religion and libertarianism are incompatible

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Not from Secularism, obviously. Because nobody can do it, even today. So now, let's run some logic on that.

If what you say is correct, and man has moral knowledge, it would mean Secularism/Subjectivism isn't true. It's failing to tell us about something real, important and known, so it must be a delusion.

But if Secularism/Subjectivism is true, and is what we should believe, then your assumption would have to be false: man doesn't have moral knowledge...he only imagines he does, but there's no such thing.

So which is it? Is moral knowledge real? Or is Secularism/Subjectivism true?

[Belinda]

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.

Not from Secularism, obviously. Because nobody can do it, even today. So now, let's run some logic on that.

If what you say is correct, and man has moral knowledge, it would mean Secularism/Subjectivism isn't true. It's failing to tell us about something real, important and known, so it must be a delusion.

But if Secularism/Subjectivism is true, and is what we should believe, then your assumption would have to be false: man doesn't have moral knowledge...he only imagines he does, but there's no such thing.

So which is it? Is moral knowledge real? Or is Secularism/Subjectivism true?

Ultimate reality is unknown, if indeed there be such as ultimate reality.
Moral knowledge is not and cannot be ultimate but at most is traditional and well- tried.

[Immanuel Can]

But IC, by your own understanding (well MY understanding) of the text you call TRUE, man DID acquire moral knowledge.

Not from Secularism, obviously. Because nobody can do it, even today. So now, let's run some logic on that.

If what you say is correct, and man has moral knowledge, it would mean Secularism/Subjectivism isn't true. It's failing to tell us about something real, important and known, so it must be a delusion.

But if Secularism/Subjectivism is true, and is what we should believe, then your assumption would have to be false: man doesn't have moral knowledge...he only imagines he does, but there's no such thing.

So which is it? Is moral knowledge real? Or is Secularism/Subjectivism true?

Ultimate reality is unknown, if indeed there be such as ultimate reality.
Moral knowledge is not and cannot be ultimate but at most is traditional and well- tried.

From where would you derive the claim, "We are obligated to follow the traditional and well-tried"? And which "tradition," and how "well-tried"?

One of the most "traditional and well-tried" practices is slavery. Another is prostitution. Another is child-sacrifice. But unless I am to assume you approve those practices, then what has "traditional and well-tried" got to do with morality?

[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.

Not from Secularism, obviously. Because nobody can do it, even today. So now, let's run some logic on that.

If what you say is correct, and man has moral knowledge, it would mean Secularism/Subjectivism isn't true. It's failing to tell us about something real, important and known, so it must be a delusion.

But if Secularism/Subjectivism is true, and is what we should believe, then your assumption would have to be false: man doesn't have moral knowledge...he only imagines he does, but there's no such thing.

So which is it? Is moral knowledge real? Or is Secularism/Subjectivism true?

Logic, logic, logic.
"religious man" ----- Man has moral knowledge. I believe this because the sacred text of my religion says so.
"secular man" ----- Man has moral knowledge, I believe this.
"religious man" ---- Oh, then you're not really secular, you believe in my religion BAD LOGIC
"religious man ---- If you don't believe in my religion, then you can't have moral knowledge BAD LOGIC

IC, you are confusing the claims "can't construct A moral system for a secular starting point" with "can't construct a moral system that gives the same answers right vs wrong as a (my) proper one does". I think you are somehow jumping from the latter to the former, when you say "no possible secular basis".

I will DEMONSTRATE the construction of a secular moral system << not a very good/useful one -- it will lack properties we usually want a moral system to have.

Before we start --- we need to agree on what a moral system is. Let there be a judgement function J with three parameters situation, choice of action, moral system --- aka set of moral rules. This function is to evaluate to right, wrong, or DNA (say the choice of action impossible or the situation does not call for a choice of action). Get it, defining a "moral system" in reverse. I'm saying if J(situation, choice of action, X) will always be one of right, wrong, or DNA then X is a "system of morality"

So here goes --- let X be the role of a die. If coming up 1 or 2, return right; if 3 or 4, return wrong, if 5 or 6, return DNA.

Do you agree, will work for any instantiation of situation and any instantiation of choice of action.
Do you agree, is secular.

P:LEASE, don't bother saying a terrible example, why it doesn't even give the SAME answer each time (for the same situation and choice of action). We can indeed revisit adding requirements for a useful/acceptable moral system and see if the secularist can still construct one that fulfills those requirements. I am just asking NOW to answer why you believe the secularist can't construct ANY secular moral system << that's what you were claiming >>

PS -- if you balk at my initial choice of system "random" please remember that humans have done this, made choices of action based on
'random" --- think using the I Ching or a Tarot deck or watching which way the birds fly.

