Gary's Corner

[Immanuel Can]

So-called "Continental" philosophers like Nietzsche and Heidegger were frauds who simply stated their opinions and did not use logic. They weren't philosophers. They were sophists.

But they are very far from being the only philosophers -- indeed, the only secularists -- who have recognized the problem of how to ground any moral value in a secular world. It's quite a common topic among such skeptics, in fact. So an ad hominem slam against them won't solve the problem. If they aren't allowed to ask it, Hume, or Mill, or the Existentialists, or Joseph Margolis will. But somebody will. Maybe even the next secular person who finds himself drawn to do something good or tempted to do something evil.

"Why should I?" isn't a hard question to dredge up, is it?

[Gary Childress]

So-called "Continental" philosophers like Nietzsche and Heidegger were frauds who simply stated their opinions and did not use logic. They weren't philosophers. They were sophists.

But they are very far from being the only philosophers -- indeed, the only secularists -- who have recognized the problem of how to ground any moral value in a secular world. It's quite a common topic among such skeptics, in fact. So an ad hominem slam against them won't solve the problem. If they aren't allowed to ask it, Hume, or Mill, or the Existentialists, or Joseph Margolis will. But somebody will. Maybe even the next secular person who finds himself drawn to do something good or tempted to do something evil.

"Why should I?" isn't a hard question to dredge up, is it?

IT DOES NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW THAT NO GOD = NO MORALITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Immanuel Can]

So you don't like Nietzsche. Okay. Why is he wrong?

...logic does not dictate that no God = no morality.

That's being doubted...and by secularists, not merely by Theists.

So show that. Show that there is something I "ought" to do, or "ought" not to do, assuming God does not exist.

[Gary Childress]

So you don't like Nietzsche. Okay. Why is he wrong?

...logic does not dictate that no God = no morality.

That's being doubted...and by secularists, not merely by Theists.

So show that. Show that there is something I "ought" to do, or "ought" not to do, assuming God does not exist.

If you murder someone, you have done evil, whether there is a God or not. Whether there is a God or not, murder is immoral. Do you disagree? And if so, why? IT DOES NOT LOGICALLY FOLLOW JUST BECAUSE YOU CONTINUE TO SAY NO GOD = NO MORALITY!!!!!!!!!!! IF YOU RUN AROUND TELLING ATHEISTS THAT THERE IS NO MORALITY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN MURDER SOMEONE, THEN YOU ARE SPREADING MALICE!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE CORRUPTING CHILDREN AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO YOU TELL THIS TO AND WHO WILL BELIEVE THAT YOUR FRAUDULENT CLAIMS "LOGICALLY FOLLOW". YOU ARE NOT USING LOGIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Immanuel Can]

...logic does not dictate that no God = no morality.

That's being doubted...and by secularists, not merely by Theists.

So show that. Show that there is something I "ought" to do, or "ought" not to do, assuming God does not exist.

If you murder someone, you have done evil, whether there is a God or not.

Well, it's one thing to claim that...but can you make it logical and rational? Can you give an argument that shows that, given secularism, murder is still evil?

[Gary Childress]

That's being doubted...and by secularists, not merely by Theists.

So show that. Show that there is something I "ought" to do, or "ought" not to do, assuming God does not exist.

If you murder someone, you have done evil, whether there is a God or not.

Well, it's one thing to claim that...but can you make it logical and rational? Can you give an argument that shows that, given secularism, murder is still evil?

I cannot. Does lack of an argument mean that murder is ok? I'm agnostic. If someone says there is no God, I say, how do you know? If they say, can you prove there is one, then I say, "No, I cannot". Unlike you, I'm not interested in giving false arguments in order to support religious beliefs. I act on my conscience, and if a voice in my head tells me to commit genocide and I happen to think, "Gee, it must be God because I have no other explanation," then I'm going to say, "No, God, I will not".

[Immanuel Can]

If you murder someone, you have done evil, whether there is a God or not.

Well, it's one thing to claim that...but can you make it logical and rational? Can you give an argument that shows that, given secularism, murder is still evil?

