Sapper Redux said:

---

You still have no way to demonstrate an objective moral reality. You just assert it.

---

And you have no way to prove objective morality doesn't exist, yet you assert it. This was my point when I said,

Quote:

---

Meanwhile we also can't prove that there is no objective morality. So I guess the thing to do is stick to might makes right, and neither side should complain about the results since they can neither be labeled good nor bad. If one of us gets royally screwed over by the system, we have no basis to ground our moral objections.

---

Unless you have a better alternative, it would appear your view necessitates that both sides flex their political muscle and hope they come out the winner.

As blunt as I'm being, I am truly open to an explanation as to how we can be responsible for our thoughts when they are simply the sum of our biology processing our lived experiences without any sense of an immaterial "self".

ETA: This is why talking about morals in any capacity is always going to require philosophical arguments, none of which can ever be "proven"

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

Is it possible there are people who genuinely believe an objective reality exists and aren't appealing to it simply to avoid an uncomfortable reality? You do agree that we cannot prove objective morality doesn't exist, correct?

---

You're still running into the problem that you cannot in any way prove that an objective truth or reality exists. And you cannot in any way prove the second problem, that even if you somehow established an objective truth exists, that the Christian one is correct.

Also, how is it uncomfortable to acknowledge that our consciousness is derived from biological processes? No one said building a logical and just society was easy. Your push for an objective truth begins to look like a desire for a shortcut to answers rather than a serious philosophical pursuit.

---

Any proof for objective truth is going to require considering the immaterial. You have the same problem proving that it doesn't exist that I do proving it does exist. The burden of proof goes both ways. The problem is you remove the option for the immaterial from the board, and then ask me to prove it as if my side is the only one that needs to do so. I'm not running from the question. I'm simply not going to bother with an argument that requires the immaterial when the immaterial is not allowed as evidence.

If we can allow the immaterial, then I think I can prove the Christian view of objective morality is true over the others you mentioned, at least to the degree that philosophy can do so. But again, what's the point if you've already preselected which evidence is or isn't allowed?


The uncomfortableness you should feel is that your and I coming to different conclusions on this have no "self" involved. It just happens to you and the opposite just happens to me. It's not about a lofical and just society being easy or hard. It's that, in the materialist view, it will either happen or it won't as a natural process, and there is nothing we can do about it. Even this conversation is biologically predetermined to happen.

Quote:

---

The uncomfortableness you should feel is that your and I coming to different conclusions on this have no "self" involved. It just happens to you and the opposite just happens to me. It's not about a lofical and just society being easy or hard. It's that, in the materialist view, it will either happen or it won't as a natural process, and there is nothing we can do about it. Even this conversation is biologically predetermined to happen.

---

Your biological Calvinism is not the only approach to the nature of consciousness in a materialistic world. We know how things should behave given certain parameters, but especially when dealing with living matter, it's hardly a guarantee that x+y=z given the huge range of independent and dependent factors acting on the situation.

94chem said:

---

Anyway, Sapper and KV, I'm not here to impose on you my morality, no matter how objective I believe it is, and no matter what benefits it provides my life. It is there to be MY guardrail, and the boundary stones that God has chosen to protect and guide those who follow him.

Rather than forcing my morality on you (while resisting attempts to have my morality compromised), my primary objective is to respectfully offer you repentance so you do not die in your sins. I regret that some people think that getting in your face with the 10 Commandments is the way to persuade you. Nonetheless, the Jesus of the Bible is available to all who will come. Grace and peace to you.

---

Very well stated. I is a free gift to everyone.

The Banned said:

---

Any proof for objective truth is going to require considering the immaterial. You have the same problem proving that it doesn't exist that I do proving it does exist. The burden of proof goes both ways. The problem is you remove the option for the immaterial from the board, and then ask me to prove it as if my side is the only one that needs to do so. I'm not running from the question. I'm simply not going to bother with an argument that requires the immaterial when the immaterial is not allowed as evidence.

If we can allow the immaterial, then I think I can prove the Christian view of objective morality is true over the others you mentioned, at least to the degree that philosophy can do so. But again, what's the point if you've already preselected which evidence is or isn't allowed?

---

Sorry if I missed something earlier - I'll read back through the thread later.

The burden of proof lies with the claim, not the skeptic. This is just a Russell's Teapot.

