Philosophy Now Forum

Harbal wrote:

thedoc wrote:IC made no claim about human morality except in relation to secularism, and he has stated that secularism has none.

The only thing you can say about secularism is that it is living with an absence of religion. That is the only thing you can infer from it.

Sometimes you make one-liner statements which are worth more than a list of paragraphs because this is exactly what it really and finally defaults to.

thedoc wrote:

Greta wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Secularism itself has no ethics. Now, that's not to say that many secular people don't arbitrarily choose to behave ethically, because they're nice folks and because they have vestiges of some other morality in their minds. But secularism itself, by definition, offers them no basis for any morality at all. Secularism itself is morally agnostic.

So secular regimes don't have to "ignore secular ethics." There's actually nothing substantial there to ignore.

Your claim, then, is that human morality commenced two thousand years ago in the Middle East and that the Greek philosophers had no influence on any western society's ethical frameworks.

As usual You are totally misconstruing what IC has posted, I don't understand why it is so difficult for anyone to just read what is posted, without bringing their own biases and prejudices into it. IC made no claim about human morality except in relation to secularism, and he has stated that secularism has none.

"Secularism" is, as Alfie noted, simply "non religious".

Can you not see that Immanuel is claiming that ethics only exists within religion? Can you not understand that the claim is not only wrong, but profoundly wrong?

Greta wrote: Can you not see that Immanuel is claiming that ethics only exists within religion? Can you not understand that the claim is not only wrong, but profoundly wrong?

No, IC is claiming that there is no basis in secularism for morality, he is not claiming that secularists are not moral. There is a difference. And religion is the only system that has morality as part of it's basic teaching. But obviously secularists conflate the claim that secularism has no moral base with the accusation that secularists are not moral, and that is false.

thedoc wrote:

Greta wrote: Can you not see that Immanuel is claiming that ethics only exists within religion? Can you not understand that the claim is not only wrong, but profoundly wrong?

No, IC is claiming that there is no basis in secularism for morality, he is not claiming that secularists are not moral. There is a difference. And religion is the only system that has morality as part of it's basic teaching. But obviously secularists conflate the claim that secularism has no moral base with the accusation that secularists are not moral, and that is false.

Doc, all your post says is that, like IC, you choose to ignore the contributions of Greek and other philosophers to modern secular ethics. You ignore the fact that developing ethical codes (aka laws) are naturally selected. We didn't necessarily need religion to be cooperative because the non cooperative societies simply died out anyway.

Religion is a outmoded moral model that is divisive in its essence - the "good us" v the "bad them" - which is obviously problematically outdated in a globally connected world. We need more universal ethics that respects all life, not just humans.

thedoc wrote:

Greta wrote: Can you not see that Immanuel is claiming that ethics only exists within religion? Can you not understand that the claim is not only wrong, but profoundly wrong?

No, IC is claiming that there is no basis in secularism for morality, he is not claiming that secularists are not moral. There is a difference. And religion is the only system that has morality as part of it's basic teaching. But obviously secularists conflate the claim that secularism has no moral base with the accusation that secularists are not moral, and that is false.

Ever think that the conscript of morals as defined by religious morality is anything but and that the recent Western tendency - compared to its long history - is to both translate and moderate these into more modern secular values. What is the adopted theme for example of the mostly atheistic European union:

Freude, schöner Götterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische, dein Heiligtum.
Deine Zauber binden wieder,
Was die Mode streng geteilt,
Alle Menschen werden Brüder,
wo dein sanfter Flügel weilt.

If you can't read the German get the translation. Secularism much more than any forced morality of religions is focused on conscious self-made norms of behavior, a legacy of the Enlightenment rather than the "on high" mandates from millenniums ago. Where did these really come from? Humans, including Jesus, who have to eat, sleep and shit like anyone else alive today.

Greta wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Greta wrote: Can you not see that Immanuel is claiming that ethics only exists within religion? Can you not understand that the claim is not only wrong, but profoundly wrong?

No, IC is claiming that there is no basis in secularism for morality, he is not claiming that secularists are not moral. There is a difference. And religion is the only system that has morality as part of it's basic teaching. But obviously secularists conflate the claim that secularism has no moral base with the accusation that secularists are not moral, and that is false.

Doc, all your post says is that, like IC, you choose to ignore the contributions of Greek and other philosophers to modern secular ethics. You ignore the fact that developing ethical codes (aka laws) are naturally selected. We didn't necessarily need religion to be cooperative because the non cooperative societies simply died out anyway.

