Are Christians better off with modern secular values and morals?

[Politesse]

Who says?

That's a very odd response to your asking me how I define religious versus secular morality. Who else do you think says something that you ask them?

Not all religions even have sacred texts, and not all Christians and Muslims would either agree with your overall sentiment regarding the Bible and Qur'an nor agree that you are interpreting it accurately if you are only capable of finding evil morals in it.

None of that is relevant to the issue I raised. I think you're just being difficult.

Well, yes. But I think if you have a very idiosyncratic view, it makes for an odd basis for an appeal you expect everyone to agree with a priori.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

This is why I think that it is harmful to describe secular humanism as a mere "absence of religion." The ideas that power it are really very sophisticated, and they are hard to teach. Skepticism is really rooted in a Pyrrhonist system of epoché, which is just a method of suspending judgment, that they had originally used to attain ataraxia, which is similar to the state-of-mind that we attempt to reach using mindfulness training, and that entire system is, in my opinion, probably derived from pre-Vedic Indian philosphy. Wildly enough, we skeptics are arguably practicing a sort of pre-Vedic meditation system. As easy as it sounds to just not believe something just because it feels good to believe it, that's really easier said than done, and it takes most of us a substantial amount of practice.

That is not even the only component of secular philosophy. To say that we did not have an "organized religion" would be way off-the-mark. It is a very complex system of thought with many functioning parts. Trying to say that you can get a full system of philosophy by simply subtracting religion is actually kind of wacky.

Unfortunately, many of us secular humanists underestimate our own minds' capability of doing things that are even worse than anything that comes from religion. I would hold up the example of deconstructionism. It is not a religion, yet it kind of acts like one. Adherents to that ideology can be just as bad as any religious zealots. They preach their gospel to you with the assumption that you are going to have some sort of "Road to Damascus" moment, and the "scales will fall from your eyes." On one hand, it is theoretically a form of secular philosophy. On the other hand, it is a dumb one, and it has a supernaturalistic quality about it. There are many types of inaccuracies we can develop, in our thinking, besides just believing in a religion.

Rational thought is truly the prince with a thousand enemies.

Run, rabbit, run
Dig that hole, forget the sun
When at last the work is done
Don't sit down, it's time to dig another one

Long you live and high you fly
But only if you ride the tide
Balanced on the highest wave
Race toward an early grave

I suspect that what you are probably referring to, @Unknown Soldier, is actually related to the old Stoic system of philosophy. It is a very old way of thinking. According to the ancient Stoics, we ought to treat people as equals, even if they are not equals. We should not care about the differences between people, even if they exist. Men and women might be born different, but the virtuous way to behave toward a human being is always the virtuous way to behave toward a human being. We do not treat them the same out of an incorrect belief that they are the same, but what constitutes virtuous behavior is always what constitutes virtuous behavior. If we let other people around us define us, then we lose control of who we are. It's about exercising an internal locus of control. This is really the core of egalitarian thinking.

Yes, people that happen to observe Christianity can use this set of ideas. It is secular philosophy, not atheist philosophy. There is a difference. It is just like saying that someone can be a Buddhist yet practice Taoism. Taoism is not a religion, but it is a philosophy that anybody can practice, including Buddhists or even Christians.

In fact, I would even argue that many aspects of secular philosophy might be even more widespread than Christianity. This might sound like a strange statement, but it makes more sense if you understand the concept that a Christian can also practice secular philosophy. Christians might practice it separately, or they might practice it as a form of syncretism, where they incorporate parts of secular philosophy into their own belief-system.

Even the idea of a social contract comes from Epicurean philosophy. The idea of the Constitution of the United States of America was probably an attempt by Thomas Jefferson to incorporate an Epicurean idea, regarding social contracts, into the development of a new independent state. Even though Thomas Jefferson was theoretically a Christian simply because you could not get anything, politically, done if you did not go to a church at some point, the cat actually loved the writings that he believed were correctly attributed to Epicurus.

