religion and libertarianism are incompatible

[MikeNovack]

IC, we have been ignoring something. You imagine that the secular person does not have access to all the sacred texts. Why that assumption? It is how interpreted that is different. To you, your sacred text is the word of god. To him or her, accumulated works of humans,myths and musings about the human condition. Available for gleaning on that basis. Not all garbage to be ignored. But of human origin, not divine.

Shall we go back to the Garden? << look at the myth with secular eyes >>

[Immanuel Can]

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"

Even that is an exaggeration, because "traditional and well-tried" add nothing to the moral equation. It's not "most," but rather, it's totally irrelevant whether or not a moral code or precept is "traditional" or "well-tried."

As I said, slavery qualifies by that standard. So does prostitution. They're two of the most "traditional" and "well-tried" practices the whole human race has had. But you're not going to say this makes them even potentially better than some set of other practices, are you?

[Immanuel Can]

IC, we have been ignoring something.

Not to my knowledge, but okay, fire away...

You imagine that the secular person does not have access to all the sacred texts.

Au contraire, I know he does have access to them. But a Secularist is not going to believe any of them anyway. Why should he? What, in Secularism, tells him he should?

Maybe you can explain your objection: why should a Secularist attend to old texts? And to which old 'sacred' texts, since many old texts say different things? The Corpus Hermeticus? The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius? The Upanishads? The Code of Hammurabi? The Qaballah? The Gnostic texts?

They all say different things. How's a Secularist going to be able to use Secularism to sort them out, so he knows which he should access for information on morality?

[MikeNovack]

Au contraire, I know he does have access to them. But a Secularist is not going to believe any of them anyway. Why should he? What, in Secularism, tells him he should?

Maybe you can explain your objection: why should a Secularist attend to old texts?

We need to discuss what a myths ARE, why people have them, what purpose do they serve, etc. In SECULAR terms. You are right, the secularist does not "believe in" them in the sense you mean believe in. But the secularist does have beliefs, understanding, about what a myth is saying about the human condition as being explained by the elders of some ancient tribe to the children of the tribe. Of course stories, because that's the only way they had.

1) Myths talk about how things ARE. (the human condition, ways specific to OUR tribe, the natural world.
2) They give WHYs about how they got that way.

For the first, the secularist will ponder, IS that something true about the human condition (based on my experience). Will probably ignore the ways specific to that tribe, because what was true about how those people lived then irrelevant now. The ones about the natural world only if while discarding "2" sees a metaphoric meaning.

For the second, mainly discarded, because the secularist does not believe in a supernatural explanation for "why". Things are the way they are because they just are. But should look anyway, because SOMETIMES the story the explanation of how this or that got that way is stating a metaphorical truth << example -- myths about "How the crow got drab, black feathers (generally the result of doing something brave, meritorious) could be seen as stating a metaphoric truth "not having bright clothes not dishonorable".

I am prepared to argue The Garden Myth is sufficient to lead a secularist to believe he/she has knowledge in the moral domain, that it states a truth about the human condition "humans have moral knowledge" AND makes clear "what sort of knowledge this is" (based on EXPERIENCE the secular person has had). I argue will accept as true what sort of knowledge is being discussed, based on personal experience, and an experience the secularist believes true for all humans (they will have shared this experience).

Do I need to TELL you the experience? Morality is about knowing what you should do and what you shouldn't do. As a small child, the secularist was "potty trained"(taught do's and don'ts about elimination) and "taught to wear clothes". and the secularist believes this experience shared by all of us.

As to why the secularist thinks myths he or she encounters DO say something important (wisdom passed down old) is belief that if they didn't say something important, would have not survived the many generations of transmission.

[Immanuel Can]

Au contraire, I know he does have access to them. But a Secularist is not going to believe any of them anyway. Why should he? What, in Secularism, tells him he should?

Maybe you can explain your objection: why should a Secularist attend to old texts?

We need to discuss what a myths ARE, why people have them, what purpose do they serve, etc. In SECULAR terms.

Well, first, show me how a myth has deontological force (i.e. imposes a moral duty) for a Secularist.

In fact, show me how any reality has deontological force (moral duty) for a Secularist. Maybe we should start there, because according to Secular thought, NOTHING has moral implications.

...the secularist does have beliefs,

We all do. But some beliefs are false, and some are true: what, in Secularism, tells us that which beliefs are "bad" or "good"?

understanding, about what a myth is saying about the human condition as being explained by the elders of some ancient tribe to the children of the tribe. Of course stories, because that's the only way they had.