If we are to give credit to every proofless claim based on an inability to disprove those claims, we're left with epistemic paralysis and every claim that cannot be disproven has to be considered possibly true. I cannot disprove the majority of claims of any religion or any God / god - So, by your logic, what. . . . ? I have to consider them all true?

In practice, we get around this by assigning weights to certain claims. Even though I cannot disprove the existence of a teapot floating in space around Mars, I can assign a very low probability to that claim unless different evidence arrives.
----

I have no problem with considering the immaterial as evidence. However, we should discuss the methods by which this knowledge is obtained. How is it evaluated? And we should establish consistent rules.

In other words, if Christian revelation is allowed as evidence, then you need a set of rules and demonstrations to show why other other religion's revelations can be discarded. Because if I can't discard non-Christian revelation, then the evidence of our data set of revelations is just nonsense. And it only makes sense by pairing a cultural context with each data point.

What other immaterial evidences should we consider? Subjective moral experience? Near death experiences? Demon possessions? Miracles?

So again, I'm open to considering the immaterial as evidence. But, as an example, you can't just say 'God spoke to me' and then complain if I don't believe you on grounds that I'm not considering your evidence.

Bob Lee said:

---

You can only think that if we start with your presuppositions. From our perspective you're the claimant and we're the skeptics. You have an equal if not greater burden of proof especially considering the metaphysical as reality is axiomatic throughout human history. Yours is the more exceptional claim.

---

What is my claim?

Echoing Bob Lee, what I am saying is that you have made a formal claim that objective truth does not exist. Since you've made that claim, we get to play the skeptic just as much as you do when we claim objective truth does exist.

I'm very willing to work through a proof of sorts for the immaterial with you, but once we start invoking the need for "data sets", I think we have a lot of ground to cover. I'm open to it and may start a different thread on it so I don't take us any more off topic. I began posting on this thread because I believe the idea of a "neutral" action to be impossible, and I think the idea of choosing between objective truth, no objective truth or I don't know if there is objective truth to still require choosing one over the others.

Bob Lee said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

You can only think that if we start with your presuppositions. From our perspective you're the claimant and we're the skeptics. You have an equal if not greater burden of proof especially considering the metaphysical as reality is axiomatic throughout human history. Yours is the more exceptional claim.

---

What is my claim?

---

From what I gather you either think there's not a creative mind at all or, if there is we can't deduce anything about Him or our purpose absent some kind of personal revelation. So in terms of a positive truth claim, your claim is the alternative to that. If there's no God, then you're positing a materialist view of the universe. If we can't know anything about God, then everything ought to be permitted.

---

I don't feel that skepticism should be interpreted as a positive truth claim about the subject being questioned. I am not claiming that there is no creative mind. Or that there is no God. Or that the world is only material. Only that I am unconvinced of your position. If someone tells me that they were abducted by aliens and poked and prodded, I might respond with skepticism. That skepticism should not be interpreted as a positive truth claim that aliens cannot exist.

I think it would be fair to say that I am making claims about the unreliability and inconclusively of using certain types of evidence toward making objective statements about the nature of reality. I think it might be a good exercise for me to dig into that claim and really build out that case.

However, I think we need to remember how we got to this point in the conversation. It was argued that with secular morality, anything is permissible, there is no right and wrong, and there is something like insufficient foundational boundaries to promote a stable society. And it was argued that Christianity offers an objective standard to which rules and regulations can be tethered to as a guide.

My argument here, on this point, has been that an appeal to a supernatural objective standard does not solve the problem. The supernatural objective standard cannot be validated or shown to exist or be shown to be true. And even if it could, there is still the problem of how flawed subjective beings are meant to understand that truth. Understanding of Christian objective truth relies on belief, revelation, subjectivity, and personal experience. And what happens when my belief, revelations, subjectivity, and personal experiences differ from yours? Not only is there no resolution, there is not even attempt at real resolution.

As it relates to my personal views on ethics and morality, I would not say that I can validate my claims without appeal to my base presuppositions and preconditions. However, I don't either of us can.

The Banned said:

---

Echoing Bob Lee, what I am saying is that you have made a formal claim that objective truth does not exist. Since you've made that claim, we get to play the skeptic just as much as you do when we claim objective truth does exist.