I think that it would hurt our entire culture if we treated secular humanist philosophy as a sort of "He-Man Religion-Haters' Club: no theists allowed!" We ought to embrace the idea that anybody can understand these ideas, whether they are religious or not. Everybody can live better lives based off of these ideas.

Furthermore, I think we ought to embrace the idea that we represent an ancient and rich cultural heritage. Our cultural heritage is just as ancient and just as cool as that of any religion.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

This is why I think that it is harmful to describe secular humanism as a mere "absence of religion." The ideas that power it are really very sophisticated, and they are hard to teach. Skepticism is really rooted in a Pyrrhonist system of epoché, which is just a method of suspending judgment, that they had originally used to attain ataraxia, which is similar to the state-of-mind that we attempt to reach using mindfulness training, and that entire system is, in my opinion, probably derived from pre-Vedic Indian philosphy. Wildly enough, we skeptics are arguably practicing a sort of pre-Vedic meditation system. As easy as it sounds to just not believe something just because it feels good to believe it, that's really easier said than done, and it takes most of us a substantial amount of practice.

That is not even the only component of secular philosophy. To say that we did not have an "organized religion" would be way off-the-mark. It is a very complex system of thought with many functioning parts. Trying to say that you can get a full system of philosophy by simply subtracting religion is actually kind of wacky.

Unfortunately, many of us secular humanists underestimate our own minds' capability of doing things that are even worse than anything that comes from religion. I would hold up the example of deconstructionism. It is not a religion, yet it kind of acts like one. Adherents to that ideology can be just as bad as any religious zealots. They preach their gospel to you with the assumption that you are going to have some sort of "Road to Damascus" moment, and the "scales will fall from your eyes." On one hand, it is theoretically a form of secular philosophy. On the other hand, it is a dumb one, and it has a supernaturalistic quality about it. There are many types of inaccuracies we can develop, in our thinking, besides just believing in a religion.

Rational thought is truly the prince with a thousand enemies.

Run, rabbit, run
Dig that hole, forget the sun
When at last the work is done
Don't sit down, it's time to dig another one

Long you live and high you fly
But only if you ride the tide
Balanced on the highest wave
Race toward an early grave

I suspect that what you are probably referring to, @Unknown Soldier, is actually related to the old Stoic system of philosophy. It is a very old way of thinking. According to the ancient Stoics, we ought to treat people as equals, even if they are not equals. We should not care about the differences between people, even if they exist. Men and women might be born different, but the virtuous way to behave toward a human being is always the virtuous way to behave toward a human being. We do not treat them the same out of an incorrect belief that they are the same, but what constitutes virtuous behavior is always what constitutes virtuous behavior. If we let other people around us define us, then we lose control of who we are. It's about exercising an internal locus of control. This is really the core of egalitarian thinking.

Yes, people that happen to observe Christianity can use this set of ideas. It is secular philosophy, not atheist philosophy. There is a difference. It is just like saying that someone can be a Buddhist yet practice Taoism. Taoism is not a religion, but it is a philosophy that anybody can practice, including Buddhists or even Christians.

In fact, I would even argue that many aspects of secular philosophy might be even more widespread than Christianity. This might sound like a strange statement, but it makes more sense if you understand the concept that a Christian can also practice secular philosophy. Christians might practice it separately, or they might practice it as a form of syncretism, where they incorporate parts of secular philosophy into their own belief-system.

Even the idea of a social contract comes from Epicurean philosophy. The idea of the Constitution of the United States of America was probably an attempt by Thomas Jefferson to incorporate an Epicurean idea, regarding social contracts, into the development of a new independent state. Even though Thomas Jefferson was theoretically a Christian simply because you could not get anything, politically, done if you did not go to a church at some point, the cat actually loved the writings that he believed were correctly attributed to Epicurus.

I think that it would hurt our entire culture if we treated secular humanist philosophy as a sort of "He-Man Religion-Haters' Club: no theists allowed!" We ought to embrace the idea that anybody can understand these ideas, whether they are religious or not. Everybody can live better lives based off of these ideas.