1) Myths talk about how things ARE.

Some do, some don't. But either way, what makes the content of a myth morally obligatory for a Secularist?

For the first, the secularist will ponder, IS that something true about the human condition (based on my experience). Will probably ignore the ways specific to that tribe, because what was true about how those people lived then irrelevant now. The ones about the natural world only if while discarding "2" sees a metaphoric meaning.

How does he judge what "is true" in the moral realm, when Secularism would lead him to believe there's no such thing as objective morality or moral truth?

...the secularist does not believe in a supernatural explanation for "why".

So by "Secularist," you're understanding we must mean somebody with an assumptive bias against the supernatural? Perhaps a Materialist or Naturalist or Physicalist of some kind? Can you clear up who you think you mean there?

I am prepared to argue The Garden Myth is sufficient to lead a secularist to believe he/she has knowledge in the moral domain, that it states a truth about the human condition "humans have moral knowledge" AND makes clear "what sort of knowledge this is" (based on EXPERIENCE the secular person has had). I argue will accept as true what sort of knowledge is being discussed, based on personal experience, and an experience the secularist believes true for all humans (they will have shared this experience).

This won't be enough. Why should a Secularist take the Garden or anything else "mythical," as he sees it, and conclude he owes it to take its moralizing as obligatory to him? What's his rationale for privileging that story over any other?

Do I need to TELL you the experience?

It's not obvious. So yes.

Morality is about knowing what you should do and what you shouldn't do.

This is an important realization. Have you looked carefully at the wording you've used? It says "should" and "shouldn't." Not "does" or "does not." In other words, you're agreeing with Hume, that facts are about "is," and morality's about "ought."

And I agree with Hume on that. Morality only comes into play when we suspect, or don't know, whether what we can do is what we ought to do. Thus, morality can never simply be subjective; because our subjective feeling, which is only an "is," may or may not conform to what "ought" to be the case.

That's morality; and it automatically assumes the objectivity of moral truth.

But the Secularist has to deny that moral truth exists, or can be objective. So now, where is the Secularist moralizer? He's cut his own feet out from underneath himself.

As to why the secularist thinks myths he or she encounters DO say something important (wisdom passed down old) is belief that if they didn't say something important, would have not survived the many generations of transmission.

So old = true? Consider how perilous that association would be! If so, it would mean that new = less true, or even potentially false, as well. That's going to throw a real stick in the spoke of any Secular Progressivist, to be sure. But that's not the worst of it: it's going to imply that old practices, customs, edicts and codes are more likely to be right than new ones...in which case, the long-standing institutions of slavery, prostitution, tyranny and xenophobia are more likely to be right than new practices of freedom, self-ownership, democracy and inclusion.

So I don't think you mean that. But now I'm not sure exactly what you do mean, when you associate age with rightness.

[Belinda]

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"

Even that is an exaggeration, because "traditional and well-tried" add nothing to the moral equation. It's not "most," but rather, it's totally irrelevant whether or not a moral code or precept is "traditional" or "well-tried."

As I said, slavery qualifies by that standard. So does prostitution. They're two of the most "traditional" and "well-tried" practices the whole human race has had. But you're not going to say this makes them even potentially better than some set of other practices, are you?

I am going to say nothing of the sort! You can be so cantankerous!

Established mainstream religions have, in past centuries, held the moral fort against slavery and prostitution and officially abolished them by law. It's a continuing fight and with so much criminality is likely to remain so.
Many countries are largely secular now , and there the time -honoured moral codes remain while the myths are less credible in the scientific age.

Cultures of belief change. However there are some core icons that remain because they are flexible enough to bend with times and seasons; and sometimes the icons are protected by authoritarian legalism which is in its turn protected and abetted by states.

[MikeNovack]

In fact, show me how any reality has deontological force (moral duty) for a Secularist. Maybe we should start there, because according to Secular thought, NOTHING has moral implications.
[quote} Morality is about knowing what you should do and what you shouldn't do.

This is an important realization. Have you looked carefully at the wording you've used? It says "should" and "shouldn't." Not "does" or "does not." In other words, you're agreeing with Hume, that facts are about "is," and morality's about "ought."

And I agree with Hume on that. Morality only comes into play when we suspect, or don't know, whether what we can do is what we ought to do. Thus, morality can never simply be subjective; because our subjective feeling, which is only an "is," may or may not conform to what "ought" to be the case.