I'm very willing to work through a proof of sorts for the immaterial with you, but once we start invoking the need for "data sets", I think we have a lot of ground to cover. I'm open to it and may start a different thread on it so I don't take us any more off topic. I began posting on this thread because I believe the idea of a "neutral" action to be impossible, and I think the idea of choosing between objective truth, no objective truth or I don't know if there is objective truth to still require choosing one over the others.

---

You'll have to point out to me where I made the claim that objective truth does not exist. I can point to several places in this thread where I've stated it could exist.

And yes, by all means, play the skeptic. I can continue to do my best to argue against the use of interpretation of the supernatural toward understanding objective reality, but nothing I can offer will be bullet proof.

I like the idea of a new thread to discuss immaterial proof and evidence. If invoking 'data sets' is the wrong method of investigation, thats fine. Part of the frustration I have with the immaterial argument is that there does not seem to exist anything like an agreed upon method to perform this investigation or to evaluate proof.

Not a huge fan of it, not hugely against it. Its not going to move the needle. Republicans really wanted a quick win against the culture war and chose poorly.

From my perspective, public school education has moved away from the idea of absolute truth to its own detriment. What can a public school these days even teach about truth? Doesn't fit well on a scantron or have an AP credit attached to it. Does anyone even believe what public school says about any of the deeper pursuits of this life?

What you believe about truth informs all the other norms of schooling. Discipline, fairness, structure, rigor, telos, etc.

Public schools are struggling under the cultural fabric of society being pulled in a 1000 new ways. You can't just present all cultures, all norms, all ways of thinking on even ground. You wind up doing nothing well and nobody benefits.

There's a reason catholic schools have flourished in education. There is believe in truth, purpose for your education, does not shy away from rigor, promotes excellence. Also very big on philosophy and logic (as an orthodox got to point out this is great for shaping the professional class, but they leaned so hard its to their own spiritual detriment though)

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

You can only think that if we start with your presuppositions. From our perspective you're the claimant and we're the skeptics. You have an equal if not greater burden of proof especially considering the metaphysical as reality is axiomatic throughout human history. Yours is the more exceptional claim.

---

What is my claim?

---

From what I gather you either think there's not a creative mind at all or, if there is we can't deduce anything about Him or our purpose absent some kind of personal revelation. So in terms of a positive truth claim, your claim is the alternative to that. If there's no God, then you're positing a materialist view of the universe. If we can't know anything about God, then everything ought to be permitted.

---

I don't feel that skepticism should be interpreted as a positive truth claim about the subject being questioned. I am not claiming that there is no creative mind. Or that there is no God. Or that the world is only material. Only that I am unconvinced of your position. If someone tells me that they were abducted by aliens and poked and prodded, I might respond with skepticism. That skepticism should not be interpreted as a positive truth claim that aliens cannot exist.

I think it would be fair to say that I am making claims about the unreliability and inconclusively of using certain types of evidence toward making objective statements about the nature of reality. I think it might be a good exercise for me to dig into that claim and really build out that case.

However, I think we need to remember how we got to this point in the conversation. It was argued that with secular morality, anything is permissible, there is no right and wrong, and there is something like insufficient foundational boundaries to promote a stable society. And it was argued that Christianity offers an objective standard to which rules and regulations can be tethered to as a guide.

My argument here, on this point, has been that an appeal to a supernatural objective standard does not solve the problem. The supernatural objective standard cannot be validated or shown to exist or be shown to be true. And even if it could, there is still the problem of how flawed subjective beings are meant to understand that truth. Understanding of Christian objective truth relies on belief, revelation, subjectivity, and personal experience. And what happens when my belief, revelations, subjectivity, and personal experiences differ from yours? Not only is there no resolution, there is not even attempt at real resolution.

As it relates to my personal views on ethics and morality, I would not say that I can validate my claims without appeal to my base presuppositions and preconditions. However, I don't either of us can.

---

To quote Rush: "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." The problem with what you're doing is that the Law cannot be silent on certain issues. Things will either be permitted or not. There is a practical application that flows from the ideas you're espousing. If the good isn't attainable epistemically then everything is permitted.

Bob Lee said:

---

To quote Rush: "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." The problem with what you're doing is that the Law cannot be silent on certain issues. Things will either be permitted or not. There is a practical application that flows from the ideas you're espousing. If the good isn't attainable epistemically then everything is permitted.

