kurt vonnegut said:

---

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.

---

The only premise you have to accept is that the principle of causality is true. You're doing what The Banned said. You're dismissing any non-natural explanation out of hand even if it means we have to call into question everything we know about the natural order of things. You're just saying the likeliest explanation is a God of the gaps fallacy because you're presupposing the non existence of any metaphysical reality.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

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.

---

Bertrand Russell: "I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all."

David Hume: In such questions, why may we not go on in infinitum? Why not suppose the universe such a chain of causes without beginning and without end?

We can call it tautology, but that's the name of the game when we're trying to explain existence itself. IS has to be true, and attempting to understand it is an exercise theist and atheist alike undertake.

I'll start a new thread when I have time to do it correctly. The point of this post is simply another attempt to show that materialism is not a neutral claim. It requires it's own origin that can't simply be glossed over.

Bob Lee said:

---

The only premise you have to accept is that the principle of causality is true. You're doing what The Banned said. You're dismissing any non-natural explanation out of hand even if it means we have to call into question everything we know about the natural order of things. You're just saying the likeliest explanation is a God of the gaps fallacy because you're presupposing the non existence of any metaphysical reality.

---

I've never been comfortable with the Cosmological argument or its use of causality. It seems to me that it starts with a premise that the law of causality is true and concludes that the law of causality is not true and that it can and must be violated. The conclusion directly violates the first premise, does it not? It also does not follow that at the edge of our understanding of a natural process of cause and effect, the prior cause must be supernatural. I'm open to it as a suggestion, but not as a MUST. To conclude that reality must be the product of the supernatural requires an assumption of knowledge about reality that I don't feel is justifiable.

I do recognize that a conclusion that we are the product of a supernatural Creator is rational given the right presuppositions. My own presuppositions do not outright reject the possibility of the supernatural - but it does hold it to what you may think of as an inappropriate or unrealistic bar of evidence or corroboration.

There must be a way of understanding the supernatural in something like a consistent or verifiable way. Otherwise, its only understandable through subjectivity and feelings and individual experience. And if that is the case, then human understanding of the metaphysical is mostly arbitrary.

There are billions of people with billions of religious, supernatural, and spiritual experiences and they do not converge to the same truth over and over and over again. So, which truths are correct? And how do you determine which truths are correct? And given the amount of variation on what truths people believe in and how they arrive at those truths, why are you so confident that you got it right?

The Banned said:

---

Bertrand Russell: "I should say that the universe is just there, and that's all."

David Hume: In such questions, why may we not go on in infinitum? Why not suppose the universe such a chain of causes without beginning and without end?

We can call it tautology, but that's the name of the game when we're trying to explain existence itself. IS has to be true, and attempting to understand it is an exercise theist and atheist alike undertake.

I'll start a new thread when I have time to do it correctly. The point of this post is simply another attempt to show that materialism is not a neutral claim. It requires it's own origin that can't simply be glossed over.

---

Sounds good.

I also want to reiterate that I am not making the positive claim that there must only be the material. If I were making that claim, then I would absolutely agree that such a claim warrants all the skepticism and all the scrutiny. It still feels a bit like you are waiting for me to provide a proof that the material is all that there is.

You can call it a cop out, but my position is that we don't know. If anything my claim that I need to defend is that I am unconvinced that humans have sufficient information or capabilities to understand the supernatural or to demonstrate knowledge of the supernatural.

Maybe this will help. If you say, "I personally don't know, but maybe others do" you've taken a neutral stance. But once you say, "we don't know", you are now applying a truth claim to others (likely unintentionally) who may feel that they do know, which is what spurs the calls for you to give proof.

With that, i'll move to a new thread

kurt vonnegut said:

---

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

---

The conclusion that reason isn't arbitrary because two people followed a process and got the same conclusion does not follow. There's no connection.

I've been thinking about the best way to respond and waited because it can be discredited so many different ways, that I don't want to type them all out.

If you insist on imputing the laws of nature onto a non-natural explanation then I agree there's a contradiction. What you're saying is that for you to accept a metaphysical explanation, metaphysics has to behave in exactly the same way as physics.

For me, the impossibility of the alternative IS proof. Take Justice. I know that Justice or objective truth, right and wrong are really existing things in the same way I know I'm not dreaming right now. I can't prove it in any way that would satisfy your radical empiricist bar for what constitutes proof, but the alternative is that I'm dreaming right now. The alternative to Justice is lawlessness. The alternative to truth is unreality. There has to be a standard or everything is rendered incomprehensible. The fact that I SEEM to be able to make sense of things doesn't make any sense.