That's morality; and it automatically assumes the objectivity of moral truth.

But the Secularist has to deny that moral truth exists, or can be objective. So now, where is the Secularist moralizer? He's cut his own feet out from underneath himself.

So I don't think you mean that. But now I'm not sure exactly what you do mean, when you associate age with rightness.
[/quote]

You are insisting I am saying things that I am not. I am saying legitimate for the secularist to EXAMINE myths and then ponder what truths, if any, are expressed. The age thing just a reason WHICH myths worthiest of examination first (assigning of time) Of two myths, one 100 years old and one 4000 years old, which is likelier to have a significant message about the human condition.

And yes I very much agree with Hume (unsure how you could have missed that)

THE QUESTION: You are asking "how could the secularist conclude" (for secular reasons)
That there IS "morality" (a right/wrong judgement to be applied to actions)
That I have knowledge of morality, and so do all people
I used The Garden Myth as an example. And by the way, I want to point something out. In the original language, the implication that the fruit of the tree conveys MORAL knowledge is far weaker than translation, because "knowledge of good and evil" (about) is an IDIOM. Means all things. So if it were said "I don't know good or evil about Tom" it is not Tom's morality I am denying but more like "I don't know anything about Tom"

So you would be right, at that point the secularist does not know what sort of knowledge the myth is talking about. But immediately, because of this knowledge "they knew they were naked and made coverings". And they hid, giving as excuse "because we were naked" (not adequate coverings -- they get improved on. I am saying that at this point, the secularist knows "this is like MY EXPERIENCE" (true) "I also was taught there was a right and a wrong way for my body to be naked or covered. I have knowledge of this sort. And yes, I believe it true all humans get taught this right/wrong business about nakedness.

Now THIS MYTH isn't going into other situations so I predict you will say the secularist has only become convinced of morality with regard to this (covering one's body). But I argue that thinking about it we remember "At the same time I was also taught other similar is/ought rules of behavior. And will believe true that MOST of these things taught to all human children. Part of being a human.

I am going to suggest that instead of arguing the secularist has no good secular reason to believe morality and moral knowledge are real and that he or she has this knowledge you switch to "by what secular reasoning process does the secularist EXPAND the notion to be applicable to more than just the set of situations and ought behaviors learned as a child". In other words, how to get from "there are is/ought rules for choices of behavior in THESE situations" to "there are is/ought rules for choices of behavior in any situation" (that the concept morality is general, not specific). I have discussed elsewhere I believe in an "intuitive morality" we humans are taught (come primed to learn) as social animals, part of the culture in which we are born. but probably only for interactions possible in a group of ~50, all known to each other, and repeatedly interacting with each other. Cultures that did not develop a functional is/ought for this at a competitive disadvantage so did not survive the period a couple million years ago (before we were strictly speaking human) to say 10,000 years ago (more recently for most, but 10,000 years is about when SOME humans began living in larger groups.

[Immanuel Can]

"at most" Immanuel, "at most"

Even that is an exaggeration, because "traditional and well-tried" add nothing to the moral equation. It's not "most," but rather, it's totally irrelevant whether or not a moral code or precept is "traditional" or "well-tried."

As I said, slavery qualifies by that standard. So does prostitution. They're two of the most "traditional" and "well-tried" practices the whole human race has had. But you're not going to say this makes them even potentially better than some set of other practices, are you?

I am going to say nothing of the sort! You can be so cantankerous!

I was giving you full benefit of the doubt...but I was also pointing out where logic would take you.

Established mainstream religions have, in past centuries, held the moral fort against slavery and prostitution and officially abolished them by law.

So you would have to say that Islam, for example, ISN'T an "established, mainstream religion"? Because it has no such prohibitions in it. Not did many of the ancient "religions," and nor do some modern ones.

So who gets to say which "religions" count, and which do not?

[Immanuel Can]

In fact, show me how any reality has deontological force (moral duty) for a Secularist. Maybe we should start there, because according to Secular thought, NOTHING has moral implications

Morality is about knowing what you should do and what you shouldn't do.

This is an important realization. Have you looked carefully at the wording you've used? It says "should" and "shouldn't." Not "does" or "does not." In other words, you're agreeing with Hume, that facts are about "is," and morality's about "ought."

And I agree with Hume on that.