[MikeNovack]

If what you say is correct, and man has moral knowledge, it would mean Secularism/Subjectivism isn't true. It's failing to tell us about something real, important and known, so it must be a delusion.

But if Secularism/Subjectivism is true, and is what we should believe, then your assumption would have to be false: man doesn't have moral knowledge...he only imagines he does, but there's no such thing.

So which is it? Is moral knowledge real? Or is Secularism/Subjectivism true?

THIS deserved its own specific response. You are clearly not seeing a premise you are using to draw your conclusion.

"If what you say is correct, and man has moral knowledge, it would mean Secularism/Subjectivism isn't true. It's failing to tell us about something real, important and known, so it must be a delusion" WHAT real, important, and know truth.
"Man has moral knowledge BECAUSE god created a tree of knowledge in the Garden and man ate the fruit"
"Man has moral knowledge" << he need NOT accept the because >>

But if Secularism/Subjectivism is true, and is what we should believe, then your assumption would have to be false: man doesn't have moral knowledge...he only imagines he does, but there's no such thing.
It is false that god created a tree of knowledge in the Garden and man ate the fruit and that is why man has moral knowledge
does NOT imply man does not have moral knowledge.

But if Secularism/Subjectivism...... WHO dragged subjectivism in? The "first cut" example I gave for a secular moral system was not subjective. I am not promising once we start adding requirements, might not enter the picture, depending on those requirements.

Oh, an please IC, I'm not thinking you deficient in logic. I think the reality is that your conclusions are logical IF you add in premises you are making which are so obviously true (to you) that you don't recognize these as proposed premises we would challenge (not true to us).

[Belinda]

Not from Secularism, obviously. Because nobody can do it, even today. So now, let's run some logic on that.

If what you say is correct, and man has moral knowledge, it would mean Secularism/Subjectivism isn't true. It's failing to tell us about something real, important and known, so it must be a delusion.

But if Secularism/Subjectivism is true, and is what we should believe, then your assumption would have to be false: man doesn't have moral knowledge...he only imagines he does, but there's no such thing.

So which is it? Is moral knowledge real? Or is Secularism/Subjectivism true?

From where would you derive the claim, "We are obligated to follow the traditional and well-tried"? And which "tradition," and how "well-tried"?

One of the most "traditional and well-tried" practices is slavery. Another is prostitution. Another is child-sacrifice. But unless I am to assume you approve those practices, then what has "traditional and well-tried" got to do with morality?

Once again you write a false presupposition . I did NOT wrote what you ascribe to me by means of quotation marks. In other words you lied.
I wrote: Ultimate reality is unknown, if indeed there be such as ultimate reality.
Moral knowledge is not and cannot be ultimate but at most is traditional and well- tried.

[Belinda]

From where would you derive the claim, "We are obligated to follow the traditional and well-tried"? And which "tradition," and how "well-tried"?

One of the most "traditional and well-tried" practices is slavery. Another is prostitution. Another is child-sacrifice. But unless I am to assume you approve those practices, then what has "traditional and well-tried" got to do with morality?

Once again you write a false presupposition . I did NOT wrote what you ascribe to me by means of quotation marks. In other words you lied.
I wrote:

Ultimate reality is unknown, if indeed there be such as ultimate reality.
Moral knowledge is not and cannot be ultimate but at most is traditional and well- tried.

Reality, Immanuel , relates to and is peculiar to cultures. We who allege that slavery and child sacrifice are immoral oppose those practises. The courage and steadfastness needed to oppose those are human not supernatural.

[Immanuel Can]

But IC, by your own understanding (well MY understanding) of the text you call TRUE, man DID acquire moral knowledge.

Not from Secularism, obviously. Because nobody can do it, even today. So now, let's run some logic on that.

If what you say is correct, and man has moral knowledge, it would mean Secularism/Subjectivism isn't true. It's failing to tell us about something real, important and known, so it must be a delusion.

But if Secularism/Subjectivism is true, and is what we should believe, then your assumption would have to be false: man doesn't have moral knowledge...he only imagines he does, but there's no such thing.

So which is it? Is moral knowledge real? Or is Secularism/Subjectivism true?