The Banned said:

---

Maybe this will help. If you say, "I personally don't know, but maybe others do" you've taken a neutral stance. But once you say, "we don't know", you are now applying a truth claim to others (likely unintentionally) who may feel that they do know, which is what spurs the calls for you to give proof.

With that, i'll move to a new thread

---

Fair enough. Yes, I would go so far as to say other do not know. Or more accurately, I have a very high degree of confidence that others do not know. But, I'm not certain what you would accept as proof.

Bob Lee said:

---

If you insist on imputing the laws of nature onto a non-natural explanation then I agree there's a contradiction. What you're saying is that for you to accept a metaphysical explanation, metaphysics has to behave in exactly the same way as physics.

---

Lets say that later today, you and I both experience something deeply spiritual and believe that we've been handed a divine revelation. Tomorrow you tell me that God has told you 'x'. And I say that God has told me the exact opposite of 'x'.

Who is right and how do you determine that?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

If you insist on imputing the laws of nature onto a non-natural explanation then I agree there's a contradiction. What you're saying is that for you to accept a metaphysical explanation, metaphysics has to behave in exactly the same way as physics.

---

Lets say that later today, you and I both experience something deeply spiritual and believe that we've been handed a divine revelation. Tomorrow you tell me that God has told you 'x'. And I say that God has told me the exact opposite of 'x'.

Who is right and how do you determine that?

---

Follow up question: if you both agreed that God told you the same thing, does that mean reason isn't arbitrary?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

If you insist on imputing the laws of nature onto a non-natural explanation then I agree there's a contradiction. What you're saying is that for you to accept a metaphysical explanation, metaphysics has to behave in exactly the same way as physics.

---

Lets say that later today, you and I both experience something deeply spiritual and believe that we've been handed a divine revelation. Tomorrow you tell me that God has told you 'x'. And I say that God has told me the exact opposite of 'x'.

Who is right and how do you determine that?

---

I would say that if God has revealed himself to you in the manner described, you should be convinced of His existence at the very least. And you should probably disregard what I say God told me if it contradicts what you know to be true. There are real examples of false prophets, Joseph Smith and others, who claim apparitions and personal revelation that don't really stand up to scrutiny.

I don't understand why they didn't put them in the state legislature? I figure those guys could use a good reminder?

As a teacher, I'll post them when asked and move on. I doubt anyone will really notice or care. It would make more sense to post the Bill of Rights or Constitution instead.

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

If you insist on imputing the laws of nature onto a non-natural explanation then I agree there's a contradiction. What you're saying is that for you to accept a metaphysical explanation, metaphysics has to behave in exactly the same way as physics.

---

Lets say that later today, you and I both experience something deeply spiritual and believe that we've been handed a divine revelation. Tomorrow you tell me that God has told you 'x'. And I say that God has told me the exact opposite of 'x'.

Who is right and how do you determine that?

---

Follow up question: if you both agreed that God told you the same thing, does that mean reason isn't arbitrary?

---

No, but if virtually every person on the planet all agreed about the same revelation, then I would say that it isn't arbitrary. My previous point about two people reaching similar conclusions can be read as any two persons.

Didn't parts of the New Testament contradict the Old Testament?

no

Zobel said:

---

no

---

Doesn't the Old Testament require animal sacrifice? Forbidden foods and actions?

Contradictions might be the wrong word.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

If you insist on imputing the laws of nature onto a non-natural explanation then I agree there's a contradiction. What you're saying is that for you to accept a metaphysical explanation, metaphysics has to behave in exactly the same way as physics.

---

Lets say that later today, you and I both experience something deeply spiritual and believe that we've been handed a divine revelation. Tomorrow you tell me that God has told you 'x'. And I say that God has told me the exact opposite of 'x'.

Who is right and how do you determine that?

---

Follow up question: if you both agreed that God told you the same thing, does that mean reason isn't arbitrary?

---

No, but if virtually every person on the planet all agreed about the same revelation, then I would say that it isn't arbitrary. My previous point about two people reaching similar conclusions can be read as any two persons.

---

If this is beyond subjective but not objective, what are you describing? What do you call it? It sounds more like democracy than reason, since agreement and process is what brings it about. Of course, if it is, we're back to square one where rape and murder can be morally acceptable in a secular society.

What is reason?

They're doing this all wrong.
1.) Take a picture of the Ten Commandments on the doors of the Supreme Court.
2.) Blow that picture up into a poster.
3.) Post it in a conspicuous place in each school with the label "Supreme Court".

Problem solved.

