Religious vs non-religous bases for morality

[MikeNovack]

You are also using presumptions about what this God wants to do, intends,

This isn't true, but it has nothing to do with the question anyway. So I could grant it to you for argument's sake, and stilll, you've said nothing to the point.

The question is about what secularism can warrant by its own lights, regardless of what somebody else can or cannot do.

No, the question at THIS POINT is not about "secularism". It is about a BELIEVER in deity, just not a deity inclined towards being as "hands on" as you picture deity being. I will admit to an ulterior motive. I think you will end up having the same objection about "then no basis for morality" (as you do with the secularist). But that will mean your objection is not really about what you think the secularist cannot do, but what you think nobody can do whether a secularist OR a believer in deity unless they believe in the same sort of "hands on" deity as you do. Unless they believe in YOUR GOD (a god with the properties you believe God to have).

Plenty of believers would consider it presumptuous to decide what properties God does or does not have, what God wants or does not want. Or they might have beliefs about those things, just not the same as you do.

[Immanuel Can]

You are also using presumptions about what this God wants to do, intends,

This isn't true, but it has nothing to do with the question anyway. So I could grant it to you for argument's sake, and stilll, you've said nothing to the point.

The question is about what secularism can warrant by its own lights, regardless of what somebody else can or cannot do.

No, the question at THIS POINT is not about "secularism".

Yeah, it is...and only about that.

You want to switch away for this reason: that you have no answer. But that makes you the same as every other person who tries to do it. It cannot be done.

[Iwannaplato]

BUT FOR THE MOMENT. IC, explain.
a) If your moral system is valid because it is dictated by a god. what standing do you assign the moral systems dictated by other gods (to the believers of those gods? Do you understand this question? I am not a Christian but a person familiar with many religions and their moral teachings.

Asked and answered. See my last post on the other site.

What other site?

[MikeNovack]

No, the question at THIS POINT is not about "secularism".

Yeah, it is...and only about that.

You want to switch away for this reason: that you have no answer. But that makes you the same as every other person who tries to do it. It cannot be done.

You insist the secularists can't do this because they don't believe in any god/gods.

I am saying NOT because they don't believe in any god/gods but because they don't believe in any god/gods with the interests, proclivities, etc. of god as pictured by Christians. Yes of course that would be the case for the secularists since if they believe in no god/gods won't be believing in god/gods as pictured by Christians. But so would all the theists whose understanding of what god/gods want or do is different from as pictured by Christians.

So this is not secularist vs theist difference. It is secularist plus general case theist vs specific case theist.

[Immanuel Can]

No, the question at THIS POINT is not about "secularism".

Yeah, it is...and only about that.

You want to switch away for this reason: that you have no answer. But that makes you the same as every other person who tries to do it. It cannot be done.

You insist the secularists can't do this because they don't believe in any god/gods.

I don't say anything about that. I just ask secularists to show, with reference to nothing but their secularism, how they can justify imposing any moral duty, obligation, law, precept or requirement on anybody, including themselves. And they can't seem to do it.

That's really telling. And that's the only point to be made here. You can do the rest of the deduction yourself, without my help.

[FlashDangerpants]

Some of you guys need to rethink what you are trying to do. When IC is asking "Can you make it a duty, an "ought" or obligatory to have a "feeling"?" he's requiring moral absolutism.

If you are not a moral absolutist, you don't need to have any single obligatory "ought" for all people and he is mistaken in demanding it of you. He has no argument to share that says you are wrong here, he can only tell you about a rumour that he is in posession of such an argument.

If you are a secular moral absolutist, then just offer something to fulfil his demand. The easiest option there is that it is morally required in all circumstances to view others as ends in themselves rather than as a means to ends of your own. Just borrow from Kant if you are out of ideas of your own.

But if you have any chops at all, you should be able to argue that every moral agent is required to act in accord with his/her own conscience is no less valid than any claim that all people are required to act in accord with the conscience of their creator.

[MikeNovack]

I don't say anything about that. I just ask secularists to show, with reference to nothing but their secularism, how they can justify imposing any moral duty, obligation, law, precept or requirement on anybody, including themselves. And they can't seem to do it.

That's really telling. And that's the only point to be made here. You can do the rest of the deduction yourself, without my help.

Why secularists? Why are you not making the same demand of those who believe in god/gods (just not a deity concerned about the behavior of humans)

"I just ask believers in god/gods to show, with reference to nothing but their belief in god/gods, how they can justify imposing any moral duty, obligation, law, precept or requirement on anybody, including themselves. And they can't seem to do it."

JUST belief in god/gods does not imply belief in a deity who is the least bit interested in handing out orders to humans or monitoring their behavior. THAT is the key point. It's not belief in god/gods that gets to your source of morality but belief in God with specific interest in handing our moral directives and monitoring human behavior.

Your more proper division is not believers in deity vs non-believers in deity but believers in a specific description of deity vs non-believers in a deity OF THAT DESCRIPTION. Yes of course, non-believers of any deity would fall in that latter category but so would many believers.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't say anything about that. I just ask secularists to show, with reference to nothing but their secularism, how they can justify imposing any moral duty, obligation, law, precept or requirement on anybody, including themselves. And they can't seem to do it.

That's really telling. And that's the only point to be made here. You can do the rest of the deduction yourself, without my help.

Why secularists?

Why not? I don't absent my own views from critical scrutiny...and Atheists wouldn't grant me to do that, even if I were to try. But why is secularism supposed to be immune from critical examination? I see no reason why it shouldn't live up to the sorts of tests it demands of others.

JUST belief in god/gods...

That's not secularism. It has no relevance to the question. Ever were it true that no religious theory could ground morality, it would still be true that secularism can't. And then we'd all, logically speaking, have to become amoral, if that's what you prefer. I doubt it is.

But that argument wouldn't save secularism from its own internal problems, precisely because they are internal to secularism. No criticism of anybody else will change it one iota. It's secularism we're talking about right now, though I sense your desperation to pull in the irrelevant, so we'll stop having to look at what we can plainly see before us -- namely that secularism grounds no morality.