I cannot.

I have never found anyone who could. So don't feel too bad about that.

Does lack of an argument mean that murder is ok?

No, but it does mean that the speaker doesn't have any logical reason for thinking that it is bad, either.

I'm agnostic. If someone says there is no God, I say, how do you know? If they say, can you prove there is one, then I say, "No, I cannot".

Well, that isn't a very revealing claim, I have to say. After all, that somebody doesn't know something, and is willing to admit it, doesn't prove the truth or falsehood of it at all.

I might be an agnostic about the existence of Boston. That won't stop Boston existing, if it does.

I act on my conscience,

This doesn't add anything to the question of whether or not what you act on is right or wrong...unless conscience itself can be known to be reliably indicating something. And how do we know that, in matters in which consciences differ?

I have a strong conscience against abortion. Some people claim to have a conscience to the effect that every woman should be granted the right to murder her own children. Given secularism, which of our consciences is telling us what is actually right, if we both honestly feel we're on the side of right?

[Gary Childress]

Well, it's one thing to claim that...but can you make it logical and rational? Can you give an argument that shows that, given secularism, murder is still evil?

I cannot.

I have never found anyone who could. So don't feel too bad about that.

Does lack of an argument mean that murder is ok?

No, but it does mean that the speaker doesn't have any logical reason for thinking that it is bad, either.

I'm agnostic. If someone says there is no God, I say, how do you know? If they say, can you prove there is one, then I say, "No, I cannot".

Well, that isn't a very revealing claim, I have to say. After all, that somebody doesn't know something, and is willing to admit it, doesn't prove the truth or falsehood of it at all.

Since I have admitted that I cannot say there is no God, can you tell me that you do not know for certain that there is a God but have faith that there is? And if you, to the contrary, know by some means with certainty that there is a God, can you tell me that you know with certainty that the Bible is the one and only true testament of God's words and that it has not, conversely, been distorted by human interpretations or even subject to human fabrications?

[Immanuel Can]

I cannot.

I have never found anyone who could. So don't feel too bad about that.

Does lack of an argument mean that murder is ok?

No, but it does mean that the speaker doesn't have any logical reason for thinking that it is bad, either.

I'm agnostic. If someone says there is no God, I say, how do you know? If they say, can you prove there is one, then I say, "No, I cannot".

Well, that isn't a very revealing claim, I have to say. After all, that somebody doesn't know something, and is willing to admit it, doesn't prove the truth or falsehood of it at all.

Since I have admitted that I cannot say there is no God, can you tell me that you do not know for certain that there is a God but have faith that there is?

Well, that, too, wouldn't have any impact on the question in hand.

Let's suppose I were uncertain, to some extent; how would that make secular morality any more possible?

It wouldn't. All we'd have is two worldviews, neither of which could ground morality, and morality still would not be substantiated.

[Gary Childress]

I have never found anyone who could. So don't feel too bad about that.
No, but it does mean that the speaker doesn't have any logical reason for thinking that it is bad, either.

Well, that isn't a very revealing claim, I have to say. After all, that somebody doesn't know something, and is willing to admit it, doesn't prove the truth or falsehood of it at all.

Since I have admitted that I cannot say there is no God, can you tell me that you do not know for certain that there is a God but have faith that there is?

Well, that, too, wouldn't have any impact on the question in hand.

Let's suppose I were uncertain, to some extent; how would that make secular morality any more possible?

It wouldn't. All we'd have is two worldviews, neither of which could ground morality, and morality still would not be substantiated.

Is secular morality "impossible"?

[Immanuel Can]

Since I have admitted that I cannot say there is no God, can you tell me that you do not know for certain that there is a God but have faith that there is?

Well, that, too, wouldn't have any impact on the question in hand.

Let's suppose I were uncertain, to some extent; how would that make secular morality any more possible?

It wouldn't. All we'd have is two worldviews, neither of which could ground morality, and morality still would not be substantiated.

Is secular morality "impossible"?

That depends on what you mean by "secular morality."