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

No, but if virtually every person on the planet all agreed about the same revelation, then I would say that it isn't arbitrary. My previous point about two people reaching similar conclusions can be read as any two persons.

---

If this is beyond subjective but not objective, what are you describing? What do you call it? It sounds more like democracy than reason, since agreement and process is what brings it about. Of course, if it is, we're back to square one where rape and murder can be morally acceptable in a secular society.

What is reason?

---

Maybe the best term would be "intersubjective agreement".

Take something like the gravitational constant. For a whole host of reasons, I cannot prove to you, objectively, that the gravitational constant is 9.8m/s2 and I cannot prove to you absolutely that the next time I hop in an airplane, the craft will fly exactly in accordance with a physical understanding based on that value of the constant. What I can do, is observe that every scientist studying the matter converges to the same number and I can pull from personal and collective experiences that the behavior of gravity on the scale of an airplane is understood and unchanging. In this case, the value of the gravitational constant, while maybe not reaching the threshold of objective truth, is applied to my daily life as though it is.

I used the example of God providing the exact same revelation to everyone and everyone walking away with a similar understanding, because I feel it can be looked at in a similar way. If all spiritual experiences converge to a single truth, it justifies treating it as something beyond just my personal truth.

But, if spiritual experiences only converge to a single truth within groups, then it appears like something else. It follows a pattern of intersubjective agreement of a cultural truth that does not extend outside of that culture.

The above example is not the only thing that would get me to the point where I do believe in God or the supernatural. But, it would absolutely solve for my skepticism of divine revelation.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

No, but if virtually every person on the planet all agreed about the same revelation, then I would say that it isn't arbitrary. My previous point about two people reaching similar conclusions can be read as any two persons.

---

If this is beyond subjective but not objective, what are you describing? What do you call it? It sounds more like democracy than reason, since agreement and process is what brings it about. Of course, if it is, we're back to square one where rape and murder can be morally acceptable in a secular society.

What is reason?

---

Maybe the best term would be "intersubjective agreement".

Take something like the gravitational constant. For a whole host of reasons, I cannot prove to you, objectively, that the gravitational constant is 9.8m/s2 and I cannot prove to you absolutely that the next time I hop in an airplane, the craft will fly exactly in accordance with a physical understanding based on that value of the constant. What I can do, is observe that every scientist studying the matter converges to the same number and I can pull from personal and collective experiences that the behavior of gravity on the scale of an airplane is understood and unchanging. In this case, the value of the gravitational constant, while maybe not reaching the threshold of objective truth, is applied to my daily life as though it is.

I used the example of God providing the exact same revelation to everyone and everyone walking away with a similar understanding, because I feel it can be looked at in a similar way. If all spiritual experiences converge to a single truth, it justifies treating it as something beyond just my personal truth.

But, if spiritual experiences only converge to a single truth within groups, then it appears like something else. It follows a pattern of intersubjective agreement of a cultural truth that does not extend outside of that culture.

The above example is not the only thing that would get me to the point where I do believe in God or the supernatural. But, it would absolutely solve for my skepticism of divine revelation.

---

The point was always that secularism is arbitrary. You've done nothing here to allay that concern. We're not debating your belief in the objective, though it exists and you rely on it all the time (the natural order of the universe has a rhythm and rhyme that you depend upon and plan your day around).

Process and agreement don't make something less arbitrary and you've done a great job of illustrating several ways your idea of something being 'intersubjective' can be pulled apart (reason and agreement can be local, or lead to different conclusions, being the two you've brought up thus far).

You have, however, explicitly stated that a democracy, a number of voices, would tip you to believing in something (your supernatural example at the end overcoming skepticism). That said, is it unreasonable to assume 99 voices in a room of 100 could convince you to violate your current personally held morals or beliefs?

I'll answer with a question. How do you know that your sense experiences are reliable?

Some people are solipcists, nihilists, etc. how do you know that they're mistaken and you're not?

Eta: if you want a book recommendation, An Elementary Christian Metaphysics by Joseph Owens I thought was very good. Despite the title, it's a little dense but not too bad.

Bob Lee said:

---

I'll answer with a question. How do you know that your sense experiences are reliable?

Some people are solipcists, nihilists, etc. how do you know that they're mistaken and you're not?

Eta: if you want a book recommendation, An Elementary Christian Metaphysics by Joseph Owens I thought was very good. Despite the title, it's a little dense but not too bad.

---

Well, in the 'you could just be a brain in a vat' or 'this is all a simulation' sense, we don't know that our senses are reliable. And if those scenarios are true, none of our information is reliable. So, assuming that at least some things are knowable with a high degree of certainty. . . .

