Philosophy Now Forum

Stop this Immanuel. I am having trouble continuing to believe you just don't understand.

Look, if I took the views of ONE of the branches of Christianity, one of the ones that claims itself to be the only true Christianity, and one that was not yours --- and I, not a Christian, then proceeded to define Christianity as this sect does, and so call Christianity obviously bad (because this sect is) would you not be justifiably pissed?

I am a leftist out of the "left anarchist tradition". Not a Marxist, not a "state socialist". You claim no people like myself exist. So I presented you with two examples of people I would consider "leftist" but not Marxist or state socialist . While I could have given you secular examples I intentionally picked Christian ones.

DISCUSS THESE EXAMPLES. Tell me why you don't consider the Diggers "leftist" in terms of YOUR beliefs (not in terms of some Marxist; you DON'T shatre Marxist beliefs). Same for the Catholic Workers.

But please folks, if we want to discuss leftism/socialism/Marxism should be its own section of the forum, not under Christianity. Similarly if we want to discuss Islam (though from what I've seen so far, few here know enough about the history/range if Islamic thought to do so). Morality should have its own section; there are some fundamental questions besides asking if can be secular. And I would like to see a section on "environmental ethics" because here we have challenges to what has standing.

Stop this Immanuel. I am having trouble continuing to believe you just don't understand.

Look, if I took the views of ONE of the branches of Christianity, one of the ones that claims itself to be the only true Christianity, and one that was not yours --- and I, not a Christian, then proceeded to define Christianity as this sect does, and so call Christianity obviously bad (because this sect is) would you not be justifiably pissed?

I am a leftist out of the "left anarchist tradition". Not a Marxist, not a "state socialist". You claim no people like myself exist. So I presented you with two examples of people I would consider "leftist" but not Marxist or state socialist . While I could have given you secular examples I intentionally picked Christian ones.

DISCUSS THESE EXAMPLES. Tell me why you don't consider the Diggers "leftist" in terms of YOUR beliefs (not in terms of some Marxist; you DON'T share Marxist beliefs). Same for the Catholic Workers.

But please folks, if we want to discuss leftism/socialism/Marxism should be its own section of the forum, not under Christianity. Similarly if we want to discuss Islam (though from what I've seen so far, few here know enough about the history/range if Islamic thought to do so). Morality should have its own section; there are some fundamental questions besides asking if can be secular. And I would like to see a section on "environmental ethics" because here we have challenges to what has standing.

Sorry about that (accidental double post)

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 9:03 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:13 pm If there is a Ground to reground on, it cannot be defined at this juncture.

That’s the weasely way to put it, actually…to acknowledge the failure, but deny it’s a real failure, because we might be able to issue a promissory note toward a future solution we realize a) we don’t have, and b) we have zero evidence right now, admittedly, that we will EVER have.

The truth is most probably simpler: there is not now, nor will there ever be, a basis to ground ethics in secularism. As many smart people there are today who are secularists, not one of them has been able to come within a million miles of a solution. At some point, it has to be admitted to our own consciousness that it is most likely that this imagined “Ground to reground on” simply will never exist.

So the more likely outcome is that there IS no solution to that dilemma. And there most probably never will be. But right now, the one thing upon which everybody can agree, is there’s no way to ground things like a personal ethics, social relations, a law code, or an ultimate teleological orientation point in secularism. Right now, it’s bankrupt. If it’s going to do anything else in the future, well, by dint of present evidence, anybody who hopes so is more full of bad faith (as Sartre called it) than the wildest religious zealot has ever been known to be.

Do you not consider that there may perhaps be that in human nature which is of God?

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 9:03 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:13 pm If there is a Ground to reground on, it cannot be defined at this juncture.

That’s the weasely way to put it, actually…to acknowledge the failure, but deny it’s a real failure, because we might be able to issue a promissory note toward a future solution we realize a) we don’t have, and b) we have zero evidence right now, admittedly, that we will EVER have.

The truth is most probably simpler: there is not now, nor will there ever be, a basis to ground ethics in secularism. As many smart people there are today who are secularists, not one of them has been able to come within a million miles of a solution. At some point, it has to be admitted to our own consciousness that it is most likely that this imagined “Ground to reground on” simply will never exist.

