I don't know how you are defining the conventional and so I can't really comment on it.

Conventional is just exactly what we all think when we talk about religious v secular. So Christianity, Islam, polytheism, animism, Buddhism, Shinto and the like are all religious. Materialism, Utilitarianism, Humanism, Communism, Fascism, Liberalism, Nihilism and the like are all secular.

Most of those separate similarly by the criteria I put forth also. Which group is inappropriately labeled as far as you can tell. Like I said before, I'd give a tie to the practitioner when it comes to religion.

Aggrad08 said:

---

No it's the appeal to revelation that's the difference

---

So when divine revelation taught that all human life was precious regardless of tribe, sex, and so on, it was religious.

But centuries later when there is such widespread agreement we don't haggle about it, it's secular?

I think all the ones labeled as "secular". The best I can tell, the only consistent criteria is that the worldview is newer than the year 1700 and not directly branching off from or referencing any already known religion. I feel like I've been pretty clear that I don't see any real difference between religious and secular worldviews in this regard

It's simply about the foundation. Two identical claims can be made with different foundations I never claimed otherwise.

God could tell someone the speed limit should be 75 on all highways.

Secular can be influenced by religious, and religious by secular.

Again those follow the distinctions I laid out pretty well.

What's the non-religious foundation for "reduce human suffering" or "all human life has intrinsic value"?

You don't have to answer that. I think the absurdity of this line of reasoning has been pretty well displayed.

Based on my many posts so far, I obviously disagree. As regards revelation, I'd say Communism is much more based on revelation than Animism, and Materialism is more based on revelation than Confucionism. I don't think Buddha's revelation regarding non-attachment is any more religious in character than Socrates' revelation of fundamental ignorance.

As regards "God told you to do it", I don't see much difference between saying something is religious because it's the "Will of God" while something else is secular because its the "Will of the People". All comprehensive worldviews make appeal to abstract metaphysical principles, none of which are any more tangible or self-apparent than the "Will of God"

But I'm just repeating myself now

Zobel said:

---

What's the non-religious foundation for "reduce human suffering" or "all human life has intrinsic value"?

You don't have to answer that. I think the absurdity of this line of reasoning has been pretty well displayed.

---

Really you can't think of anything? You posses no empathy or see no utility in reducing suffering? I find it pretty unpleasant for myself and those I love especially and broadly speaking find it unpleasant to witness in people. The only reason you would appeal to those particular assumptions as something that would be damning if they weren't grounded is because they posses a value to us in and of themselves. Conversely you must simultaneously argue that such things are intrinsically worthless without your god telling us they are to try and maintain this line of thought.

That seems far less absurd than my invisible, intangible, silent god told me so. I don't think exploring the absurdity of our respective positions is one that ends well for theism.

I think we've pretty well displayed the premise that there can be no distinction between religious and secular poorly argued.

Calling the thoughts of man revelation is a pretty blatant twisting of what I laid revelation out as. I think a pretty clear distinction can be made between human thought and thought purportedly inhuman. Seeing this as categories that cannot be parsed I find very unconvincing.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Calling the thoughts of man revelation is a pretty blatant twisting of what I laid revelation out as. I think a pretty clear distinction can be made between human thought and thought purportedly inhuman. Seeing this as categories that cannot be parsed find very unconvincing.

---

Yep. I'm blatantly twisting the mysterious, inexplicable, and unpredictable epiphanies that inspire men to previously unknown acts of genius with divine revelation in the exact same way as a great many cultures have throughout history. How underhanded of me

Men of great natural intellect building on the discoveries of the men that came before can only be described as magical if you are strongly predisposed to such a line of thought.

In that case, would you care to give an entirely materialistic explanation for acts of creative genius?

