set of axioms; different geometry)

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Immanuel Can

That is your best argument for the supernatural God.

No, decidedly not. Rather, it's the right argument against Secularist moralizers.

I don't even need to mention God to make it. It's a secular, rational argument itself. It would be true regardless of whatever was true or false about any other ideology.

[Immanuel Can]

IC, are you perhaps wanting to argue that morality does not exist?

No. Just to point out that Secularism itself has no warrant for morality.

You are arguing that the secularist is unable to logically derive a moral code starting from some secular premises (htat are "moral statements; link "oughts" to "is's" BECAUSE? You don't accept those premises?

It has nothing whatsoever to do with what I accept. It has to do, purely, with what a rational Secularist would have to believe. That is, if he claims to be both rational and a Secularist.

...you are not realizing the extra base premises you are using.

I'm not using any.

I'm making a secular argument about what Secularism itself can rationalize.

For example," God exists, and is a good god,

That premise, which you'll note you just assumed and I have not invoked anywhere here, bears no relation to Secularism's status as capable or incapable of rationalizing morality. This is why I have not invoked it. I don't need it for this.

Nor would criticizing it save Secularism.

If Secularism can rationalize a moral precept, it should be able to show how it can do that. But it seems that nobody can manage the task, not even yourself. There are other intelligent interlocutors here, and you'll note that they also have not been able to do that. Until Secularism can show it can rationalize at least one moral precept, we have no basis for assuming it can at all.

The ball's in the Secular court, and nobody can hit it back, it seems.

[Belinda]

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.

Immanuel Can

That is your best argument for the supernatural God.

No, decidedly not. Rather, it's the right argument against Secularist moralizers.

I don't even need to mention God to make it. It's a secular, rational argument itself. It would be true regardless of whatever was true or false about any other ideology.

What do you mean by "the right argument"?

*The definitive argument?

*The authoritative argument?

*The argument that Immanuel Can prefers?

*The argument that God told Immanuel Can is the correct argument?

*The argument that best supports social control?

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can

That is your best argument for the supernatural God.

No, decidedly not. Rather, it's the right argument against Secularist moralizers.

I don't even need to mention God to make it. It's a secular, rational argument itself. It would be true regardless of whatever was true or false about any other ideology.

What do you mean by "the right argument"?

The truthful one, the logical one, the obvious one...and apparently, the one no Secularist is able to respond to, too.

[MikeNovack]

IC, are you perhaps wanting to argue that morality does not exist?

You are ignoring this part of what I posted.

Do you believe that Divine ordered morality exists? Yes, No.

I am not required to demonstrate secular morality exists in a vacuum (which is what you seem to be insisting upon). I intend to use things you accept are correct in the demonstration. To do that is perfectly rational even though you are not a secularist. Secularists are not saying every utterance of a religious person is false.

[Immanuel Can]

IC, are you perhaps wanting to argue that morality does not exist?

You are ignoring this part of what I posted.

Yes, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with what we’re talking about. I say again: it does not matter what any ideology does or does not believe about the grounding of morality. None of that will help Secularism. Secularism has to ground something itself, or else it’s just as morally bankrupt as any other option, and there’s no such thing as morality for anybody.

Criticizing that won’t save Secular moralizing from being bankrupt.

Do you believe that Divine ordered morality exists? Yes, No.

Of course. I’m a Christian. But it’s irrelevant to the question. Secularism would still be in the same pickle if I were a Rastafarian, an Aztec or a worshipper of Walt Disney. My beliefs will not change Secularism, if it has no basis for moral knowledge in it.

I am not required to demonstrate secular morality exists in a vacuum (which is what you seem to be insisting upon).

Not “in a vacuum.” On the pure basis of Secularism.

If all Secularism offers you turns out to be a vacuum, then where does the fault lie?

[Belinda]

No, decidedly not. Rather, it's the right argument against Secularist moralizers.

I don't even need to mention God to make it. It's a secular, rational argument itself. It would be true regardless of whatever was true or false about any other ideology.

What do you mean by "the right argument"?

The truthful one, the logical one, the obvious one...and apparently, the one no Secularist is able to respond to, too.

Please define truth---Not Immanuel Can's truth but truth itself.

"I am the way the truth the life" said Jesus. We probably agree on that. Where we disagree is how we interpret the truth as exemplified by Jesus his life and work.

[Immanuel Can]

What do you mean by "the right argument"?

The truthful one, the logical one, the obvious one...and apparently, the one no Secularist is able to respond to, too.

Please define truth---Not Immanuel Can's truth but truth itself.

There is no such thing as "your truth" or "my truth," Oprah Winfrey. There is only the truth.

[MikeNovack]

"I am the way the truth the life" said Jesus. We probably agree on that. Where we disagree is how we interpret the truth as exemplified by Jesus his life and work.

But we are NOT all agreed on that. The rest of us are people of other religions or secularists with none.

The question isn't whether there is one TRUTH but whether we have any sure way to determine what it is. Now many of these other religions do not declare themselves to be an exclusive way to truth, and the same for the non-religious. Perhaps we feel less need for certainty or even believe certainty is beyond us.

Christians may see this as giving a clear advantage to Christianity and say "your way offers no sure path to truth, ours does, so join us". The problem is, what they (correctly) see as "CHRISTIANITY OFFERS A SURE PATH TO TRUTH, THE ONLY SURE PATH" we others are (also correctly) are seeing as "if Christianity true then CHRISTIANITY OFFERS A SURE PATH TO TRUTH, THE ONLY SURE PATH". If you are already a Christian, that if/then isn't there, but if you are not a Christian, it is.

[Belinda]

The truthful one, the logical one, the obvious one...and apparently, the one no Secularist is able to respond to, too.

Please define truth---Not Immanuel Can's truth but truth itself.

There is no such thing as "your truth" or "my truth," Oprah Winfrey. There is only the truth.

I can picture certain contexts where Oprah's utterance would apply. In a court of law. Weighing scientific evidence. Rigorously sifting through sources of reportage. An authoritative decision by an expert.

There are several versions of Christian doctrine including your favourite Calvinistic version. No version of Christian doctrine can amount to fact because Christian doctrine is not a monolithic or factual truth but alters according to interpretations.

[Immanuel Can]

Please define truth---Not Immanuel Can's truth but truth itself.

There is no such thing as "your truth" or "my truth," Oprah Winfrey. There is only the truth.

I can picture certain contexts where Oprah's utterance would apply. In a court of law.

That's the sort of place her idea would never work.

Vic: "Your Honour, my truth is that this man r*ped me."

Perp: "Your Honour, my truth is that I did not."

...your favourite Calvinistic version.

Wow. Did you ever get that wrong! I'm certainly not that.

But what has all this got to do with Secularism's inability to provide any moral knowledge?

[MikeNovack]

But what has all this got to do with Secularism's inability to provide any moral knowledge?

But IC, by your own understanding (well MY understanding) of the text you call TRUE, man DID acquire moral knowledge. That's plainly worded. I know you said "later lost it" but you did not give a good/clear textual reference. Textual support that man would not behave in accordance with that knowledge (would sin) is NOT support for having lost the knowledge. In my opinion,knowing that you are doing wrong an important component of sin.

Are secularists not men? (or women)

BTW: We could always open a conversation "can innocents sin"? (can there be sin without moral knowledge)