So the more likely outcome is that there IS no solution to that dilemma. And there most probably never will be. But right now, the one thing upon which everybody can agree, is there’s no way to ground things like a personal ethics, social relations, a law code, or an ultimate teleological orientation point in secularism. Right now, it’s bankrupt. If it’s going to do anything else in the future, well, by dint of present evidence, anybody who hopes so is more full of bad faith (as Sartre called it) than the wildest religious zealot has ever been known to be.

Do not consider that there may perhaps be that in human nature which is of God?

I'd give up, Belinda. IC is more nihilistic than most secular nihilists. No hope of convincing him of any redeeming qualities to human beings. According to IC we couldn't even shit or piss without God's divine guidance.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 9:03 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 1:13 pm If there is a Ground to reground on, it cannot be defined at this juncture.

That’s the weasely way to put it, actually…to acknowledge the failure, but deny it’s a real failure, because we might be able to issue a promissory note toward a future solution we realize a) we don’t have, and b) we have zero evidence right now, admittedly, that we will EVER have.

The truth is most probably simpler: there is not now, nor will there ever be, a basis to ground ethics in secularism. As many smart people there are today who are secularists, not one of them has been able to come within a million miles of a solution. At some point, it has to be admitted to our own consciousness that it is most likely that this imagined “Ground to reground on” simply will never exist.

So the more likely outcome is that there IS no solution to that dilemma. And there most probably never will be. But right now, the one thing upon which everybody can agree, is there’s no way to ground things like a personal ethics, social relations, a law code, or an ultimate teleological orientation point in secularism. Right now, it’s bankrupt. If it’s going to do anything else in the future, well, by dint of present evidence, anybody who hopes so is more full of bad faith (as Sartre called it) than the wildest religious zealot has ever been known to be.

Do you not consider that there may perhaps be that in human nature which is of God?

There is conscience, which men have, but often contradict. That is from God. And man has an instinctive awareness of God. That is from God. However, do you not consider that the natural man is very far from God, at the same time? He can tell you that himself: how many people are there here who will frankly confess that they have no relationship with God, and will even boast of it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 4:33 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:46 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Jul 27, 2025 9:03 pm
That’s the weasely way to put it, actually…to acknowledge the failure, but deny it’s a real failure, because we might be able to issue a promissory note toward a future solution we realize a) we don’t have, and b) we have zero evidence right now, admittedly, that we will EVER have.

The truth is most probably simpler: there is not now, nor will there ever be, a basis to ground ethics in secularism. As many smart people there are today who are secularists, not one of them has been able to come within a million miles of a solution. At some point, it has to be admitted to our own consciousness that it is most likely that this imagined “Ground to reground on” simply will never exist.

So the more likely outcome is that there IS no solution to that dilemma. And there most probably never will be. But right now, the one thing upon which everybody can agree, is there’s no way to ground things like a personal ethics, social relations, a law code, or an ultimate teleological orientation point in secularism. Right now, it’s bankrupt. If it’s going to do anything else in the future, well, by dint of present evidence, anybody who hopes so is more full of bad faith (as Sartre called it) than the wildest religious zealot has ever been known to be.

Do you not consider that there may perhaps be that in human nature which is of God?

There is conscience, which men have, but often contradict. That is from God. And man has an instinctive awareness of God. That is from God. However, do you not consider that the natural man is very far from God, at the same time? He can tell you that himself: how many people are there here who will frankly confess that they have no relationship with God, and will even boast of it?

And how many of those people without relationship with God are homicidal maniacs or openly flaunt civic laws? Certainly it's not 100% nor is it 100% that people who are homicidal maniacs or flaunt civil laws aren't believers in God.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 4:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 4:33 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 3:46 pm

Do you not consider that there may perhaps be that in human nature which is of God?

There is conscience, which men have, but often contradict. That is from God. And man has an instinctive awareness of God. That is from God. However, do you not consider that the natural man is very far from God, at the same time? He can tell you that himself: how many people are there here who will frankly confess that they have no relationship with God, and will even boast of it?