All personal accounts from people I've read from such people always say "the idea just came to me all of a sudden."

whether or not i can think of anything is irrelevant - i am a product of a christian upbringing, in a culture that is the product of christian thought and morality for two thousand years.

what's relevant is that the world absolutely did not in any way express these values until they came through a religious context. ancient people had no problem whatever with the suffering of others, and apparently took great joy in it. by modern standards they were sadistic monsters.

you haven't yet shown the difference between various beliefs at the axiomatic level - which is fine, because there isn't one. they're presuppositions, axioms, unprovable and accepted as self-evident by their nature. all well and good until they're self-evident to some people but not others.

you are either incapable of engaging with the actual point here or unwilling to do so.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

In that case, would you care to give an entirely materialistic explanation for acts of creative genius?

All personal accounts from people I've read from such people always say "the idea just came to me all of a sudden."

---

Do you not have thoughts just come to you? I do. I think it's a pretty standard human experience and doesn't seem the least bit divine to me.

As to the mechanism it could be the imperfections and inconsistencies in the way our mind works turning out favorable results. Similar to how people can have great ideas under the influence of drugs.

I already addressed the point about the axiomatic level from the very beginning.

At no point could anyone reading my posts thoughtfully think I didn't understand and convey I agreed that all worldviews stem from unprovable axioms. I truly have no idea why you think differently.

Aggrad08 said:

---

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

In that case, would you care to give an entirely materialistic explanation for acts of creative genius?

All personal accounts from people I've read from such people always say "the idea just came to me all of a sudden."

---

Do you not have thoughts just come to you? I do. I think it's a pretty standard human experience and doesn't seem the least bit divine to me.

---

Conversely, you just made an argument for the everyday intervention of the divine as part of the standard human experience

Weird that god gives people epiphanies on the best way to engage in extramarital sex.

you said that they were axiomatic but shrugged at the necessary conclusion: because at the Ur-layer there is no meaningful difference between religious claims and secular claims in that both fall on unprovable, untestable, axiomatic beliefs, the justification for the resulting worldviews is not meaningfully different. therefore there is no valid reason to dismiss things because they're religious and for no other reason.

you take as axiomatic that we should reduce human suffering. two thousand years ago this was a revelatory religious belief. the only difference you can really bring to the table between then and now is the broad consensus on accepting this axiom. so your rule seems to be that secular beliefs are general and religious specific. this is maybe somewhat useful for a given population in a given time, but doesn't help at all where things really matter - in disagreements, particularly where those axiomatic views are not accepted. which is the whole point of the discussion in the first place.

it seems like you're really worried about the word "religious". I don't care, call the two categories farfanugle beliefs and doolanger beliefs. it doesn't matter - in the end, they both rest on axiomatic positions, and so the entire thing of "well God told you to do it" is completely irrelevant because it's functionally identical to "thats just what i believe".

Except it's not functionally identical and I pointed out how these thoughts tend to function differently. As a society we've observed historically that these thoughts function differently and have codified laws accordingly. Which is exactly my point earlier, it wouldn't matter if you made everyone agree with you that every belief is religious a new word would arise for the same distinction.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Except it's not functionally identical and I pointed out how these thoughts tend to function differently. As a society we've observed historically that these thoughts function differently* and have codified laws accordingly. Which is exactly my point earlier, it wouldn't matter if you made everyone agree with you that every belief is religious a new word would arise for the same distinction.

---

*in the last hundred years.

There's a lot of recency bias in your ideas. The original colonies had their own state religions/denominations and a great many states passed laws with religious pretexts. 20 years ago I couldn't buy liquor at the Jack Daniel's distillery in Lynchburg because it was Sunday. The whole 'we've decided as a society' is a punt since there's been a very active secularization push through education with Dewey and the rest of our institutions. Your argument is rooted in being the victor of this battle.

Edit: to add, if we re-consecrated all institutions and laws as religious, would you suddenly reject the belief that society has separated these two things?

It's not a punt, it's the simple history of it. And it's not a uniquely American phenomenon but has occurred broadly throughout the western world and then some.

