The Dangers of Secularism

got a citation? I'm aware of abuses against our native {brothers\sisters} but not sure what SCOTUS had to say.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Ritch hereIt was the official decision of the SCOTUS that allowed Georgia to take some of the best property in the state from some of the best educated and wealthiest people in the state and ship their asses to Oklahoma.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

The Court cannot create laws and they haven't as of yet (with the possible exception of the Bush decision, which practically amended the constitution).

---

No, no, holmes, don't you remember?The SCOTUS said that the descision to put Bush in power shouldn't be considered a precedent and was to be considered a unique case.

Well I hope it is wavering otherwise gays will never get any rights. But in any case you are exhibiting yet another problem.In a secular gov't laws are not based on morality. Thus it can look at the case you outlined in a relativist way and say, yes we understand WHY it occured. However, because of the civil rights of individuals which the gov't must protect... not from morality regarding killing... the action is illegal.It really seems to me that the biggest problems we are having, on all sides, is that people believe their moral systems really are objective, and that laws must be based in morality, rather than on addressing conflicts between the rights of individuals such that the rights of individuals are maximized (which is NOT a moral statement).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yeah, so they could then go back to pretending that they actually believe the Federal Gov't shouldn't meddle in State affairs... heheheh.That was certainly a great precedent they just set right there: make a decision violating all of your beliefs and then state it is NOT a precedent so that no future opposing group can avail themselves of it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Another sweet post, it's like you are channeling certain ancient Greek philosophers, yet also incorrect. Unfortunately if you had been more aware of other Greek philosophies you would not have made the mistake you made. Actually people can disagree with that rule. You are correct in unpacking how a person who believes in that rule may still violate it, despite their moral belief and insistence they did not violate it. However, you are not correct that that rule is some sort of logical absolute.The first part: IF unjustified, THEN murder is merely a definitional statement. I think the history of the term murder is sufficient to say people will generally call it that.The conclusion is where you stumble: IF murder, THEN wrong. Where did the "wrong" come from and why is it something everyone would agree with?Within descriptive systems, or normative "virtue" systems (how lucky you are paralleling a discussion I am having in another thread so I can now use currently used terms) there would be no "wrong" inherent to a murder.Indeed as an example, my own system which is a virtue system, would end at "THEN murder", or maybe even just a recognition that a killing was "unjust"... for example killings in a war are generally excused from the term "murder" though they may in fact be unjust.There is no concept of right or wrong flowing from that. As far as my character goes, I am sort of obsessed with justice and so find unjust acts of any kind distasteful and will oppose them, but I have no illusion that my distaste makes it "wrong".Indeed there are conditions similar to the ones you outlined for the strict moral code, whereby I could recognize that a killing is unjust but also necessary, thus it remains distasteful to me (as much as before) but useful to a degree that even I might avail myself to it. Or I (or rather someone else) might find that there are other values to it, such as while being unjust it showed loyalty and courage. The latter two do not make it more right or less wrong, but show that different values may characterize the same act.Let me use an example...A man joined the US army in order to defend this nation. Perhaps in response to the 9/11 attacks. He is then ordered to Iraq where he is put in a position where he must attack an Iraqi unit and thus kill a number of people, and given the type of weapon he is using, and the enemy's proximity to crowded civilian habitation, is likely to kill some innocent people as well. He is also well aware that Iraq was not involved in 9/11, and does not pose an imminent threat to his nation, such that he is acting in its direct defense. (before anyone disagrees, let us say this is how this particular soldier vies the situation).His attacking the enemy unit would be unjust, and perhaps even unlawful (given international law on pretext for war), and so technically murder... though this may get written off by some as "act of war" and so "not murder".But is it wrong? To your code it would seem so, unless there are other rules that come in to play. For my system it remains not wrong at all, but it could be distasteful to the man and how he chooses to act will determine his moral character.He could choose to move forward, because despite the unjustness of his action, to not act would be disloyal to his nation and his comrades who will now go into combat with less support, and it would also be a courageous thing to do in that he is fightingt our enemy whether they posed an imminent threat or not. Some might claim that he is actually exhibiting cowardice in not standing up for justice, but that would be a matter of debate.In any case his action would be all of these things, and who is to say that it is then wrong because of any one or group of them. The best you can say is that YOU would feel it is wrong, because that is your taste and so your moral character by which we can know you.I hope this all made sense. Right and Wrong are subjective terms which are not necessarily agreed on by anyone, stemming from any specific type of action.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

yes but isn't 'we should protect the rights of the people' a moral statement?i wasn't suggesting that we go with this government lol.