I think the first argument would be the predictive power of our sensory experience. You throw a football to me. I see it and use the visual input to predict where it will go. I reach out based on that prediction and catch the ball which reinforces the reliability of the visual input.

I would also say that consensus offers some level of justification to call our senses reliable. If you show 20 people a picture of a football and ask them what they see, you'll likely get 20 responses of 'football'. This suggests a level of consistency that extends beyond a single subjective sensory experience.

I would also put measurement and empirical data to the list. A thermometer is put into a boiling pot of water and it reads 212 degrees. If I put my hand in the water, it will feel hot, demonstrating that my sense of touch is reliable and aligned with the non-subjective output of instrumentation.

Any of these arguments could have their flaws. You can show examples of the unreliability of our minds, human perception, etc., but without a belief or acceptance in the reliability of our senses, all of our interactions with the material would be incoherent. Any and every physical task or interaction with the material world would be impossible.

And so, regardless of whether or not our sensory experiences equate to objective truth, there is a necessary pragmatism to assuming and living as though they do.

For the question about solipsism, I don't know that I'm not mistaken. Part of the point of the thought experiments about solipsism or the idea we are in a simulation or just a brain in a vat is that they are intentionally unprovable. You can never know that you aren't just a brain in a vat or just a part of a simulation.

One of the reasons why I don't allow myself to get caught up on worrying about solipsism, simulation, brain in a vat theories is that they would suggest that everything we experience is either created purely by our own minds or involuntarily imposed by an external source. I don't think free will would be consistent with any of these scenarios. And so, if one of those scenarios is true, then I would go back to the saying "I have no choice but to believe in free will."

I believe my senses are reliable because of the usefulness and pragmaticism that results in assuming so. I realize my senses and perceptions are flawed and hesitate to tie them to something like objective truth.

I appreciate the book recommendation, but hopefully there is a description of how you come to determine the reliability of the supernatural that is shorter than 400 pages.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

The point was always that secularism is arbitrary. You've done nothing here to allay that concern. We're not debating your belief in the objective, though it exists and you rely on it all the time (the natural order of the universe has a rhythm and rhyme that you depend upon and plan your day around).

---

Claiming an objective moral order without any proof is also arbitrary. Unless you can somehow demonstrate that your preferred objective reality is true rather than a Muslim's or Hindu's. And it's a different category to discuss an objective physical reality governed by physical laws that can be measured and tested vs claims of an objective moral or metaphysical reality which is subject to no testing or analysis.

---

What's amazing is that I could post this verbatim to rebut secularism and I wouldn't have to change anything. It's not grounded in a physical reality either. Good job ouroboros.

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

The point was always that secularism is arbitrary. You've done nothing here to allay that concern. We're not debating your belief in the objective, though it exists and you rely on it all the time (the natural order of the universe has a rhythm and rhyme that you depend upon and plan your day around).

---

Claiming an objective moral order without any proof is also arbitrary. Unless you can somehow demonstrate that your preferred objective reality is true rather than a Muslim's or Hindu's. And it's a different category to discuss an objective physical reality governed by physical laws that can be measured and tested vs claims of an objective moral or metaphysical reality which is subject to no testing or analysis.

---

What's amazing is that I could post this verbatim to rebut secularism and I wouldn't have to change anything. It's not grounded in a physical reality either. Good job ouroboros.

---

But you wouldn't be rebutting anything secularists or humanists claim.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

The point was always that secularism is arbitrary. You've done nothing here to allay that concern. We're not debating your belief in the objective, though it exists and you rely on it all the time (the natural order of the universe has a rhythm and rhyme that you depend upon and plan your day around).

---

Claiming an objective moral order without any proof is also arbitrary. Unless you can somehow demonstrate that your preferred objective reality is true rather than a Muslim's or Hindu's. And it's a different category to discuss an objective physical reality governed by physical laws that can be measured and tested vs claims of an objective moral or metaphysical reality which is subject to no testing or analysis.

---

What's amazing is that I could post this verbatim to rebut secularism and I wouldn't have to change anything. It's not grounded in a physical reality either. Good job ouroboros.

---

But you wouldn't be rebutting anything secularists or humanists claim.

---

If secularism isn't objectively neutral it shouldn't be preferenced; it should be treated like any other moral system. We need to find a different way to run our schools and government.

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

The point was always that secularism is arbitrary. You've done nothing here to allay that concern. We're not debating your belief in the objective, though it exists and you rely on it all the time (the natural order of the universe has a rhythm and rhyme that you depend upon and plan your day around).