---

I fear we are arguing different things and talking past one another.

My concerns with the knowability of objective right and wrong should not be interpreted as me advocating for indecision or inaction. I have strong feelings about what is right and what is wrong and what ought to be permitted or not. You won't agree with them and you may scoff at how those positions are derived. And thats fine, my goal is not to have you agree with my morality. The goal here recently in the thread is to say that I don't think secularism should be dismissed on account of a lack of appeal to supernatural objective standards.

Maybe stated another way: As it relates to whether a thing is to be permitted or not, I see no reason that an appeal to a supernatural objective standard should carry any more weight than an appeal to secular ideology or reason.

The objection isn't to dismiss it because it doesn't appeal to supernatural standards. That's a kind of ridiculous framing. It should be dismissed because it lacks any ability to be anything but arbitrary.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

To quote Rush: "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." The problem with what you're doing is that the Law cannot be silent on certain issues. Things will either be permitted or not. There is a practical application that flows from the ideas you're espousing. If the good isn't attainable epistemically then everything is permitted.

---

I fear we are arguing different things and talking past one another.

My concerns with the knowability of objective right and wrong should not be interpreted as me advocating for indecision or inaction. I have strong feelings about what is right and what is wrong and what ought to be permitted or not. You won't agree with them and you may scoff at how those positions are derived. And thats fine, my goal is not to have you agree with my morality. The goal here recently in the thread is to say that I don't think secularism should be dismissed on account of a lack of appeal to supernatural objective standards.

Maybe stated another way: As it relates to whether a thing is to be permitted or not, I see no reason that an appeal to a supernatural objective standard should carry any more weight than an appeal to secular ideology or reason.

---

Well your last sentence is revealing. You've aligned secular ideology with reason and placed them in opposition to the supernatural. That's wrong. The observable natural order of things is revealing. We can deduce the existence of a creator via our rational faculties. If I can reasonably rule out the non existence of a creator, the only thing left is a creator, which would have to be supernatural because he couldn't be a composition of parts. He can not have created Himself. These are logical impossibilities. Do you have a reasonable explanation for the creation of biological life? Do we know anything at all about how you would go about creating life from nothing at all absent a creator?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

To quote Rush: "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." The problem with what you're doing is that the Law cannot be silent on certain issues. Things will either be permitted or not. There is a practical application that flows from the ideas you're espousing. If the good isn't attainable epistemically then everything is permitted.

---

I fear we are arguing different things and talking past one another.

My concerns with the knowability of objective right and wrong should not be interpreted as me advocating for indecision or inaction. I have strong feelings about what is right and what is wrong and what ought to be permitted or not. You won't agree with them and you may scoff at how those positions are derived. And thats fine, my goal is not to have you agree with my morality. The goal here recently in the thread is to say that I don't think secularism should be dismissed on account of a lack of appeal to supernatural objective standards.

Maybe stated another way: As it relates to whether a thing is to be permitted or not, I see no reason that an appeal to a supernatural objective standard should carry any more weight than an appeal to secular ideology or reason.

---

Where we wound up with secularism is that the end result is mob rule or might makes right, not 'reason'. That's the end point of the ideology. It's not just that morality is subjective and unknowable, it's that the largest group of people with shared beliefs impose their will on society in secularism, regardless of whatever right or wrong the individuals who support secularism ultimately claim.

Thus when people say that rape and murder can be entirely legal in such a society, whatever your personal feelings are they are irrelevant if we unmoor morality from an anchor. You may disagree with the anchor, but when it's set culturally its harder to move.

It's hard for us to accept your arguments because you share our Christian morality (on rape and murder, presumably), but refuse to reinforce it or accept that it's preferable to systems where it's allowed. Secularism has no moral values; it's a void that you pour things into.

Edit: I should clarify. I call it a void, but the implication is that it has moral values that are taken from the majority of the people. It is not neutral as it informs citizens of what is and isn't 'moral' since the government permits or allows various acts.

And when the cultural makeup of the people and their morals are variable…

Zobel said:

---

The objection isn't to dismiss it because it doesn't appeal to supernatural standards. That's a kind of ridiculous framing. It should be dismissed because it lacks any ability to be anything but arbitrary.