Is it possible for a secular person to behave in ways we consider, traditionally, to be "moral"? Sure. Why not? Secular persons can behave in traditionally-moral ways as easily as in any other way.

But do you mean, "Is it possible for a secular person to explain WHY what he is doing is moral?" Well, the answer to that, nobody, it seems, is able to provide. So what's the obvious conclusion?

[Gary Childress]

Is it possible for a secular person to behave in ways we consider, traditionally, to be "moral"? Sure. Why not? Secular persons can behave in traditionally-moral ways as easily as in any other way.

So then a secular person (meaning someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God) can behave in ways traditionally considered moral, correct?

Is it possible for a secularist to embrace traditional morality as his or her code of conduct to follow in life?

[Immanuel Can]

Is it possible for a secular person to behave in ways we consider, traditionally, to be "moral"? Sure. Why not? Secular persons can behave in traditionally-moral ways as easily as in any other way.

So then a secular person (meaning someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God) can behave in ways traditionally considered moral, correct?

Of course. People can act any way they choose, so long as it's within the realm of their personal possibilities. That can be good, bad or indifferent. But what they can't always do is explain why they are morally obligated to do some actions, or avoid others. They can't always substantiate their choices, in other words.

Is it possible for a secularist to embrace traditional morality as his or her code of conduct to follow in life?

This is exactly what has tended to happen in the West. Those who have become secular have continued on a sort of "auto-pilot" of cultural habits. They've just kept doing much of what they were doing when the West was, at least nominally, "Christian" in its ethics.

But then, a problem has appeared: what happens when the secularist starts to believe his own secularism? What happens when an Atheist or agnostic decides that his Atheism or his agnosticism should not just be a matter of private conviction, but should actually inform his own moral practices? What happens when the secularist finds reasons to doubt some element of Judeo-Christian morality, and begins to ask himself, "Why should I be bound by a code derived from something I simply no longer believe in?"

And this is what is now happening in the West. More and more, secular society is testing the limits of its inherited, Christian-cultural moral suppositions, deciding they are not relevant to secular ethics or secular social policy, and abandoning them for something else. For some, this passes for a kind of "liberation." Others decry it as a "decline," as a fall-away from morality. But nobody doubts that it's changing.

However, if secular society is to be established and survive, it really needs some compass points to direct its social policy, it's laws, its judicial system, it's social protocols, and its morality on a personal scale. Otherwise, how shall a secular society make good laws and policies, or a secular person assure himself of his moral rightness? How shall we choose our way, if we have no common moral compass? Don't we all want to think of ourselves as good people, and our society as progressing toward the good? How can we do that, if our own beliefs offer us no account whatsoever of "the Good"?

So now you have the plight of current secular society. It's without that common moral compass. Anything could be "right" or "wrong," or nothing at all be either. Secularism does not contain any of that kind of information, and it substantiates no morality ahead of any other.

So just how is secular society supposed to continue and cohere, absent any common moral compass? The common compass of the Christian past is decaying, in secular thought; what will replace it? Nobody knows. Nobody, it seems, can say.

[Gary Childress]

Is it possible for a secular person to behave in ways we consider, traditionally, to be "moral"? Sure. Why not? Secular persons can behave in traditionally-moral ways as easily as in any other way.

So then a secular person (meaning someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God) can behave in ways traditionally considered moral, correct?

Of course. People can act any way they choose, so long as it's within the realm of their personal possibilities. That can be good, bad or indifferent. But what they can't always do is explain why they are morally obligated to do some actions, or avoid others. They can't always substantiate their choices, in other words.

Is it possible for a secularist to embrace traditional morality as his or her code of conduct to follow in life?

This is exactly what has tended to happen in the West. Those who have become secular have continued on a sort of "auto-pilot" of cultural habits. They've just kept doing much of what they were doing when the West was, at least nominally, "Christian" in its ethics.

But then, a problem has appeared: what happens when the secularist starts to believe his own secularism? What happens when an Atheist or agnostic decides that his Atheism or his agnosticism should not just be a matter of private conviction, but should actually inform his own moral practices? What happens when the secularist finds reasons to doubt some element of Judeo-Christian morality, and begins to ask himself, "Why should I be bound by a code derived from something I simply no longer believe in?"