Of course recency and the path culture takes effects us all. What would you views on race, gays, women's rights ect be if you were raised 100 years ago, what about 200? It would be dramatically different for all of us as the cultural change in values has effectively altered the course of your own values as much as mine. Your great grandchildren if such a thing is store for you will also be raised in a different culture with different values.

This is always the case.

Zobel said:

---

what's relevant is that the world absolutely did not in any way express these values until they came through a religious context. ancient people had no problem whatever with the suffering of others, and apparently took great joy in it. by modern standards they were sadistic monsters.
.

---

If all values are religious, then this comment should just be able to be reworded as:

"what's relevant is that the world absolutely did not in any way express these values until they did"

Unless there is distinction between religious values and non religious values, it's a throw-away comment.

An analogy for this thread: I feel like we are having an argument about whether there is a difference between a car and a truck. One side is saying that fundamentally they are both vehicles and thus we cannot draw any distinction. The other side is saying that well yeah, they have similarities and they are both vehicles. But, these trucks all have this general shape and the back and cars all have this shape.

Also, whether or not 'religious' values should be dismissed from our legal process is a separate question. And it's a nonsensical question if we can't get past agreeing that values can be informed by different sources or experiences. If we can agree to that, then we can draw distinction. What we do with that distinction is a different topic.

i said religious values and non-religious values are a distinction without a practical difference when it comes to justifying the values, as both arise out of qualitatively identical sources - presuppositions or axioms.

the only satisfactory difference ive seen anyone say is that religious values are specific while secular values are general or common in the population; but then this makes culture religious once you zoom out to a point where you have heterogeneity.

the point in time for the values being expressed in a religious context is key, not because they arose out of a religion, but because now they are considered secular. so again - if at one point they were clearly religious, and now they aren't... what changed? not the presupposition, not the axiom. just the prevalence...? so how can something go from being a purely religious value to being a purely secular one without the value itself changing? and if these categories are essentially arbitrary by declaration of the population, are they real distinctions or not?

it's more like people saying cars and trucks are different, but the people saying they're different are saying that they're different because cars have wheels.

i agreed already that values are informed by different sources or experiences. but if, in the end, they're all bound up in unprovable axioms... why does that matter? you're pointing to the car wheels and saying - you can't have wheels.

Interesting piece;

https://redstate.com/mike_miller/2023/04/15/poll-majority-of-americans-accuse-churches-of-abandoning-basic-tenets-of-christianity-n731799

Zobel said:

---

Well, it's not the first go-round with him, and I generally find his arguments and approach to discussion to play out this way. Calling people he disagrees with evil or morally repugnant while projecting emotional response onto others is kind of par. I don't really have the patience to be lectured to by someone who can't or won't engage on a serious level.

---

I have never called people I disagree with evil. Not you, not anyone on this thread or any regular posters here. So please stop accusing me of that. there's a difference between what you accuse me of and stating that the actions of some other person are evil.

The rest of this paragraph also throws a lot of unfounded accusations at me. I've been pretty civil in this thread and have at least tried to engage with you. But obviously it wasnt to your satisfaction.

Sorry for the late response. Staff sent me to banned camp because I had the nerve to say it was bigoted to call all trans people murderers.

Aggrad08 said:

---

It's not a punt, it's the simple history of it. And it's not a uniquely American phenomenon but has occurred broadly throughout the western world and then some.

Of course recency and the path culture takes effects us all. What would you views on race, gays, women's rights ect be if you were raised 100 years ago, what about 200? It would be dramatically different for all of us as the cultural change in values has effectively altered the course of your own values as much as mine. Your great grandchildren if such a thing is store for you will also be raised in a different culture with different values.

This is always the case.

---

How is this not a punt? You're simply saying, 'examine western societies today. We've all decided this thing so this thing must be correct.' It's arguing that wherever you go, there you are (and not looking at how you got there or why). You're omitting that it's been an intentional push at institutional levels by influential people rather than by collective agreement; it's not organic but a reflection of hegemony and power. Since when is this sufficient to establish such a distinction? There is no value system here, no natural law, no moral obligation.