---

Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, social contract theory, humanism - none of these are purely arbitrary. They are all grounded in some version of reason and human experience without appeal to the supernatural. And adherents to these ideas come to their positions by more than just their current 'whim'.

Lets also not pretend like the majority of Christians can articulate a description of good that avoids one of the points of Euthyphro dilemma and doesn't reduce goodness to an arbitrary value. Regardless of the theological or liturgical descriptions that exists that might get you around the dilemma, the truth is that for the overwhelmingly majority of people, morality includes a bit of the arbitrary. We are emotional, cultural, and social and even in the most devout or religious grouping, morality reflects those whims.

Bob Lee said:

---

Well your last sentence is revealing. You've aligned secular ideology with reason and placed them in opposition to the supernatural. That's wrong. The observable natural order of things is revealing. We can deduce the existence of a creator via our rational faculties. If I can reasonably rule out the non existence of a creator, the only thing left is a creator, which would have to be supernatural because he couldn't be a composition of parts. He can not have created Himself. These are logical impossibilities. Do you have a reasonable explanation for the creation of biological life? Do we know anything at all about how you would go about creating life from nothing at all absent a creator?

---

Apologies - it was not my intention to suggest religion is in opposition to reason in this way.

I take exception with basically everything else who wrote though. Using deductive reason to discover the existence of God requires some premises assumed to be true that I don't agree with.

Do I have a natural explanation for the universe or for life? No. A couple hundred years ago, we would have had no natural explanation for a million things we take for granted today. That doesn't mean there must be a natural explanation for the universe or to life. But, I think it serves as a warning that we should be wary about inserting 'God' into all of the 'gaps' of our natural knowledge. Consider the possibility that we just aren't smart enough or creative enough to figure out a natural answer.

And the idea of God as the answer to these things is simply kicking the can down the road. 'God did it' is not an answer. If, to solve these questions, you have to invent a supernatural, inconceivably powerful, all knowing, super-being that defies all known laws of time, material, and space, and who is (by definition) infinitely beyond our understanding . . . then I submit you have not solved these questions. Only created a far far far bigger question.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The objection isn't to dismiss it because it doesn't appeal to supernatural standards. That's a kind of ridiculous framing. It should be dismissed because it lacks any ability to be anything but arbitrary.

---

Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, social contract theory, humanism - none of these are purely arbitrary. They are all grounded in some version of reason and human experience without appeal to the supernatural. And adherents to these ideas come to their positions by more than just their current 'whim'.

Lets also not pretend like the majority of Christians can articulate a description of good that avoids one of the points of Euthyphro dilemma and doesn't reduce goodness to an arbitrary value. Regardless of the theological or liturgical descriptions that exists that might get you around the dilemma, the truth is that for the overwhelmingly majority of people, morality includes a bit of the arbitrary. We are emotional, cultural, and social and even in the most devout or religious grouping, morality reflects those whims.

---

This is a misunderstanding of who God is. God says He is "I am that I am". If you can understand that God just IS (to the best of our human ability) then the dilemma goes away. He IS. So if anything is good, it's because it simply is.

It would take pages to tease that all out and add all the qualifiers, but that's a decent summation.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The objection isn't to dismiss it because it doesn't appeal to supernatural standards. That's a kind of ridiculous framing. It should be dismissed because it lacks any ability to be anything but arbitrary.

---

Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, social contract theory, humanism - none of these are purely arbitrary. They are all grounded in some version of reason and human experience without appeal to the supernatural. And adherents to these ideas come to their positions by more than just their current 'whim'.

Lets also not pretend like the majority of Christians can articulate a description of good that avoids one of the points of Euthyphro dilemma and doesn't reduce goodness to an arbitrary value. Regardless of the theological or liturgical descriptions that exists that might get you around the dilemma, the truth is that for the overwhelmingly majority of people, morality includes a bit of the arbitrary. We are emotional, cultural, and social and even in the most devout or religious grouping, morality reflects those whims.

---

Reason and experience are inherently arbitrary: they don't exist outside of an individual (as something to be able to appeal to). It's like when Christians talk about justice that must be satisfied, as if it exists outside of God. You assume objectivity to defend your worldview (reason not being purely arbitrary), but deny such a reality exists for theists. It's irreconcilable.