Furthermore, I think we ought to embrace the idea that we represent an ancient and rich cultural heritage. Our cultural heritage is just as ancient and just as cool as that of any religion.

So are Christians better off with secular morality?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Well, yes. But I think if you have a very idiosyncratic view, it makes for an odd basis for an appeal you expect everyone to agree with a priori.

Can you answer the question in the OP?

 

[Politesse]

Well, yes. But I think if you have a very idiosyncratic view, it makes for an odd basis for an appeal you expect everyone to agree with a priori.

Can you answer the question in the OP?

Yes. It's a meaningless distinction. Neither Christian nor "secular" values emerged in a vacuum, and the values now defined as secular were largely brought into being by Christians, whose values in turn were largely borrowed from other, older faiths. You have a narrow-minded view of the Bible and what its morality might dictate, but that was no doubt taught to you by narrow-minded Christians, not secular moralists. I don't personally believe that humans differ all that much from one another, regardless of the labels they may wear; you'll find kind decent people and nasty selfish people within the aegis of any religion or philosophy you could name.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Yes. It's a meaningless distinction. Neither Christian nor "secular" values emerged in a vacuum, and the values now defined as secular were largely brought into being by Christians, whose values in turn were largely borrowed from other, older faiths. You have a narrow-minded view of the Bible and what its morality might dictate, but that was no doubt taught to you by narrow-minded Christians, not secular moralists. I don't personally believe that humans differ all that much from one another, regardless of the labels they may wear; you'll find kind decent people and nasty selfish people within the aegis of any religion or philosophy you could name.

Compare "You will have no Gods before me" to "You can have any God you wish or no God at all and be free of punishment or pressure to change your choice." You cannot meaningfully distinguish the first moral as religious and the second as secular? Most people can easily see which one is religious and which one is secular.

 

[Politesse]

Yes. It's a meaningless distinction. Neither Christian nor "secular" values emerged in a vacuum, and the values now defined as secular were largely brought into being by Christians, whose values in turn were largely borrowed from other, older faiths. You have a narrow-minded view of the Bible and what its morality might dictate, but that was no doubt taught to you by narrow-minded Christians, not secular moralists. I don't personally believe that humans differ all that much from one another, regardless of the labels they may wear; you'll find kind decent people and nasty selfish people within the aegis of any religion or philosophy you could name.

Compare "You will have no Gods before me" to "You can have any God you wish or no God at all and be free of punishment or pressure to change your choice." You cannot meaningfully distinguish the first moral as religious and the second as secular? Most people can easily see which one is religious and which one is secular.

So by "secular" you mean that the content of the rule is secular in nature somehow, as opposed to the source of the rule being secular?

 

[Tigers!]

Yes. It's a meaningless distinction. Neither Christian nor "secular" values emerged in a vacuum, and the values now defined as secular were largely brought into being by Christians, whose values in turn were largely borrowed from other, older faiths. You have a narrow-minded view of the Bible and what its morality might dictate, but that was no doubt taught to you by narrow-minded Christians, not secular moralists. I don't personally believe that humans differ all that much from one another, regardless of the labels they may wear; you'll find kind decent people and nasty selfish people within the aegis of any religion or philosophy you could name.

Compare "You will have no Gods before me" to "You can have any God you wish or no God at all and be free of punishment or pressure to change your choice." You cannot meaningfully distinguish the first moral as religious and the second as secular? Most people can easily see which one is religious and which one is secular.

Is it worth pointing out that the 2nd statement cannot be shown to to be true in this life? You may make a claim to be free of punishment but that is unproveable.

 

[Rhea]

Compare "You will have no Gods before me" to "You can have any God you wish or no God at all and be free of punishment or pressure to change your choice." You cannot meaningfully distinguish the first moral as religious and the second as secular? Most people can easily see which one is religious and which one is secular.

Is it worth pointing out that the 2nd statement cannot be shown to to be true in this life? You may make a claim to be free of punishment but that is unproveable.