---

Claiming an objective moral order without any proof is also arbitrary. Unless you can somehow demonstrate that your preferred objective reality is true rather than a Muslim's or Hindu's. And it's a different category to discuss an objective physical reality governed by physical laws that can be measured and tested vs claims of an objective moral or metaphysical reality which is subject to no testing or analysis.

---

What's amazing is that I could post this verbatim to rebut secularism and I wouldn't have to change anything. It's not grounded in a physical reality either. Good job ouroboros.

---

But you wouldn't be rebutting anything secularists or humanists claim.

---

If secularism isn't objectively neutral it shouldn't be preferenced; it should be treated like any other moral system. We need to find a different way to run our schools and government.

---

How are you defining "objectively neutral"? The idea of using a humanist framework is to emphasize the individual dignity AND freedom of conscience and belief while minimizing harms. It's neutral in the sense that it does not privilege one religious belief system over another. It is not neutral in the sense that it's independently proven by the spheres, or whatever metaphysical benchmark you wish to argue for, and it does require tradeoffs, as any organizing principle in any complex system does.

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

The point was always that secularism is arbitrary. You've done nothing here to allay that concern. We're not debating your belief in the objective, though it exists and you rely on it all the time (the natural order of the universe has a rhythm and rhyme that you depend upon and plan your day around).

---

Claiming an objective moral order without any proof is also arbitrary. Unless you can somehow demonstrate that your preferred objective reality is true rather than a Muslim's or Hindu's. And it's a different category to discuss an objective physical reality governed by physical laws that can be measured and tested vs claims of an objective moral or metaphysical reality which is subject to no testing or analysis.

---

What's amazing is that I could post this verbatim to rebut secularism and I wouldn't have to change anything. It's not grounded in a physical reality either. Good job ouroboros.

---

But you wouldn't be rebutting anything secularists or humanists claim.

---

If secularism isn't objectively neutral it shouldn't be preferenced; it should be treated like any other moral system. We need to find a different way to run our schools and government.

---

In the context that Sapper and I are using it, secular just means not explicitly based on religion. It does not imply certain values or beliefs. And it is not meant as antagonistic toward religion.

Take an example like birth control. We could establish laws that ban all birth control in accordance with Christian teachings and moral understanding. Or we could establish laws that mandate everyone be on birth control in accordance with some anti-Christian set of values which no one is promoting. Or we can have laws that say everyone gets to decide for themselves.

Now, saying that a government which permits its citizens to choose to either use birth control or not use it has taken a position in that it is permitting the use of something that some people find objectionable. . . is sort of a valid argument. But, its also an argument against what I think of as the concept of personal freedom that this country has been built on.

In other words, if you equate any law or rule that permits someone to behave in a way that is not explicitly Christian as being anti-Christian, then you have not left any room for personal freedom.

And so, we have a situation where banning birth control is Christian. Mandating birth control is . . . . lets call it authoritarian anti-religious. And allowing individuals the freedom to decide for themselves is not neutral, because that doesn't exist.



So, here is my question to you: What does 'freedom' mean to you in Constitutional or legal terms?

And lets use freedom of religion as the basis for a response. Government mandated Christianity is Christian theocracy. Government mandated atheism would be a similar form of authoritarianism but of an anti-religious sort. And a government that permits its citizens to choose their own religion .. . . . well its not neutral because that doesn't exist. So what is it?

The idea of freedom of religion and citizens being permitted to choose their own religion feels neutral. But, I can understand that even this position is a value statement. And in granting me the right to my religion, you've lost your right to impose your religion on me. You've set up a scenario here, as far as I can tell, whereby any freedom granted to citizens is its own form of tyranny.

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

The point was always that secularism is arbitrary. You've done nothing here to allay that concern. We're not debating your belief in the objective, though it exists and you rely on it all the time (the natural order of the universe has a rhythm and rhyme that you depend upon and plan your day around).

---

Claiming an objective moral order without any proof is also arbitrary. Unless you can somehow demonstrate that your preferred objective reality is true rather than a Muslim's or Hindu's. And it's a different category to discuss an objective physical reality governed by physical laws that can be measured and tested vs claims of an objective moral or metaphysical reality which is subject to no testing or analysis.

---

What's amazing is that I could post this verbatim to rebut secularism and I wouldn't have to change anything. It's not grounded in a physical reality either. Good job ouroboros.

---

But you wouldn't be rebutting anything secularists or humanists claim.

---

If secularism isn't objectively neutral it shouldn't be preferenced; it should be treated like any other moral system. We need to find a different way to run our schools and government.