Morality only comes into play when we suspect, or don't know, whether what we can do is what we ought to do. Thus, morality can never simply be subjective; because our subjective feeling, which is only an "is," may or may not conform to what "ought" to be the case.

That's morality; and it automatically assumes the objectivity of moral truth.

But the Secularist has to deny that moral truth exists, or can be objective. So now, where is the Secularist moralizer? He's cut his own feet out from underneath himself.

So I don't think you mean that. But now I'm not sure exactly what you do mean, when you associate age with rightness.

You are insisting I am saying things that I am not.

No. I'm showing you what you would HAVE to say, if you were being consistent in logic. I'm not making you say it: you, plus logic, is requiring it of you.

I am saying legitimate for the secularist to EXAMINE myths and then ponder what truths, if any, are expressed. The age thing just a reason WHICH myths worthiest of examination first (assigning of time) Of two myths, one 100 years old and one 4000 years old, which is likelier to have a significant message about the human condition.

We don't know. Age doesn't guarantee us anything.

And yes I very much agree with Hume (unsure how you could have missed that)

I didn't. I was just reminding you of the consequences of agreeing with Hume. It means you realize morality is about oughtness, not about mere material facts. But that really would not allow both Secularism and morality to exist, which would compel you logically to moral Nihilism. Hume saw the danger coming, and tried to evade it by pleading for Emotivism; but Emotivism is such a bad theory that it was quickly picked to death by logic. What Hume would have said when his Emotivism was debunked, nobody knows; but it was the only thing he had going between him and moral Nihilism, so he probably would have had to give up all belief in objective morality, whether he wanted to or not. That is, if he was going to remain logical, which I think he was trying to do.

THE QUESTION: You are asking "how could the secularist conclude" (for secular reasons)
That there IS "morality" (a right/wrong judgement to be applied to actions)

Right. That's what I'm asking.

That I have knowledge of morality, and so do all people

Do you think they do? I know why I believe people do: they have a God-instilled conscience within them, that reminds them that moral objective facts exist. But then, that can be my answer, because I'm a Theist: a Theist can believe that with consistency.

But how can a Secularist believe that? He thinks human beings are devoid of any such explanation. So what can he say, if he wants to explain that fact?

...."knowledge of good and evil" (about) is an IDIOM. Means all things.

There isn't one thing in the text that remotely suggests you're right about that, and everything to show you're wrong. Sorry. It's just not how it is. The text is very explicit: it's וּמֵעֵ֗ץ הַדַּ֙עַת֙ טֹ֣וב וָרָ֔ע, which reads, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil..." It's very clear.

I am going to suggest that instead of arguing the secularist has no good secular reason to believe morality and moral knowledge are real and that he or she has this knowledge you switch

There's no reason to do so. Both are clearly true.

Firstly, the Secularist has no basis for a claim of moral knowledge. Moreover, he has no explanation for any instinctive awareness of morality he might have; he can't believe any objective reality for moral knowledge exists. And he cannot rationalize even one axiom or precept. So very clearly, his worldview is not providing him any moral knowledge at all.

And yet he has a conscience. How does he explain that? I can, he can't.

So now, the Theist is well ahead of the Secularist. Firstly, because he can believe in objective morality, and secondly, because he can explain why everybody intuitively knows something about right and wrong. But the Secularist still can't explain a thing about morality.

I believe in an "intuitive morality" we humans are taught (come primed to learn)

Sorry: which is it? Is it "taught," or is it that we "intuitive"? And who "primed" us for it?

Cultures that did not develop a functional is/ought for this at a competitive disadvantage so did not survive the period a couple million years ago (before we were strictly speaking human) to say 10,000 years ago (more recently for most, but 10,000 years is about when SOME humans began living in larger groups.

This is, of course, all mythical. There's no evidence that this is what happened at all. And interestingly, these "moral codes" that various groups have are different on key points, such as slavery, murder, child abuse, marriage, duty to strangers, honesty, contracts, and so forth. You would have to be thinking that having ANY moral code conferred an automatic survival advantage. And you would have to know about a history of some peoples who lacked this thing...which you have had to relegate to unknown prehistory, precisely because we don't know any such thing ever happened at all.