AGC said:

---

Where we wound up with secularism is that the end result is mob rule or might makes right, not 'reason'. That's the end point of the ideology. It's not just that morality is subjective and unknowable, it's that the largest group of people with shared beliefs impose their will on society in secularism, regardless of whatever right or wrong the individuals who support secularism ultimately claim.

Thus when people say that rape and murder can be entirely legal in such a society, whatever your personal feelings are they are irrelevant if we unmoor morality from an anchor. You may disagree with the anchor, but when it's set culturally its harder to move.

It's hard for us to accept your arguments because you share our Christian morality (on rape and murder, presumably), but refuse to reinforce it or accept that it's preferable to systems where it's allowed. Secularism has no moral values; it's a void that you pour things into.

Edit: I should clarify. I call it a void, but the implication is that it has moral values that are taken from the majority of the people. It is not neutral as it informs citizens of what is and isn't 'moral' since the government permits or allows various acts.

---

If what is and is not permissible is not in the hands of the people (mob rule is a weird way to describe democracy, but okay), then where should it be? In God's hands? Whose God? Whose version of God? Since God does not talk to us, answer queries, provide clarifications, or do anything that puts him outside the hallmark characteristics of not existing, who speaks for God? You? A committee of theologians in opulent gold lined dresses? If the rules of society are not to be a reflection of the individuals, how should they be derived? Who should we elect to tell us how God wants us to live?

Now, you are correct, secular morality lacks the same tools that religion has to universally condemn things. Things like rape, murder, burning heretics, killing people accused of witchcraft, slavery, supporting Nazis, abusing alter boys, forcing conversions, selling indulgences, suppressing knowledge and burning books, and the systematic and brutal dismantling and raping of the nearly the entire continent of Africa . . . Thank God Christians have never done that.

Its hard for me to accept your arguments about the virtue of a system built on Christianity, because we've already seen what can happen. Its subject to the same potential downfalls of any other system. The only difference is that theocracy permits all of the same terrible things in the name of God.

Zobel said:

---

And when the cultural makeup of the people and their morals are variable…

---

When are they not?

The Banned said:

---

This is a misunderstanding of who God is. God says He is "I am that I am". If you can understand that God just IS (to the best of our human ability) then the dilemma goes away. He IS. So if anything is good, it's because it simply is.

It would take pages to tease that all out and add all the qualifiers, but that's a decent summation.

---

This is just tautology without any real application and it doesn't explain why 'good' isn't arbitrary.

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The objection isn't to dismiss it because it doesn't appeal to supernatural standards. That's a kind of ridiculous framing. It should be dismissed because it lacks any ability to be anything but arbitrary.

---

Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, social contract theory, humanism - none of these are purely arbitrary. They are all grounded in some version of reason and human experience without appeal to the supernatural. And adherents to these ideas come to their positions by more than just their current 'whim'.

Lets also not pretend like the majority of Christians can articulate a description of good that avoids one of the points of Euthyphro dilemma and doesn't reduce goodness to an arbitrary value. Regardless of the theological or liturgical descriptions that exists that might get you around the dilemma, the truth is that for the overwhelmingly majority of people, morality includes a bit of the arbitrary. We are emotional, cultural, and social and even in the most devout or religious grouping, morality reflects those whims.

---

Reason and experience are inherently arbitrary: they don't exist outside of an individual (as something to be able to appeal to). It's like when Christians talk about justice that must be satisfied, as if it exists outside of God. You assume objectivity to defend your worldview (reason not being purely arbitrary), but deny such a reality exists for theists. It's irreconcilable.

---

Reason functions intersubjectively. Two people using the same logical process can arrive at the same conclusions. This makes it not arbitrary.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The objection isn't to dismiss it because it doesn't appeal to supernatural standards. That's a kind of ridiculous framing. It should be dismissed because it lacks any ability to be anything but arbitrary.

---

Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, virtue ethics, social contract theory, humanism - none of these are purely arbitrary. They are all grounded in some version of reason and human experience without appeal to the supernatural. And adherents to these ideas come to their positions by more than just their current 'whim'.

Lets also not pretend like the majority of Christians can articulate a description of good that avoids one of the points of Euthyphro dilemma and doesn't reduce goodness to an arbitrary value. Regardless of the theological or liturgical descriptions that exists that might get you around the dilemma, the truth is that for the overwhelmingly majority of people, morality includes a bit of the arbitrary. We are emotional, cultural, and social and even in the most devout or religious grouping, morality reflects those whims.