Whether it is true or not has no bearing on whether the belief is secular or religious.
Can you not meaningfully distinguish the first moral as religious and the second as secular? Most people can easily see which one is religious and which one is secular.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So by "secular" you mean that the content of the rule is secular in nature somehow, as opposed to the source of the rule being secular?

Yes. Of course. You've been arguing a non sequitur claiming that since some religious people come up with nonreligious moral tenets, then those those moral tenets cannot be sensibly seen as nonreligious. However, the beliefs of the person who comes up with a moral tenet do not dictate whether the tenet is religious or secular. The philosophical and/or theological categories the belief falls into determine whether the tenet is religious or nonreligious.

All of this should be obvious.

 

[Politesse]

So by "secular" you mean that the content of the rule is secular in nature somehow, as opposed to the source of the rule being secular?

Yes. Of course. You've been arguing a non sequitur claiming that since some religious people come up with nonreligious moral tenets, then those those moral tenets cannot be sensibly seen as nonreligious. However, the beliefs of the person who comes up with a moral tenet do not dictate whether the tenet is religious or secular. The philosophical and/or theological categories the belief falls into determine whether the tenet is religious or nonreligious.

All of this should be obvious.

It's not. If you want people to understand what the hell you're talking about, you need to make yourself clear, it's not our responsibility to try and guess what you might mean.

What is the definition of a "Christian moral" to you?

What is the definition of a "secular moral" to you?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

All of this should be obvious.

It's not. If you want people to understand what the hell you're talking about, you need to make yourself clear, it's not our responsibility to try and guess what you might mean.

What is the definition of a "Christian moral" to you?

What is the definition of a "secular moral" to you?

Who is "our"? The only person here who supposedly cannot understand the difference between religious and secular morals is you.

"Christian morality" is morality that is related to the Christian God and what he is believed to have commanded. "Secular moral" is a nonreligious moral as we all know. Such a moral has no grounding in any Gods or the supernatural. A secular moral does not presuppose God or what he supposedly demands from us.

 

[Politesse]

All of this should be obvious.

It's not. If you want people to understand what the hell you're talking about, you need to make yourself clear, it's not our responsibility to try and guess what you might mean.

What is the definition of a "Christian moral" to you?

What is the definition of a "secular moral" to you?

Who is "our"? The only person here who supposedly cannot understand the difference between religious and secular morals is you.

"Christian morality" is morality that is related to the Christian God and what he is believed to have commanded. "Secular moral" is a nonreligious moral as we all know. Such a moral has no grounding in any Gods or the supernatural. A secular moral does not presuppose God or what he supposedly demands from us.

So in theory:

A person who believes that because God loves us all equally, and said so in the Holy Word, the racist has no place in a Christian society, is following a Christian morality. Whereas if someone who believes all members of a certain minority race ought to be enslaved because of their genetic inferiority, they are following the secular morality. Correct? Whereas if someone believes in racial equality on the basis of secular humanism, that same opinion becomes a secular moral, and a person who advocates slavery because the Bible endorses it, now is following a religious moral despite advocating for the same political activity?

If you disagree, perhaps you can demonstrate why this wouldn't be an implication of your definitions, which seem to focus entirely on the perceived or accredited source or philosophical justification of the moral.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

So in theory...
A person who believes that because God loves us all equally, and said so in the Holy Word, the racist has no place in a Christian society, is following a Christian morality.

You're getting into trouble right off the bat here because there is no such Christian moral even in theory because the Christian God divides people up into very unequal categories.

Whereas if someone who believes all members of a certain minority race ought to be enslaved because of their genetic inferiority, they are following the secular morality. Correct?

I'm not sure because what's being said can be either religious or secular. I need that information to determine what category that tenet falls into.

Whereas if someone believes in racial equality on the basis of secular humanism, that same opinion becomes a secular moral, and a person who advocates slavery because the Bible endorses it, now is following a religious moral despite advocating for the same political activity?

I think I know what you're getting at. You are arguing that if some moral tenets can be either religious or secular, then all moral tenets can be either religious or secular. If so, then you are arguing a non sequitur because many moral tenets fall into one category or the other but not both. Allow me to explain using set theory.