This you?
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3368806/replies/64516615

Zobel said:

---

This you?
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/3368806/replies/64516615

---

Yes, I'll own that. No apologies or retractions. How do you not understand the difference between calling Ken Paxton evil and calling everyone who disagrees with me evil? Any reasonable person can understand this distinction yet you are choosing not to.

You're just being obtuse and you know it.

Because I didn't say you called everyone you agree with evil, I said you call people you disagree with evil. I'm pretty sure that accurately describes Ken Paxton as he is both a person and I suppose you don't agree with him.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I'm not saying you are wrong.

I think you are well aware that many of the posters are this board are very casually interested in philosophy. Taco tried to answer your question. I agree that he didn't really fully address your question, but I think he tried. And I mean no offense to taco with this, but I think he lacks the depth of knowledge on the topic to address and articulate a response that would be important or profound to you. (For the record, I often find myself in this position too). And I have far too much respect for your intelligence to believe that you did not see the same. Your responses could have included letting the conversation drop, send him a book to read, nudge him toward the flaws in his thinking. I am rolling my eyes to the inclusion of this condescension your response:

"what's kind of sad is that you apparently have never reviewed your own beliefs or values with any kind of critical eye."

""it's just, like, what i believe."
- person who has spent time in serious self-reflection and unironically posits an unfalsifiable personal belief as non-religious "

This is a small Internet forum of a couple dozen regulars with a wide variety of philosophy knowledge. This isn't exactly national convention of scholars.

And now I've written far too many words on this whole thing. All I really meant to say was "give the new guy a break."

So, did you write those posts above to mock or condescend? If the answer is 'no', I owe you an apology and I'll gladly exit the thread. If I'm right, then 'come on' give him a break. Most of us here are just interested in the topics and trying to engage with someone in them. And we have different levels at which we are able to engage.

---

Appreciate you sticking up for me. I certainly tried to answer Zobel's questions in an honest way, but it appears he wasn't satisfied with them and we just continued to talk past each other. Though I'm still not sure what I'm missing in my responses other than him just not liking how I phrased them/agreeing with my views.

Also, I'm not a new guy. I used to post under a different handle. I don't really care if people know, I'm not trying to hide anything, as I don't take internet message boards that seriously. Even if certain posters can make my blood pressure rise.

Zobel said:

---

Because I didn't say you called everyone you agree with evil, I said you call people you disagree with evil. I'm pretty sure that accurately describes Ken Paxton as he is both a person and I suppose you don't agree with him.

---

Well you certainly phrased it that way. And I had to push back against what I saw as a straw man.

As for our friend Ken, I do believe he is an evil man with a heart full of hatred. However, I do not think he is evil simply because I disagree with him. He has committed acts and said things over the years that I find so morally reprehensible and cruel, and he has absolutely no concern about the people he hurts with his words and actions. In fact, I think he likes it. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that he is an evil man. I believe that strongly. I understand you don't.

This is a discussion for a different thread, but yeah, I'll die on this hill. Some people are evil and they don't have to be on the level of Hitler for that to be so. It's not just cruel dictators, it's some of our own elected leaders and people we interact with daily.

I don't use the term lightly, and I'm careful to not call everyone I disagree with evil (as you apparently accused me of), because doing so would water down the term and it's not a term to use lightly. It's as serious as an accusation as you can make at any person. For example, I definitely do not like Ted Cruz at all and wouldn't hang out with him for 5 minutes if you paid me, but I won't call him evil. I just think he's fundamentally wrong about so many things.

I didn't phrase it that way.

What was your previous handle? I do a poor job of following who believes what, but maybe it will ring a bell.

I believe I understand Zobel's position and I think I have some understanding of the downside to 'our' position from his perspective. How well he understands 'our' position may be a function of how well (or poorly) it was explained.

Either way, I think I think this thread may have run its course.