But more importantly, this is not a story about morality. It's just a story about survival. It fails to give us any information about which of these "codes' was right or wrong -- it merely says that their simple existence helped everybody survive. But "surviving" isn't a moral imperative. Nature does not tell us we have a duty toward it. Nature, in fact, is quite indifferent when species go extinct, and it extinguishes them with no hesitancy. So just because we "survived" does not tell us that how we "survived" was a moral way, or that moral things are more apt to survive. It essentially implies, "Any code will do." So, in fact, it still tells us nothing at all about morality.

I'm afraid what you've got there is a sort of pre-historical just-so story, not more credible than, say, the Legend of Sleepy Hollow or Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. And there's still no moral information in your imaginary account.

[Belinda]

Even that is an exaggeration, because "traditional and well-tried" add nothing to the moral equation. It's not "most," but rather, it's totally irrelevant whether or not a moral code or precept is "traditional" or "well-tried."

As I said, slavery qualifies by that standard. So does prostitution. They're two of the most "traditional" and "well-tried" practices the whole human race has had. But you're not going to say this makes them even potentially better than some set of other practices, are you?

I am going to say nothing of the sort! You can be so cantankerous!

I was giving you full benefit of the doubt...but I was also pointing out where logic would take you.

Established mainstream religions have, in past centuries, held the moral fort against slavery and prostitution and officially abolished them by law.

So you would have to say that Islam, for example, ISN'T an "established, mainstream religion"? Because it has no such prohibitions in it. Not did many of the ancient "religions," and nor do some modern ones.

So who gets to say which "religions" count, and which do not?

Mainstream religions are normally identified by their longevity .

Islam is an established mainstream religion despite being cut up into very disparate sects. In 7th-century Arabia, Muhammad’s Koran (Qurʾān) tolerated slavery but encouraged freeing slaves and treating them well, while condemning prostitution and forbidding forcing women into it.

I don't FOE you because it matters that non-religionists have moral criteria that withstand the attacks of religionists. So far you have lost every argument. This is because you are not educated in history, as is common to religious fundamentalists..

[Immanuel Can]

I am going to say nothing of the sort! You can be so cantankerous!

I was giving you full benefit of the doubt...but I was also pointing out where logic would take you.

Established mainstream religions have, in past centuries, held the moral fort against slavery and prostitution and officially abolished them by law.

So you would have to say that Islam, for example, ISN'T an "established, mainstream religion"? Because it has no such prohibitions in it. Not did many of the ancient "religions," and nor do some modern ones.

So who gets to say which "religions" count, and which do not?

Mainstream religions are normally identified by their longevity .

So Gnosticism is "mainstream"? Paganism is "mainstream"? Witchcraft is "mainstream"? They're all very old, you know.

Islam is an established mainstream religion despite being cut up into very disparate sects. In 7th-century Arabia, Muhammad’s Koran (Qurʾān) tolerated slavery but encouraged freeing slaves and treating them well, while condemning prostitution and forbidding forcing women into it.

Well, one thing for sure: you don't know Islam, and haven't read the Koran. That much is clear.

I think, B., you're channeling the aspirational but totally uninformed, "We all believe the same things" kind of meme, that happy belief of universalist religionists, that supposes all religions are essentially the same -- at least in regard to morality. But a little study of actual religions makes that completely unbelievable. It's just not true.

I don't FOE you because it matters that non-religionists have moral criteria that withstand the attacks of religionists. So far you have lost every argument. This is because you are not educated in history, as is common to religious fundamentalists..

You're so funny! If I told you how I'm educated in regard to these things, you might be surprised. But I won't boast of that. I'll simply say that anybody who knows even a little about the actual content of world religions knows you're wrong.

[Belinda]

I was giving you full benefit of the doubt...but I was also pointing out where logic would take you.

So you would have to say that Islam, for example, ISN'T an "established, mainstream religion"? Because it has no such prohibitions in it. Not did many of the ancient "religions," and nor do some modern ones.

So who gets to say which "religions" count, and which do not?

Mainstream religions are normally identified by their longevity .

So Gnosticism is "mainstream"? Paganism is "mainstream"? Witchcraft is "mainstream"? They're all very old, you know.

Islam is an established mainstream religion despite being cut up into very disparate sects. In 7th-century Arabia, Muhammad’s Koran (Qurʾān) tolerated slavery but encouraged freeing slaves and treating them well, while condemning prostitution and forbidding forcing women into it.

Well, one thing for sure: you don't know Islam, and haven't read the Koran. That much is clear.

I think, B., you're channeling the aspirational but totally uninformed, "We all believe the same things" kind of meme, that happy belief of universalist religionists, that supposes all religions are essentially the same -- at least in regard to morality. But a little study of actual religions makes that completely unbelievable. It's just not true.