And how many of those people without relationship with God are homicidal maniacs or openly flaunt civic laws?

I don’t know. You don’t, either, because nobody’s going to allow research on that basis. But I suspect the answer is pretty similar to the levels in the general population.

But you’re dropping a red herring here, instead of tackling the issue. The argument is not that people who are secularists cannot be hypocritical about their beliefs and decide to behave well. They can. I’ve got lots of secular friends, and some of them are very nice people, even though secularism as an ideology gives them no reason to choose that over any other set of actions. But if I were to ask them how their secularism itself informs their moral beliefs, they couldn’t tell me, anymore than you could.

It doesn’t. That’s why.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 4:59 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 4:45 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 4:33 pm
There is conscience, which men have, but often contradict. That is from God. And man has an instinctive awareness of God. That is from God. However, do you not consider that the natural man is very far from God, at the same time? He can tell you that himself: how many people are there here who will frankly confess that they have no relationship with God, and will even boast of it?

And how many of those people without relationship with God are homicidal maniacs or openly flaunt civic laws?

I don’t know. You don’t, either, because nobody’s going to allow research on that basis. But I suspect the answer is pretty similar to the levels in the general population.

But you’re dropping a red herring here, instead of tackling the issue. The argument is not that people who are secularists cannot be hypocritical about their beliefs and decide to behave well. They can. I’ve got lots of secular friends, and some of them are very nice people, even though secularism as an ideology gives them no reason to choose that over any other set of actions. But if I were to ask them how their secularism itself informs their moral beliefs, they couldn’t tell me, anymore than you could.

It doesn’t. That’s why.

Who says secularism commands one to cheat and steal? Secularism demands nothing. Many secularists consider themselves "humanists" meaning they believe in being kind to other humans by virtue of all of us of being stuck in this world whether we like it or not. Otherwise the world would be mostly intolerable to just about everyone.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 5:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 4:59 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 4:45 pm

And how many of those people without relationship with God are homicidal maniacs or openly flaunt civic laws?

I don’t know. You don’t, either, because nobody’s going to allow research on that basis. But I suspect the answer is pretty similar to the levels in the general population.

But you’re dropping a red herring here, instead of tackling the issue. The argument is not that people who are secularists cannot be hypocritical about their beliefs and decide to behave well. They can. I’ve got lots of secular friends, and some of them are very nice people, even though secularism as an ideology gives them no reason to choose that over any other set of actions. But if I were to ask them how their secularism itself informs their moral beliefs, they couldn’t tell me, anymore than you could.

It doesn’t. That’s why.

Who says secularism commands one to cheat and steal?

Well, you just said it, but I never did.

What secularism says is, as you subsequently admit, nothing about morality at all. “It demands nothing,” you say. Right on. It doesn’t say you ought to cheat and steal. But if you do, it doesn’t say you shouldn’t, either.

There’s no moral information in secularism. Period. That is why secularism is no basis for shaping your morality.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 5:16 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 5:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 4:59 pm
I don’t know. You don’t, either, because nobody’s going to allow research on that basis. But I suspect the answer is pretty similar to the levels in the general population.

But you’re dropping a red herring here, instead of tackling the issue. The argument is not that people who are secularists cannot be hypocritical about their beliefs and decide to behave well. They can. I’ve got lots of secular friends, and some of them are very nice people, even though secularism as an ideology gives them no reason to choose that over any other set of actions. But if I were to ask them how their secularism itself informs their moral beliefs, they couldn’t tell me, anymore than you could.

It doesn’t. That’s why.

Who says secularism commands one to cheat and steal?

Well, you just said it, but I never did.

What secularism says is, as you subsequently admit, nothing about morality at all. “It demands nothing,” you say. Right on. It doesn’t say you ought to cheat and steal. But if you do, it doesn’t say you shouldn’t, either.

There’s no moral information in secularism. Period. That is why secularism is no basis for shaping your morality.

Of course there is basis to shape my morality. Without treating others similar to how we want to be treated there would be much more suffering in the world. That is a fact whether you will admit it or not.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 5:19 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 5:16 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 5:08 pm

Who says secularism commands one to cheat and steal?