---

How are you defining "objectively neutral"? The idea of using a humanist framework is to emphasize the individual dignity AND freedom of conscience and belief while minimizing harms. It's neutral in the sense that it does not privilege one religious belief system over another. It is not neutral in the sense that it's independently proven by the spheres, or whatever metaphysical benchmark you wish to argue for, and it does require tradeoffs, as any organizing principle in any complex system does.

---

This is a religious worldview that dictates public morality and pretends to be neutral to assume power.

You must rely on an objective idea of what is and isn't moral, otherwise you couldn't determine 'harm'. You can't define the terms (dignity, conscience, belief, harm) without a moral framework; they go hand in hand.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

The point was always that secularism is arbitrary. You've done nothing here to allay that concern. We're not debating your belief in the objective, though it exists and you rely on it all the time (the natural order of the universe has a rhythm and rhyme that you depend upon and plan your day around).

---

Claiming an objective moral order without any proof is also arbitrary. Unless you can somehow demonstrate that your preferred objective reality is true rather than a Muslim's or Hindu's. And it's a different category to discuss an objective physical reality governed by physical laws that can be measured and tested vs claims of an objective moral or metaphysical reality which is subject to no testing or analysis.

---

What's amazing is that I could post this verbatim to rebut secularism and I wouldn't have to change anything. It's not grounded in a physical reality either. Good job ouroboros.

---

But you wouldn't be rebutting anything secularists or humanists claim.

---

If secularism isn't objectively neutral it shouldn't be preferenced; it should be treated like any other moral system. We need to find a different way to run our schools and government.

---

In the context that Sapper and I are using it, secular just means not explicitly based on religion. It does not imply certain values or beliefs. And it is not meant as antagonistic toward religion.

Take an example like birth control. We could establish laws that ban all birth control in accordance with Christian teachings and moral understanding. Or we could establish laws that mandate everyone be on birth control in accordance with some anti-Christian set of values which no one is promoting. Or we can have laws that say everyone gets to decide for themselves.

Now, saying that a government which permits its citizens to choose to either use birth control or not use it has taken a position in that it is permitting the use of something that some people find objectionable. . . is sort of a valid argument. But, its also an argument against what I think of as the concept of personal freedom that this country has been built on.

In other words, if you equate any law or rule that permits someone to behave in a way that is not explicitly Christian as being anti-Christian, then you have not left any room for personal freedom.

And so, we have a situation where banning birth control is Christian. Mandating birth control is . . . . lets call it authoritarian anti-religious. And allowing individuals the freedom to decide for themselves is not neutral, because that doesn't exist.



So, here is my question to you: What does 'freedom' mean to you in Constitutional or legal terms?

And lets use freedom of religion as the basis for a response. Government mandated Christianity is Christian theocracy. Government mandated atheism would be a similar form of authoritarianism but of an anti-religious sort. And a government that permits its citizens to choose their own religion .. . . . well its not neutral because that doesn't exist. So what is it?

The idea of freedom of religion and citizens being permitted to choose their own religion feels neutral. But, I can understand that even this position is a value statement. And in granting me the right to my religion, you've lost your right to impose your religion on me. You've set up a scenario here, as far as I can tell, whereby any freedom granted to citizens is its own form of tyranny.

---

We regulate all sorts of products citizens can and cannot buy, limiting freedom in a huge number of areas. My guess is you'd say some things on that banned list shouldn't be banned, as it overly limits freedom, while others should stay banned, continuing to limit a freedom. And you may even go so far as to say some things we can purchase should actually be banned, removing a freedom we currently experience. And it's all pretty arbitrary if there is no "right" or "wrong". It's essentially an exercise in controlling one part of the population for the benefit of the other.

To the bolded, it isn't a neutral stance but it is a pragmatic stance that may be taken in order to do the most good. It can still objectively right to promote Christian values and ethics in society and still be objectively wrong to strong arm someone into actually believing. While some times and places got it wrong, there are a number of examples in Christendom where Christianity was clearly the sate religion, but freedom of worship for non-Christians was retained.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

We regulate all sorts of products citizens can and cannot buy, limiting freedom in a huge number of areas. My guess is you'd say some things on that banned list shouldn't be banned, as it overly limits freedom, while others should stay banned, continuing to limit a freedom. And you may even go so far as to say some things we can purchase should actually be banned, removing a freedom we currently experience. And it's all pretty arbitrary if there is no "right" or "wrong". It's essentially an exercise in controlling one part of the population for the benefit of the other.

To the bolded, it isn't a neutral stance but it is a pragmatic stance that may be taken in order to do the most good. It can still objectively right to promote Christian values and ethics in society and still be objectively wrong to strong arm someone into actually believing. While some times and places got it wrong, there are a number of examples in Christendom where Christianity was clearly the sate religion, but freedom of worship for non-Christians was retained.