---

Reason and experience are inherently arbitrary: they don't exist outside of an individual (as something to be able to appeal to). It's like when Christians talk about justice that must be satisfied, as if it exists outside of God. You assume objectivity to defend your worldview (reason not being purely arbitrary), but deny such a reality exists for theists. It's irreconcilable.

---

Reason functions intersubjectively. Two people using the same logical process can arrive at the same conclusions. This makes it not arbitrary.

---

Non sequitur.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

Where we wound up with secularism is that the end result is mob rule or might makes right, not 'reason'. That's the end point of the ideology. It's not just that morality is subjective and unknowable, it's that the largest group of people with shared beliefs impose their will on society in secularism, regardless of whatever right or wrong the individuals who support secularism ultimately claim.

Thus when people say that rape and murder can be entirely legal in such a society, whatever your personal feelings are they are irrelevant if we unmoor morality from an anchor. You may disagree with the anchor, but when it's set culturally its harder to move.

It's hard for us to accept your arguments because you share our Christian morality (on rape and murder, presumably), but refuse to reinforce it or accept that it's preferable to systems where it's allowed. Secularism has no moral values; it's a void that you pour things into.

Edit: I should clarify. I call it a void, but the implication is that it has moral values that are taken from the majority of the people. It is not neutral as it informs citizens of what is and isn't 'moral' since the government permits or allows various acts.

---

If what is and is not permissible is not in the hands of the people (mob rule is a weird way to describe democracy, but okay), then where should it be? In God's hands? Whose God? Whose version of God? Since God does not talk to us, answer queries, provide clarifications, or do anything that puts him outside the hallmark characteristics of not existing, who speaks for God? You? A committee of theologians in opulent gold lined dresses? If the rules of society are not to be a reflection of the individuals, how should they be derived? Who should we elect to tell us how God wants us to live?

Now, you are correct, secular morality lacks the same tools that religion has to universally condemn things. Things like rape, murder, burning heretics, killing people accused of witchcraft, slavery, supporting Nazis, abusing alter boys, forcing conversions, selling indulgences, suppressing knowledge and burning books, and the systematic and brutal dismantling and raping of the nearly the entire continent of Africa . . . Thank God Christians have never done that.

It's hard for me to accept your arguments about the virtue of a system built on Christianity, because we've already seen what can happen. It's subject to the same potential downfalls of any other system. The only difference is that theocracy permits all of the same terrible things in the name of God.

---

So do I get to say you're like Stalin now? You're normally better than this and don't resort to bad faith arguments.

Explain. . . I don't think I agree.

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

If what is and is not permissible is not in the hands of the people (mob rule is a weird way to describe democracy, but okay), then where should it be? In God's hands? Whose God? Whose version of God? Since God does not talk to us, answer queries, provide clarifications, or do anything that puts him outside the hallmark characteristics of not existing, who speaks for God? You? A committee of theologians in opulent gold lined dresses? If the rules of society are not to be a reflection of the individuals, how should they be derived? Who should we elect to tell us how God wants us to live?

Now, you are correct, secular morality lacks the same tools that religion has to universally condemn things. Things like rape, murder, burning heretics, killing people accused of witchcraft, slavery, supporting Nazis, abusing alter boys, forcing conversions, selling indulgences, suppressing knowledge and burning books, and the systematic and brutal dismantling and raping of the nearly the entire continent of Africa . . . Thank God Christians have never done that.

It's hard for me to accept your arguments about the virtue of a system built on Christianity, because we've already seen what can happen. It's subject to the same potential downfalls of any other system. The only difference is that theocracy permits all of the same terrible things in the name of God.

---

So do I get to say you're like Stalin now? You're normally better than this and don't resort to bad faith arguments.

---

Why is this a bad faith argument? I'm pointing out (with some sass) that even explicitly Christian based societies cannot avoid exactly the same pitfalls you attribute to secularism. That is, they are still subject to the whims of the history and time and culture they exist at.

What I did not say is that all of those things are inevitable in Christian based societies - which was a charge levied against secularism earlier on. If you want to get up in arms - go after that person.