No it is not a moral statement. I mean it certainly can be one, but in this instance it is not. I am also not trying to imply it is somehow an absolute or objective statement.When we get together as a collection of individuals we bring with us what the founding fathers called "inalienable rights", which are what we generally expect or desire for ourselves.For example, I want to be free to say what I want and worship whatever God I want.There is a trade off however in a practical sense, because something I may want to do can very well prevent you from doing what you want. And of course something people may want to do might prevent the gov't itself from functioning properly. Property rights are a big part of this.Thus as we create a gov't we try and figure out what rights we will guarantee, and then arbitrate the practical disputes between opposing rights as well as between individual rights and the desires of the gov't.There will be arbitrary rules and distinctions, but they are legal and not moral in nature (though certainly a person's moral beliefs will influence them in some cases as to what legal measures are the best).If there was not an agreement between us that your and my rights will be protected, then what practical reason would I have for continuing in a legal arrangement with you?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Thanks, Holmes, for the thorough and, as always, superior reponse. Actually, I think the absolute rule I came up with is tautological in nature, as are all moral rules, because they lack an ultimate ground."If a killing is unjustified, it is murder, and therefore absolutely wrong" is just another way of saying "immoral killing is immoral."No one can logically disagree with the fact that immoral killing is immoral.The question is whether it means anything or not. But I would argue that "immoral killing is immoral" is to "4=4" as "If a killing is unjustified, it is murder, and therefore absolutely wrong" is to "2+2=4."Now we all know that "2+2=4" is far from meaningless, and this leads me to believe that the tautological moral rule is not meaningless.Where did the wrong come from? It came from our moral intuition. That's the only place it can come from, assuming no God. Building a secular moral structure is like building a house with no foundation. It just collapses UNLESS there is some hidden foundation in the very nature of definitional moral expressions. And perhaps there is.Obviously my Absolute is based on variable applications of the word "unjustified." "Justification" means to provide a good reason for some act performed. But in what sense "good reason"? Do we mean good in the sense of morally good? Can reasons be morally good or bad in the same way that acts can be morally good or bad?Let's take your example of the soldier in Iraq, which is rather complicated because we are dealing with various issues: the justness or unjustness of the war as a whole; the justness or unjustness of the tactical situation you speak of (location, weaponry); and the soldier's own views of both of the above.According to my rule, immoral killing is immoral. But whether a killing is immoral or not depends on the reason it is done. In my example, a group of people kill people randomly to save the human race. In your example, the soldier might kill people "randomly" (carelessly) to save his country. But his country does not need saving, and from your description of his state of mind it sounds like he knows this (if he did not know it, he would be innocent). So it is wrong for him to go through with the attack, if he knows that reasons for doing so are unjust. However, there are complications, such as the safety of his fellow soldiers. So one has to decide if the justness of protecting his fellow soldiers overrides the unjustness of the war as a whole. If he thinks it does override the unjustness of the war, then he is justified in performing the act. In my example, it was not wrong for the group of people to kill randomly because their cause was just, though mistaken.So we conclude that reasons for performing some act are moral and immoral just as acts themselves are. Our judgement of reasons is no different from our judgement of acts: both are intuitive.But what is this underlying foundation that makes a tautological moral statement meaningful? Perhaps it's in the idea of the conditonal: the situation of "if." IF the killing is unjustified, it must follow, as the night the day, that the act is immoral.The "conditional" doesn't exist except potentially and so does not apply to any particular reason or act. This is what makes it absolute. So no particular reason or act is either moral or immoral
in and of itself, but the combination of the two are always either moral, immoral, or neutral (not dealing with morality).This message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-18-2005 03:10 PMThis message has been edited by robinrohan, 05-18-2005 04:10 PM