Logic, logic, logic.
"religious man" ----- Man has moral knowledge. I believe this because the sacred text of my religion says so.
"secular man" ----- Man has moral knowledge, I believe this.
"religious man" ---- Oh, then you're not really secular, you believe in my religion BAD LOGIC
"religious man ---- If you don't believe in my religion, then you can't have moral knowledge BAD LOGIC

Well, this is indeed bad logic, but neither in the way or for the reasons you seem to imply.

Let us simplify:

Religion: if true, could impart objective moral knowledge. That's not to say it does, or that all do. We can leave that undetermined, because it will have no impact on Secularism's situation, either way. But one might. If such a thing as moral knowledge can exist, which we have not decided yet, one of those MIGHT be able to impart us knowledge of the facts of an objective morality...again, if such a thing exists. Again, either way, it makes no difference to Secularism's situation.

Secularism: even if true, cannot impart any objective moral knowledge. This is not because we are conceding any religion CAN, it's simply by way of looking at what Secularism ITSELF can or cannot do. It cannot tell us even one thing that is "right" or "wrong." So it's an absolute zero in that respect, regardless of what "religion" can or cannot do.

IC, you are confusing the claims "can't construct A moral system for a secular starting point" with "can't construct a moral system that gives the same answers right vs wrong as a (my) proper one does".

No, I'm definitely not doing that. I'm saying Secularism cannot inform us of anything about the moral realm, if such a thing even exists -- which Secularism would force us to assume it does not, anyway.

I will DEMONSTRATE the construction of a secular moral system << not a very good/useful one -- it will lack properties we usually want a moral system to have.

Well, that sounds pretty useless, then. If it doesn't do the things we all require of what we regard as a "moral system," in what sense is it a "moral system" at all?

It's a bit like saying, "I have a duck...but it's a hairy quadruped that can't swim." What makes you think it's a duck?

I'm saying if J(situation, choice of action, X) will always be one of right, wrong, or DNA then X is a "system of morality"

Okay...but before you proceed, what do you mean by "right" and "wrong"? Secularism knows no such qualities.

So here goes --- let X be the role of a die. If coming up 1 or 2, return right; if 3 or 4, return wrong, if 5 or 6, return DNA.

This seems totally outside the moral realm. What is "moral" about "dice"? This seems more like a case of adiaphora, to me. But maybe you can explain what the "moral" component of this thought experiment is, so I can recognize it as a case of "morality."

It seems to me you could use this procedure for very immoral purposes, potentially...like "1 or 2, murder him," 2 or 3, let him live," and "5 or 6" do nothing. But that's just a kind of Russian roulette. And unless we already know, somehow, that murder is "wrong," (and we'd have to be using some non-secular, objective, meta-system before we roll the die in order to know that already), we don't even know what the moral status of the number is.

[Immanuel Can]

"Man has moral knowledge" << he need NOT accept the because >>

What is your evidence that Secular man has moral knowledge?

You continually are making an obvious fallacy. It's the et tu quoque fallacy, or the "you-too fallacy," if you like.

The fallacy goes like this. One person says, "You're a liar." The other responds, "Yeah? Well, you're a liar, too." The first speaker is making the errant assumption that if somebody else is guilty of the same fault as he is, he is not guilty of the fault. But (and this is the important point) even if both statements were true, it does not make the first man less of a liar.

Now, parallel that here. I'm saying, "Secularism cannot ground morality." And your attempted rejoinder is, "Yeah, well, you can't either." That doesn't at all help secularism, even if we accept that you were right. Rather, all it would mean is that Moral Nihilism follows -- that there is no moral knowledge for anybody.

But you seem smart, so I think you already get this. I suspect that your constant return to mocking statements about me, or about Theistic ethics of some kind, are designed not to be a rational refutation, but rather a distraction. You seem very eager to get us to ignore what Secularism is failing to provide to us (any moral knowledge at all), and get us to talk about Theistic ethics, so you can go on the offensive.

And I'll let you. We can go there. But not until you've faced the reality that Secularism's failure is incurable, which I think that you, as a reasonably intelligent person, and as somebody who has tried the experiment of finding a single moral axiom required by Secularism, and having failed, already know.

I'm just wondering why you're so unwilling to admit what you know.

But if Secularism/Subjectivism...... WHO dragged subjectivism in?

Secularism did.

You're surely not going to say, "There's a secular moral axiom, and it's objective," are you? If you've got one, then great; what is it?

So if a Secularist even uses the word "moral," he surely has to mean something subjective, does he not? What else could he mean? (But ironically, "subjective morality" is itself an oxymoron: for if something is "subjective" then it inherently has no moral duty associated with it. It fails to inform us of our duty to do anything, in other words.)