---

I think the first paragraph probably applies to anyone here. Outside of maybe an absolute monarchy, any set of laws is never going to fully satisfy any one person and everyone makes compromises.

Again, even with an objective 'right' and 'wrong', what adherents to that objective standard believe in is still arbitrary. Claiming your set of beliefs to be objective does not make it so. And even if we grant that objective standards exist, you perceive them (unless you are God) through subjective lenses. You continue to try to differentiate my morality from your by saying there is no 'right' or 'wrong'. But, in practice, there is zero difference.

It also is worth noting that not all sets of laws exert the same level of control. Roughly speaking, a society with fewer laws exerts less controlling than a society with more laws. You've pitched laws as a zero sum game where any 'rights' given to one group is removed from another. But, there is another zero sum game between government and the people whereby power given to the government is power removed from the people. and visa versa.

SO! From a Christian perspective, what should be the role of government?

I've spent my whole life thinking that Christians and Conservatives want smaller government with less control and more personal freedom. And the older I get, the more I think I move toward the opinion that Christians and Conservatives don't actually want smaller government. They want a huge and powerful government - just as long as they are on the 'winning side' of the zero sum game of who benefits from the laws.

For the second paragraph: You've stated that my bolded statements are a pragmatic approach, but that it might not be the objectively right thing to do. What I notice in your last paragraph is that you don't actually take a stance on what is the morally right thing to do. Pragmatism isn't a condition for a thing to be morally right or wrong. There is, according to your view, an objectively right and wrong position for a government to take as it relates to religious freedom.

---

I agree that no one will ever be satisfied, but if the pursuit is an objective good, then those against it are wrong to be against it. This is an easy thing to say, but would take many paragraphs to define. A short example would be: slave owners against emancipation were wrong to be against emancipation. I think you'd intuitively agree, but you have no moral framework to argue this position. It's sheer policy position, and that doesn't generally garner enough support to enact change. We all feel good that slavery is done away with, but would any of us feel good about a war that killed ~500k-750k Americans because it was the winning side of a policy issue?

To the bolded, I disagree. Right or wrong, when the 10 commandments were taken out of schools, it was through a use of force. It took a new law to make that happen. Where once there was no law against it, a constitutional amendment was passed (more laws). This was in no way interpreted or intended to apply to the 10 commandments or anything like that, but with extra litigation (more legal jurisprudence) and the SC interpreting the law in a new way (giving extra power to a law that it previously did not have) in order to reach a new conclusion, we actually have more laws than before. That was the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread. You don't pass more laws to become more neutral.

In my opinion (and that of the historical church) is one of subsidiarity: Let local people make local rules and we only go up the chain when something has reached a tipping point that needs a larger entity to step in. The less that larger entity is used, the more trust can be had in that entity. I will agree that some Christians are starting to love the idea of a large government, because they've seen how effective it's been in removing Christian values from America and they've reached a point of desperation. The secular left is doing the exact same thing. What you are seeing is a tug of war at the only level that seems to be capable of doing anything, and a lot of that is thanks to powers the SC seems to have conjured up for the federal government over the past 5-6 decades. Looks at the overturning of Roe. Abortion simply got returned back to the states and the left went hysterical. I didn't see too many conservative Christians saying that the SC should have found a way to issue a nationwide ban or anything like that, and we wouldn't even be talking about it if the federal government hadn't taken the issue away from the states to begin with. When every issue is a federal government issue, then everyone will want control of the federal government.

I did use the word pragmatic but I didn't say your position could be right or could be wrong. I'll rephrase for clarity: The right thing to do is to recognize the God given dignity of each human person. Each human person has the freedom to believe in Him or not. If they choose to hold a different faith, that should be allowed. If God allows it, who are we to force them to do otherwise? How that should look is a matter of pragmatism, but the right of the person to do so is static.

The pragmatism being an issue of how we put this into practice is important. This is why (if we hold to an objective right or wrong) we can call for a total shutdown of the Church of Satan or child sacrifice, or any other religious practices that violate the dignity of the person. In these cases, the "right" thing to do is to deny the freedom to practice because it violates first principles. So we don't throw the doors wide open to "any" religion, because we'd have to allow for a vast number of hideous things. But seeking to instill what is "right" doesn't mean "get baptized or else".

Quote:

---

A short example would be: slave owners against emancipation were wrong to be against emancipation. I think you'd intuitively agree, but you have no moral framework to argue this position. It's sheer policy position, and that doesn't generally garner enough support to enact change.