I don't FOE you because it matters that non-religionists have moral criteria that withstand the attacks of religionists. So far you have lost every argument. This is because you are not educated in history, as is common to religious fundamentalists..

You're so funny! If I told you how I'm educated in regard to these things, you might be surprised. But I won't boast of that. I'll simply say that anybody who knows even a little about the actual content of world religions knows you're wrong.

The Qur’an does not outright abolish slavery, but it does regulate it, encourage

emancipation, and set moral limits—especially around coercion into prostitution.
Here are some key passages:

1. Slavery in the Qur’an

Ownership of slaves is acknowledged as a social reality in 7th-century Arabia. The term most often used is mā malakat aymānukum (“those whom your right hands possess”).

Encouragement to free slaves appears repeatedly as a virtuous act or expiation for sins:

The Qur’an does not outright abolish slavery, but it does regulate it, encourage emancipation, and set moral limits—especially around coercion into prostitution.
Here are some key passages:

1. Slavery in the Qur’an

Ownership of slaves is acknowledged as a social reality in 7th-century Arabia. The term most often used is mā malakat aymānukum (“those whom your right hands possess”).

Encouragement to free slaves appears repeatedly as a virtuous act or expiation for sins:
here are the key Qur’anic passages people cite on slavery and prostitution, with short quotes and references:

Prostitution / coercion
24:33 — bans forcing enslaved women into prostitution: “Do not compel your slave-girls to prostitution…”
Quran.com
Quranic Arabic Corpus

Manumission (freeing slaves) & support
90:13 — “It is to free a slave.”
Quran.com
Quranic Arabic Corpus

2:177 — righteousness includes “freeing captives.”
Quran.com

9:60 — alms (zakat) include funds “to free the captives.”
My Islam
internetmosque.net

Acknowledgement/regulation of slavery and sexual access (“those whom your right hands possess”)
23:5–6 — sexual relations permitted “with their wives or those [bondwomen] in their possession.”
Quran.com
+1

70:29–30 — repeats the same allowance.
Quran.com
internetmosque.net

4:24 — lists categories of forbidden spouses, “except [female] captives in your possession,” and stresses marriage, not fornication.
Quran.com
Quranic Arabic Corpus

4:25 — permits marrying believing slave-women if one lacks means to marry free women; dowry and consent via their people are mentioned.
Quranic Arabic Corpus
My Islam

33:50 — mentions the Prophet and “those [bondwomen] in your possession” among what was lawful for him.
Quran.com
Quranic Arabic Corpus

Other relevant references
24:33 (first half) — instructs owners to grant mukātaba (contracts for self-purchase/manumission) when requested, and to aid them financially.
Quran.com

16:75 — parable contrasting a powerless slave with a free, well-provided man.
Quran.com
+1

If you want, I can pull side-by-side translations (e.g., Sahih International, Pickthall, Yusuf Ali) for any of these verses.












Sources

Ask ChatGPT
Remember Muhammad produced the Koran in 7th century Arabia where prostitution and slavery were institutions before Islam.

[Immanuel Can]

The Qur’an does not outright abolish slavery, but it does regulate it, encourage emancipation, and set moral limits—especially around coercion into prostitution.

Yes, tell that to the girls in Rotherham. And tell it to the eunuch slaves of the Trans -Saharan trades over the last 1,000 years. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW7YGPN9s1M.

I also have what I have found is pretty much a hard-and-fast rule: anybody who simply reprints some nonsense from ChatGPT has simply turned off his brain and stopped thinking at all.

[MikeNovack]

I think, B., you're channeling the aspirational but totally uninformed, "We all believe the same things" kind of meme, that happy belief of universalist religionists, that supposes all religions are essentially the same -- at least in regard to morality. But a little study of actual religions makes that completely unbelievable. It's just not true.

Well, that is a little unfair description of univeralist religions. For example Hinduism doesn't say we believe the same. It says we are all trapped on the wheel of life, deluded by maya --- but we'll all get rejoined to the one, eventually.

But I completely agree with you, all religions not the same, and though many have some moral rules in common, not identical. Notation, I'll use MORALITYd to stand for any divine morality, and MORALITYdc for Christian, MORALITYdj Jewish, etc.

IC, if you claim all the MORALITYdx's are different do you mean?
1) They are all correct/proper moral systems, even though different
2) They are not, one id correct/proper and the others aren't.