[Immanuel Can]

From where would you derive the claim, "We are obligated to follow the traditional and well-tried"? And which "tradition," and how "well-tried"?

One of the most "traditional and well-tried" practices is slavery. Another is prostitution. Another is child-sacrifice. But unless I am to assume you approve those practices, then what has "traditional and well-tried" got to do with morality?

Once again you write a false presupposition . I did NOT wrote what you ascribe to me by means of quotation marks.

Who wrote this, then?
"Moral knowledge is not and cannot be ultimate but at most is traditional and well- tried."
Who are you letting type on your computer?

[MikeNovack]

1)Secularism: even if true, cannot impart any objective moral knowledge. This is not because we are conceding any religion CAN, it's simply by way of looking at what Secularism ITSELF can or cannot do. It cannot tell us even one thing that is "right" or "wrong." So it's an absolute zero in that respect, regardless of what "religion" can or cannot do.
It's a bit like saying, "I have a duck...but it's a hairy quadruped that can't swim." What makes you think it's a duck?

2)I'm saying if J(situation, choice of action, X) will always be one of right, wrong, or DNA then X is a "system of morality"

Okay...but before you proceed, what do you mean by "right" and "wrong"? Secularism knows no such qualities.

3) here goes --- let X be the role of a die. If coming up 1 or 2, return right; if 3 or 4, return wrong, if 5 or 6, return DNA.[/quote]
This seems totally outside the moral realm. What is "moral" about "dice"? This seems more like a case of adiaphora, to me. But maybe you can explain what the "moral" component of this thought experiment is, so I can recognize it as a case of "morality."

4)It seems to me you could use this procedure for very immoral purposes, potentially...like "1 or 2, murder him," 2 or 3, let him live," and "5 or 6" do nothing. But that's just a kind of Russian roulette. And unless we already know, somehow, that murder is "wrong," (and we'd have to be using some non-secular, objective, meta-system before we roll the die in order to know that already), we don't even know what the moral status of the number is.
[/quote]

We're going to take these one at a time:
1) Secularism, even if true, cannot impart any moral knowledge --- How can you say that if you are unwilling to specify what moral knowledge IS?Are you saying secularism can't impart ANY knowledge? If you allow the secularist to claim "I have knowledge of X" don't you have to show, based on what you say moral knowledge IS, that X isn't moral knowledge.
You are at this point more or less saying ."whatever knowledge moral knowledge is, X can't be that". Equivalent to saying the secularist can't ave knowledge of anything. Are we perhaps meaning certainty, not knowledge. Many secularists might agree with THAT (that they have CERTAINTY of nothing).
Yep, I'm saying I have a duck. You are saying, prove to me it meets the (unstated) properties of a duck and I'm say prove it fails to meet those properties -- which I am saying you can't do without specifying the properties, whether you are secular or religious. In other words, BY ITSELF " it's a hairy quadruped that can't swim" doesn't deny duckness. You have to add "a duck is a biped, has feathers, and can swim".

2) That was the DEFINITION. of a function -- make a moral judgement. You have been resisting discussing the PURPOSE of such a judgement function, how we want it to be useful to us. At this point, right and wrong just classifications. In practice, we are saying, in this situation, according to this moral code (rule set), action A is the right choice to make and action B a wrong choice to make (A is moral positive and B moral negative). It is the responsibility of the moral code (rule set) to make it truth. Understand, there is some external measure of morality to judge correct placement of actions on the spectrum of do, don't do. You are arguing it would be IMPOSSIBLE that a rule set worked to correctly place actions unless knowledge of that placement. I'm saying knowledge of correct placement can be used to disprove a particular rule set did that (it could find a misplaced action). But PROVING "there must exist a misplaced action" (no need to examine what the rule set is doing) is another matter.

3) What's immoral about them? I wanted to start somewhere. You aren't being asked if a GOOD (good to purpose) rule set. I just want you to agree it was secular and would not fail to assign a value in the range for every situation and action. I agree it is not a "good for purpose" moral rule set, but I AM willing to discuss "what is a moral code for? what are the judgement properties we expect".

4) Yes indeed, but when you say "immoral purpose" you are implying another way to judge. BUT --- if we could skip this nonsense and go ahead to discussing the interesting properties GOOD FOR PURPOSE moral rule set might have. e could ask questions like "if a moral rule set is good for purpose, will it contain any moral rule that is absolute?" << can there be a rule such that it judges an action always right or always wrong regardless of situation ---- or do we believe for any moral rule and action, it will always be possible to construct a situation that reverses the judgement >> What do we do with rules in conflict?