I think you may have stated your case better this time. I believe I agree with much of what you said if not all of it.This is why being a relativist does not mean having no moral code, nor being anti-moral code, just observant of what are the limits and uses of moral codes and from what do they derive.Part of this is the recognition that not all moral systems have to have proscriptive or prescriptive conclusions about actions. Thus some are about describing a person's character, rather than labeling actions (even if situational) "right" or "wrong".For those normative systems that do contain labels for guiding conduct such as right/wrong... which I assume you do believe in... they are ultimately groundless and tautological.As long as this is recognized and so the inherent difference this creates between a mathematical formula and a moral formula, I think what you described is correct (i.e. 4=4 compared to 2+2=4).I would hesitate to call what drives the tautologies we create intuition, as that seems to suggest something "higher" than taste or prejudice to me. But I suppose that might be my own bias creeping in. Gut feeling may be the best neutral description.One interesting thing to note, and again this drives at why perhaps intution is not the most accurate term, people can come to understand or feel that their moral system or certain codes within it are wrong. Its hard to change one's mind about something which is intuitive. But at this point I am probably nitpicking.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Holmes, what I've been trying to argue for is an Absolute for a secular moral system, since without such the system collapses. It doesn't collapse in a practical sense, of course, only in a theoretical sense.An absolute in a secular system is obviously impossible unless you can move beyond specific acts (such as killing) and specific reasons for acts (serve my country) to some more general level.My motives are based upon the belief (without proof) that there really is a universal morality that will accomodate many different cultures. I feel that there are many similarities, for example, in the moral ideas of different ancient religions. There are differences in the details, of course, and these details are what often are most obvious. Some cultural traditions which we might find obnoxious in the act become a little less unreasonable when we investigate the reasons for them, the beliefs that created them-i.e, given this belief the reaons for the action, apart from the act itself, seems moral. But the similarities are not always apparent.So that suggests to me that there is a more general level upon which moral intuition operates, beyond particular acts and reasons.Perhaps it is a logical level, an empty form, into which we pour moral content, and because it is purely "formal," it is remindful of mathematical statements. So what would seem to be a tautology maybe is not a tautology ultimately, or is in some way meaningful.Taste is something subjective and intuition is not supposed to be, although our intuition is not pristine. The intuition is blunted and warped by our tribulations, just like our other faculties can be, but for most people (hopefully) remains reasonably intact. If our moral preferences are just that, just personal preferences, then of course there is no extra-general level of moral reasoning that one taps.I enjoyed this discussion.

A purely secular approach to psychology would eventually leave the Human race quite insane. Or rather, more-so Secular psychology offers plausible explanations. Good insights, good techniques. It offers very good pills. But it doesn't offer the one thing that people require most: a sense of meaning. In fact, the secular psychological sciences tend to reduce meaning.Symphonies and paintings turn out to be sublimations of the sex drive or productions of the right brain hemisphere. Love turns out to be a matter of stimulus and response or a series of transactions conditioned by family patterns.Why has the rise of modern psychology not produced a golden age of happiness? Try as it might to give us skills for living, psychology has never been able to give a reason for living. It offers no vision.

quote:

---

"As liberalism did not create moral ideas, so too it cannot preserve them. It lives off the spiritual capital that it inherited from Christian civilization......I think secular psychology is in an analogous position. It assumes in its clientele a fund of goodwill, love, and caring that it is incapable of creating. We can go further and say that it assumes the existence of meaning systems which give order and purpose to people's lives but does nothing to sustain or preserve those meaning systems. It depends on those meaning systems at the same time that it is doing much to undermine and weaken those systems. In short, it is like a man sawing off the branch on which he sits." -Christopher Dawson

---

This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-19-2005 08:24 PM

Why does knowing that make a symphony or a painting meaningless?How does secular psychology (kind of redundant, since there really isn't any other kind) eliminate meaning? Why do humans have to be treated as some kind of forever-unknowable black box for our works to be meaningful? Maybe that's something you can't be given. Is there some reason you're having trouble finding your own things to live for? "Know yourself." How's that for vision?

quote:

---

kind of redundant, since there really isn't any other kind

---

Oh? I direct your attention here:http://www.christianpsych.org/
http://narramore.gospelcom.net/
HyperMartAnyhoo, I understand your need to lash out at me, I dont hold it against you.Peace.This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-19-2005 08:57 PM

You know what? You can take any religion you like and cram "psychology" on the end of it. But psychology is a science, and religion is not. Thus, the end result of your little word game is not actually psychology. Maybe you could point out where I did that. Are you sure you're reading my posts closely enough? It looks to me like I excellently rebutted your points, and that you had no response. Why is that?