Let R be the set of all religious morals and S be the set of all secular morality. The set of moral tenets that are both religious and secular tenets is the set R ∩ S, and the set of all moral tenets religious or secular is the set R ∪ S, the union of the two sets. The fallacy in your reasoning is your assumption that R ∩ S = R ∪ S which clearly need not be true. In other words, a moral k ∈ R can be k ∉ S and therefore k need not be an element of R ∩ S. In English that means that a moral tenet can be religious but not secular. There are many examples of such moral tenets.

If you disagree, perhaps you can demonstrate why this wouldn't be an implication of your definitions, which seem to focus entirely on the perceived or accredited source or philosophical justification of the moral.

You have your demonstration presented with mathematical rigor. I'd recommend studying set theory to see where you are going wrong.

 

[Politesse]

So in theory...
A person who believes that because God loves us all equally, and said so in the Holy Word, the racist has no place in a Christian society, is following a Christian morality.

You're getting into trouble right off the bat here because there is no such Christian moral even in theory because the Christian God divides people up into very unequal categories.

Whereas if someone who believes all members of a certain minority race ought to be enslaved because of their genetic inferiority, they are following the secular morality. Correct?

I'm not sure because what's being said can be either religious or secular. I need that information to determine what category that tenet falls into.

Whereas if someone believes in racial equality on the basis of secular humanism, that same opinion becomes a secular moral, and a person who advocates slavery because the Bible endorses it, now is following a religious moral despite advocating for the same political activity?

I think I know what you're getting at. You are arguing that if some moral tenets can be either religious or secular, then all moral tenets can be either religious or secular. If so, then you are arguing a non sequitur because many moral tenets fall into one category or the other but not both. Allow me to explain using set theory.

Let R be the set of all religious morals and S be the set of all secular morality. The set of moral tenets that are both religious and secular tenets is the set R ∩ S, and the set of all moral tenets religious or secular is the set R ∪ S, the union of the two sets. The fallacy in your reasoning is your assumption that R ∩ S = R ∪ S which clearly need not be true. In other words, a moral k ∈ R can be k ∉ S and therefore k need not be an element of R ∩ S. In English that means that a moral tenet can be religious but not secular. There are many examples of such moral tenets.

If you disagree, perhaps you can demonstrate why this wouldn't be an implication of your definitions, which seem to focus entirely on the perceived or accredited source or philosophical justification of the moral.

You have your demonstration presented with mathematical rigor. I'd recommend studying set theory to see where you are going wrong.

This is the first time you have so much as suggested that a rule could be both religious and secular. Obviously I already knew this, as my argument is that there is no real meaningful distinction to be made in the first place. I continue to maintain that people justify their prerogatives with whatever moral system makes sense to them - generally, a complex blend of religious and secular sources passed down through a complex tangled history, largely through individuals who considered themselves religious but practiced a morality with many sources both religious and non-religious.

So is your revised claim that although most significant moral "rules" popular in society could be and are couched in both religious and secular terms depending on the speaker, you think there are enough exclusively religious morals that are bad, and enough exclusively secular morals that are good, that Christians should feel grateful for secular moral perspectives?

 

[Unknown Soldier]

This is the first time you have so much as suggested that a rule could be both religious and secular. Obviously I already knew this, as my argument is that there is no real meaningful distinction to be made in the first place.

Again, study set theory to see where you are going wrong. Two sets can have an intersection, but it does not necessarily follow that the union of the two sets is the same as the intersection. Some moral tenets can be in one or the other set but not both. I posted examples of such tenets as far back as the OP.

So is your revised claim that although most significant moral "rules" popular in society could be and are couched in both religious and secular terms depending on the speaker, you think there are enough exclusively religious morals that are bad, and enough exclusively secular morals that are good, that Christians should feel grateful for secular moral perspectives?

I wouldn't say I revised any claims. What I said in the OP still stands. If math isn't to your fancy, then I'd recommend consulting a dictionary.