[Immanuel Can]

We're going to take these one at a time:
1) Secularism, even if true, cannot impart any moral knowledge --- How can you say that if you are unwilling to specify what moral knowledge IS?

I don't need to. Nobody does. Even if no other system of thought on earth could say what morality is, that wouldn't help Secularism do it. It would still be a moral eunuch.

If Secularism doesn't know anything about what it is, it doesn't know anything about what it is. What anybody else knows...well, Secularism can't say anything about that, either, of course, but it has no effect on Secularism's failure either way.

Are you saying secularism can't impart ANY knowledge?

Moral knowledge.

Yep, I'm saying I have a duck.

But what you allege is a duck, you admit cannot do any of the things we expect of a duck. That seems rather...unducky.

At this point, right and wrong just classifications.

No, they can't be. If they don't mean anything, you don't even know if they designate anything at all, or if they mean the same thing as each other.

"Rights" and "wrong" are already morally-freighted terms. Secularism has no entitlement to use such terms until it can show that it can justify their use. But it cannot. It cannot explain what's "right" and "wrong" morally about things.

It is the responsibility of the moral code (rule set) to make it truth.

No, it actually isn't. What a moral code is supposed to do is to enable us to distinguish "right" and "wrong," not "make them true." But Secularism doesn't offer us any criteria for doing that. In allowing everything, it makes nothing either "moral" or "immoral." Everthing that is, simply is, according to Secularism.

I'm saying knowledge of correct placement can be used to disprove a particular rule set

"Correct" is another freighted term. A Secularist can't justify calling anything "correct" or "incorrect." Remember? Secularism has no moral information to offer. It doesn't know "correct" and "incorrect." It means that anything could be either.

[MikeNovack]

IC, this is why I want us to discuss "what is a moral code for", and since a purpose, what makes a good (good for purpose) moral code. Part of that last judgement will include whether we expect "good" applied to moral codes implies consistent or whether we can have good moral codes where in some situations the rules will be in conflict.

But first a question. You say a secularist can have no moral code, are unable to make moral judgements. I accept that you believe this. But then how can you account for the behavior of secular people. Surely you have observed secular people in various situations, choosing this or that action. Is it your observation that their choices appear to be morally random? Are their choices not usually in accord with the choices you would consider the right choice?
I am NOT saying that for some situations and choices of actions you will not be in deep disagreement with them. But do these disagreements not appear to be systematic? In other words, they still don't appear to you to be choosing actions randomly, just in this situation be applying a false, untrue moral rule << but a moral rule nevertheless, in the proper domain, not say a rule about what is a legal move in chess >>

[Immanuel Can]

IC, this is why I want us to discuss "what is a moral code for", and since a purpose, what makes a good (good for purpose) moral code.

I did a substantial post on that subject a while back.

But since Subjectivism has no basis for ANY moral code, it's a moot point now.

You say a secularist can have no moral code, are unable to make moral judgements.

Not quite. I say that Secularism provides such people with no basis for a moral code. I didn't say that a person couldn't call himself a Secularist and then just copy somebody else's code, something grounded in some non-secular belief; but he won't be able to reground it in his Secularism, so he'll be irrational and inconsistent if he does that. Still, that's how they pull that trick off...by claiming Secularism but acting, in their moral decisions, as if Secularism isn't true and morality is objective and singular.

In fact, that's how Secularists get by in society. They tend to adopt whatever code they've been raised with, regardless of what it was based on, not thinking about grounding it in their self-declared Secularism at all. And often they also pretend that everybody else in the world has -- or at least should have -- the same moral code they've chosen to favour, even when the contrary is true.

I accept that you believe this. But then how can you account for the behavior of secular people.

Just like that. They're being hypocritical, sure...but they've got no option, unless they're willing to behave as Moral Nihilists...and most people are afraid to do that -- and good thing that they are afraid of it, too: a world of Moral Nihiists would be unliveable, very quickly.

[Belinda]

From where would you derive the claim, "We are obligated to follow the traditional and well-tried"? And which "tradition," and how "well-tried"?

One of the most "traditional and well-tried" practices is slavery. Another is prostitution. Another is child-sacrifice. But unless I am to assume you approve those practices, then what has "traditional and well-tried" got to do with morality?

Once again you write a false presupposition . I did NOT wrote what you ascribe to me by means of quotation marks.

Who wrote this, then?
"Moral knowledge is not and cannot be ultimate but at most is traditional and well- tried."
Who are you letting type on your computer?

"at most" Immanuel, "at most"