If the latter, prepare an argument to a secular, or even a religious person belonging to another religion WHY they should think YOURS the correct/proper one. If person A is trying to convince person B that X is true, is it useful for A to say "I believe X is true". That is reason for B to conclude "A believes X is true, but not for B to conclude "X is true".

[Immanuel Can]

I think, B., you're channeling the aspirational but totally uninformed, "We all believe the same things" kind of meme, that happy belief of universalist religionists, that supposes all religions are essentially the same -- at least in regard to morality. But a little study of actual religions makes that completely unbelievable. It's just not true.

Well, that is a little unfair description of univeralist religions. For example Hinduism doesn't say we believe the same. It says we are all trapped on the wheel of life, deluded by maya --- but we'll all get rejoined to the one, eventually.

But think more deeply, and you'll realize that universalist systems are actually just as imperious and exclusivist as those who declare their exclusive rightness.

Why do I think so? Well, let's consider it.

Doesn't any universalist also believe that people are better for being universalists? In fact, isn't one of the criticisms, the things they call "bad" about other religions, their exclusivism? And does Hinduism (since that's your chosen exemplar of inclusivism) believe that every other religion, such as Islam, say, is the equal of Hinduism? I dare say you can't sell that story in India. And don't they think that practicing Hindu disciplines is better for one's dharma and karma than all the alternatives? Don't they think that being a Hindu is superior to being a Buddhist, or a Zoroastrian, or a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Sikh? You can answer that by their actions, can't you?

Of course they do. Every Hindu IS a Hindu because he/she believes Hinduism is "better" than alternatives. And the same is true of the soft-headed Western universalist creeds...they all believe they're representing the pinnacle of religious achievement, in some sense: to be as "tolerant" and "inclusive" as they think themselves to be must surely be the height of what they believe to be rightness, no? If they didn't think that, would they not change their religion to something else? Because why would you subscribe to any religion you secretly thought was inferior? It wouldn't make sense.

But I completely agree with you, all religions not the same, and though many have some moral rules in common, not identical.

But some so wildly different as to be quite opposite, in fact.

IC, if you claim all the MORALITYdx's are different do you mean?
1) They are all correct/proper moral systems, even though different

If somebody said that, he'd be making no sense. For the terms "correct" and "proper" have to be detected with reference to some criteria. And those criteria will inevitably belong to a belief-system.

Let us call this "the meta-system" (MS); we don't have to decide which it is, right now, but the important thing is that it's the system of values being assumed in making the judgment that this or that other religion is "proper" or "correct."

So the ultimately correct and proper system is the MS, and every other system is to be judged by how it measures up to the MS. Otherwise, the words "correct" and "proper" make reference to nothing. That means the MS is superior. That means that not all systems are "correct" and "proper." Those that do not meet the MS criteria will surely be less "correct" and "proper": but even those that do meet some or all of the criteria will only be so "correct" and "proper" as they are comparable to the MS.

Moreover, those that contradict other systems will force us back to the question, which one meets the MS criteria better? So really, once again, we have a kind of exclusivism -- the MS is taken to be better, more "correct" and more "proper" than all the systems it's being used to judge.

2) They are not, one id correct/proper and the others aren't.

This is easy. It's not even possible for directly contradictory propositions to be true at the same time. That's a basic law of logic, called "the Law of Non-Contradiction." So since religions do, in fact, hold views contradictory to others' views, it must be the case that not all are equally "proper" or "correct." It couldn't possibly be otherwise.

If the latter, prepare an argument to a secular, or even a religious person belonging to another religion WHY they should think YOURS the correct/proper one.

Well, the easiest way to specify "correct/proper," and indeed, the only way to do it is to specify the MS, the "meta-system" to be used.

Here's the problem for Secularism: it denies the existence of ANY meta-system (MS), or indeed, any objective system of morals at all. So it's in absolutely no position to judge anybody else's beliefs. It has no criteria for doing so. So the first thing we should have to do is to reject Secularism.

Are you ready to do that? If not, then the task for which you ask is undoable. For the Secularist's answer will inevitably be, "There is no MS, and no criteria you could possibly offer will be accepted." And you can't beat a strategy like that, can you?

And let me add this, if I may:

"When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet... Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it... it has truth only if God is the truth — it stands and falls with faith in God." (Friedrich Nietzsche - Twilight of the Idols)