---

This is not correct. I have a moral framework to argue against slavery, you may just not recognize it or you may think less of it because I source it differently. This is why I asked the question earlier - if I told you my morality comes from the objective standards of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, does tying my morality to an objective source warrant additional respect? I find your moral framework to be far more questionable than my own.

Quote:

---

To the bolded, I disagree. Right or wrong, when the 10 commandments were taken out of schools, it was through a use of force. It took a new law to make that happen. Where once there was no law against it, a constitutional amendment was passed (more laws). This was in no way interpreted or intended to apply to the 10 commandments or anything like that, but with extra litigation (more legal jurisprudence) and the SC interpreting the law in a new way (giving extra power to a law that it previously did not have) in order to reach a new conclusion, we actually have more laws than before. That was the point I was trying to make earlier in the thread. You don't pass more laws to become more neutral.

---

I think you are right and wrong here. Yes, any law is an exercise in power, but not all laws affect the balance of power between government and people the same way. Lets try two scenarios -

Scenario A. The government passes a law outlawing Christianity and all Christians are to be rounded up and jailed.

Scenario B. The government passes a law outlawing Christianity and all Christians are to be rounded up and jailed. Then another law is passed that undoes the previous law and creates a guardrail against the government passes laws that discriminates against Christians.

Scenario B has more laws. Therefore it is less neutral, right? Is scenario B more restrictive? On one hand, you can say that Scenario B still demonstrates that the government has the power to pass laws related to the treatment of Christians. . . . but, do you feel that both scenarios result in the same exercise of power by the government over its people?

I think we have to acknowledge that not all laws affect the power and reach of law and government influence in the same way.

Quote:

---

In my opinion (and that of the historical church) is one of subsidiarity: Let local people make local rules and we only go up the chain when something has reached a tipping point that needs a larger entity to step in. The less that larger entity is used, the more trust can be had in that entity. I will agree that some Christians are starting to love the idea of a large government, because they've seen how effective it's been in removing Christian values from America and they've reached a point of desperation. The secular left is doing the exact same thing.

---

'Tipping point' becomes a very subjective thing.

America has become more diverse and there is a higher degree of competition of ideas. I think Christians perceive this as an attack against Christianity.

I am okay with the idea of more local control. But, as it relates to when we need to resort to larger entity (federal), what are the issues where the left is appealing to federal support that Christians would not if the shoe was on the other foot?

If California passed a law invalidating Christian marriages, would that be an issue of escalation? If yes, then shouldn't a state law against same sex marriage be worthy of escalation to the federal level as well? What I'm challenging you on here is the idea that secularists are escalating issues to the federal level that Christians would not escalate if they were in the other position. I'm sure there could be some examples. But, what I think is happening is that Christians and conservatives like the idea of states rights when the state can be used to advantage themselves and disadvantage 'others'. But, when states use state rights to disadvantage Christians, then its okay to make it a federal issue.

Lastly, should it be the government's responsibility for defining and maintaining Christian values in America? Or are American Christians responsible?

Quote:

---

I did use the word pragmatic but I didn't say your position could be right or could be wrong. I'll rephrase for clarity: The right thing to do is to recognize the God given dignity of each human person. Each human person has the freedom to believe in Him or not. If they choose to hold a different faith, that should be allowed. If God allows it, who are we to force them to do otherwise? How that should look is a matter of pragmatism, but the right of the person to do so is static.

The pragmatism being an issue of how we put this into practice is important. This is why (if we hold to an objective right or wrong) we can call for a total shutdown of the Church of Satan or child sacrifice, or any other religious practices that violate the dignity of the person. In these cases, the "right" thing to do is to deny the freedom to practice because it violates first principles. So we don't throw the doors wide open to "any" religion, because we'd have to allow for a vast number of hideous things. But seeking to instill what is "right" doesn't mean "get baptized or else".

---

This is the answer I was fishing for because I think this is some common ground between us. We arrive at a similar position here via different paths and with different justifications, but its still common ground.

I think a lot of people agree with exactly what you wrote, but only in theory. The moment someone with a different value lives according to that different value and participating in society, then its an issue. Christians want Christianity in school, but any other value being represented in schools is an attack on Christianity. Christians want Christmas to be a national holiday, but any recognition of LGBTQ persons is an attack on Christianity. And the reverse is true as well. Liberals have a very bad habit of being pro-free speech and then getting offended anytime says something they don't like. Or of demanding a version of inclusion that can be very exclusive.

In my opinion, both sides need to recognize their own hypocrisy in advocating for religious freedom and then whining about the inevitable results.