Well, you just said it, but I never did.

What secularism says is, as you subsequently admit, nothing about morality at all. “It demands nothing,” you say. Right on. It doesn’t say you ought to cheat and steal. But if you do, it doesn’t say you shouldn’t, either.

There’s no moral information in secularism. Period. That is why secularism is no basis for shaping your morality.

Of course there is basis to shape my morality. Without treating others similar to how we want to be treated there would be much more suffering in the world.

But so what? Maybe you’re one of those (blessedly) inconsistent people who professes secularism, but still hopes to be a good person anyway, so doesn’t follow though logically on his own worldview. I can hope you are.

But who says it’s wrong for you to make other people suffer, particularly when it advantages you? Secularism doesn’t tell you that’s wrong. It doesn’t tell you it’s right. It doesn’t tell you anything at all.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 5:27 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 5:19 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 5:16 pm
Well, you just said it, but I never did.

What secularism says is, as you subsequently admit, nothing about morality at all. “It demands nothing,” you say. Right on. It doesn’t say you ought to cheat and steal. But if you do, it doesn’t say you shouldn’t, either.

There’s no moral information in secularism. Period. That is why secularism is no basis for shaping your morality.

Of course there is basis to shape my morality. Without treating others similar to how we want to be treated there would be much more suffering in the world.

But so what? Maybe you’re one of those (blessedly) inconsistent people who professes secularism, but still hopes to be a good person anyway, so doesn’t follow though logically on his own worldview. I can hope you are.

But who says it’s wrong for you to make other people suffer, particularly when it advantages you? Secularism doesn’t tell you that’s wrong. It doesn’t tell you it’s right. It doesn’t tell you anything at all.

It does follow logically. Most of us are smart enough to know that if we treat another person like shit, they are likely to return the favor. Logic dictates that if I want to live in a better world then I shouldn't egg on others to treat me like shit.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 1:51 pm Stop this Immanuel. I am having trouble continuing to believe you just don't understand.

With good reason. I do understand.

Look, if I took the views of ONE of the branches of Christianity, one of the ones that claims itself to be the only true Christianity, and one that was not yours --- and I, not a Christian, then proceeded to define Christianity as this sect does, and so call Christianity obviously bad (because this sect is) would you not be justifiably pissed?

Not at all. It happens all the time, in fact. What I’d say to you is, “What does the Bible say?"

I am a leftist out of the "left anarchist tradition". Not a Marxist, not a "state socialist".

I’m pleased to hear it. Socialism is bad…history proves that.

You claim no people like myself exist.

Show me where.

So I presented you with two examples of people I would consider "leftist" but not Marxist or state socialist . While I could have given you secular examples I intentionally picked Christian ones.

DISCUSS THESE EXAMPLES.

I did. They’re proto-Socialist, at best, and a historical artifact that doesn’t exist today. And so what I say of Marxism isn’t true of them in all respects. I said that. And I pointed you to Safarevich’s book, just in case you wanted more info. I can’t be fairer than that.

But please folks, if we want to discuss leftism/socialism/Marxism should be its own section of the forum, not under Christianity.

We can’t. Marx made “the criticism of religion…the first of all critiques.” (his words)

Morality should have its own section;

Christian morality is open for discussion here. And naturally, then, so are secular attempts at rival moralities.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 5:31 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 5:27 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Jul 28, 2025 5:19 pm

Of course there is basis to shape my morality. Without treating others similar to how we want to be treated there would be much more suffering in the world.

But so what? Maybe you’re one of those (blessedly) inconsistent people who professes secularism, but still hopes to be a good person anyway, so doesn’t follow though logically on his own worldview. I can hope you are.

But who says it’s wrong for you to make other people suffer, particularly when it advantages you? Secularism doesn’t tell you that’s wrong. It doesn’t tell you it’s right. It doesn’t tell you anything at all.

It does follow logically.

What’s the “it” in your sentence? Certainly the conclusion is logically verifiable. Even you were unable to suggest one moral precept entailed from Secularism.

NOTHING about morality “follows logically” from Secularism. You just admitted as much.