Religion is a outmoded moral model that is divisive in its essence - the "good us" v the "bad them" - which is obviously problematically outdated in a globally connected world. We need more universal ethics that respects all life, not just humans.

Except that the ancient Greeks and other philosophers were quite religious, they had a pantheon of Gods that handed down a set of precepts of morality. The idea of religion dictating morality goes back long before the Greeks, ever heard of Hammurabi? a ruler in ancient Babylon and he was not the first to establish a system of morality based on religion. Like it or not, a codified morality has always been based on religion.

thedoc wrote:

Greta wrote:

thedoc wrote:
No, IC is claiming that there is no basis in secularism for morality, he is not claiming that secularists are not moral. There is a difference. And religion is the only system that has morality as part of it's basic teaching. But obviously secularists conflate the claim that secularism has no moral base with the accusation that secularists are not moral, and that is false.

Doc, all your post says is that, like IC, you choose to ignore the contributions of Greek and other philosophers to modern secular ethics. You ignore the fact that developing ethical codes (aka laws) are naturally selected. We didn't necessarily need religion to be cooperative because the non cooperative societies simply died out anyway.

Religion is a outmoded moral model that is divisive in its essence - the "good us" v the "bad them" - which is obviously problematically outdated in a globally connected world. We need more universal ethics that respects all life, not just humans.

Except that the ancient Greeks and other philosophers were quite religious, they had a pantheon of Gods that handed down a set of precepts of morality. The idea of religion dictating morality goes back long before the Greeks, ever heard of Hammurabi? a ruler in ancient Babylon and he was not the first to establish a system of morality based on religion. Like it or not, a codified morality has always been based on religion.

The Greeks were among the first to define morality philosophically rather than religiously. Haven't you ever noticed, reading Greek myth, that morality among the gods was hardly a valued commodity? Is it so beyond your ability to think that morality to be morality does not have to based on religion. There is no logic, not even a moral imperative which proclaims it must be so.

Dubious wrote: The Greeks were among the first to define morality philosophically rather than religiously. Haven't you ever noticed, reading Greek myth, that morality among the gods was hardly a valued commodity? Is it so beyond your ability to think that morality to be morality does not have to based on religion. There is no logic, not even a moral imperative which proclaims it must be so.

The Greek Gods must have originated the phrase, "Do as I say, not as I do."

thedoc wrote:

Dubious wrote: The Greeks were among the first to define morality philosophically rather than religiously. Haven't you ever noticed, reading Greek myth, that morality among the gods was hardly a valued commodity? Is it so beyond your ability to think that morality to be morality does not have to based on religion. There is no logic, not even a moral imperative which proclaims it must be so.

The Greek Gods must have originated the phrase, "Do as I say, not as I do."

The Greek Gods never told them anything about morality. They were just metaphors of nature accompanied with some of the greatest stories in history. The Greeks had to rethink morality on a secular basis which makes it's beginnings indigenously Western until the whole edifice mutilated into its ultra authoritarian Semitic edition. The whole Jesus story - who hated Gentiles btw - was the worst thing that could happen to Western civilization. It was a story that belonged solely to the Jews and no one else and there it should have stayed. Consequent Jewish history would have been much less dismal if it had!

But once again your reply says it all meaningless tripe quite in tandem with that of your master who never could.

Dubious wrote: But once again your reply says it all meaningless tripe quite in tandem with that of your master who never could.

Thankyou, I do my best.

thedoc wrote:

Dubious wrote: But once again your reply says it all meaningless tripe quite in tandem with that of your master who never could.

Thankyou, I do my best.

...and that's the pity of it never acknowledging the mental detour signs.

Dubious wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Dubious wrote: But once again your reply says it all meaningless tripe quite in tandem with that of your master who never could.

Thankyou, I do my best.

...and that's the pity of it never acknowledging the mental detour signs.

I'll never ignore a detour sign again, would you read them for me?

thedoc wrote:

Dubious wrote:

thedoc wrote:
Thankyou, I do my best.

...and that's the pity of it never acknowledging the mental detour signs.

I'll never ignore a detour sign again, would you read them for me?

...has your theism made you that illiterate?

Dubious wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Dubious wrote:
...and that's the pity of it never acknowledging the mental detour signs.

I'll never ignore a detour sign again, would you read them for me?

...has your theism made you that illiterate?

To those particular signs, yes.

thedoc wrote:

Dubious wrote:

thedoc wrote:
I'll never ignore a detour sign again, would you read them for me?

...has your theism made you that illiterate?

To those particular signs, yes.

What "particular" signs may those be to which you allow no trespass? Nothing particular was ever mentioned!