And this is what is now happening in the West. More and more, secular society is testing the limits of its inherited, Christian-cultural moral suppositions, deciding they are not relevant to secular ethics or secular social policy, and abandoning them for something else. For some, this passes for a kind of "liberation." Others decry it as a "decline," as a fall-away from morality. But nobody doubts that it's changing.

However, if secular society is to be established and survive, it really needs some compass points to direct its social policy, it's laws, its judicial system, it's social protocols, and its morality on a personal scale. Otherwise, how shall a secular society make good laws and policies, or a secular person assure himself of his moral rightness? How shall we choose our way, if we have no common moral compass? Don't we all want to think of ourselves as good people, and our society as progressing toward the good? How can we do that, if our own beliefs offer us no account whatsoever of "the Good"?

So now you have the plight of current secular society. It's without that common moral compass. Anything could be "right" or "wrong," or nothing at all be either. Secularism does not contain any of that kind of information, and it substantiates no morality ahead of any other.

So just how is secular society supposed to continue and cohere, absent any common moral compass? The common compass of the Christian past is decaying, in secular thought; what will replace it? Nobody knows. Nobody, it seems, can say.

Why is it that Buddhism doesn't seem to have a requirement to believe in God or have commandments, but practicing Buddhists seem to be pretty good about conducting themselves in civil ways in society? Is there something special about Buddhists that they don't need commandments or divine rule-givers, but Christians do?

[Immanuel Can]

So then a secular person (meaning someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God) can behave in ways traditionally considered moral, correct?

Of course. People can act any way they choose, so long as it's within the realm of their personal possibilities. That can be good, bad or indifferent. But what they can't always do is explain why they are morally obligated to do some actions, or avoid others. They can't always substantiate their choices, in other words.

Is it possible for a secularist to embrace traditional morality as his or her code of conduct to follow in life?

This is exactly what has tended to happen in the West. Those who have become secular have continued on a sort of "auto-pilot" of cultural habits. They've just kept doing much of what they were doing when the West was, at least nominally, "Christian" in its ethics.

But then, a problem has appeared: what happens when the secularist starts to believe his own secularism? What happens when an Atheist or agnostic decides that his Atheism or his agnosticism should not just be a matter of private conviction, but should actually inform his own moral practices? What happens when the secularist finds reasons to doubt some element of Judeo-Christian morality, and begins to ask himself, "Why should I be bound by a code derived from something I simply no longer believe in?"

And this is what is now happening in the West. More and more, secular society is testing the limits of its inherited, Christian-cultural moral suppositions, deciding they are not relevant to secular ethics or secular social policy, and abandoning them for something else. For some, this passes for a kind of "liberation." Others decry it as a "decline," as a fall-away from morality. But nobody doubts that it's changing.

However, if secular society is to be established and survive, it really needs some compass points to direct its social policy, it's laws, its judicial system, it's social protocols, and its morality on a personal scale. Otherwise, how shall a secular society make good laws and policies, or a secular person assure himself of his moral rightness? How shall we choose our way, if we have no common moral compass? Don't we all want to think of ourselves as good people, and our society as progressing toward the good? How can we do that, if our own beliefs offer us no account whatsoever of "the Good"?

So now you have the plight of current secular society. It's without that common moral compass. Anything could be "right" or "wrong," or nothing at all be either. Secularism does not contain any of that kind of information, and it substantiates no morality ahead of any other.

So just how is secular society supposed to continue and cohere, absent any common moral compass? The common compass of the Christian past is decaying, in secular thought; what will replace it? Nobody knows. Nobody, it seems, can say.

Why is it that Buddhism doesn't seem to have a requirement to believe in God or have commandments, but practicing Buddhists seem to be pretty good about conducting themselves in civil ways in society?

What's your basis for that assessment? I know that some pretty awful things have been going on in Myanmar. Which Buddhist society do you think can teach the West how to be moral? Can you give an example?