Zobel said:

---

Where do values come from?

---

Exactly. When society is structured under one God who grants our rights, society functions well. We are playing a game under common rules. We have now "progressed" to many "gods" which has opened the door for moral relativism. Everyone has their own truth, their pen rules now. We are living through the fall of the Temple of Babel all over again as our society fragments. It happens slowly, and then all of the sudden.

You didn't even try to answer the question.

I was responding to a post about foundational reasons. I don't care about another reason someone might do something in this instance. The ultimate point for a religious claim is a foundational on it being directed by god.

Zobel said:

---

what is the foundational claim underlying a value? how do you distinguish a religious value claim from a non-religious one?

---

I guess that's subjective. My views on labor laws have nothing to do with religion.

You didn't answer the question.

Something informs your view on labor laws - there's ultimately a principle that comes into play. How do you distinguish that underlying value claim from a religious one?

We all agree that it is clear what a religious claim may be. There's no point in belaboring it. The real question is how do you know for sure something isn't religious, or what distinguishes one from the other.

Zobel said:

---

You didn't answer the question.

Something informs your view on labor laws - there's ultimately a principle that comes into play. How do you distinguish that underlying value claim from a religious one?

---

Everyone and their mom has views on something. Sometimes they are influenced by religion, sometimes not. Religion does not have to be the source of one's values. Most of my values are derived from my own personal sense of morality and my personal life experiences. I used labor laws as an example because my views on that have shifted a good bit since I became a working adult.

I think it's usually pretty clear what is religious and what isn't. The people muddying the waters are the ones that wasn't to pretend that the unreligious are actually religious.

So clear you can't even attempt to describe the distinction?

Against my better judgment I'm going to try one more time.

The fact that you have values, and those values come from various sources, and that this is generally true of all people, is not the question at hand.

The question is what informs those values? What underpins them? You spoke of morality, what is your personal sense of morality rooted in?

Right now you've just offered some vague handwaving or a tautology (I'm not sure I see the difference between "values" and "morality").

Again. How do you distinguish the underlying value claim from a religious one?

I already have multiple times. Religious claims are those that are ultimately justified by some sort of edict received from God or other supreme supernatural being that has revealed a divine truth.

i already agreed with that. that's not interesting, sky is blue, water is wet. no one is arguing that point.

the question is what isn't religious? so - again against my better judgment, one more try - are you suggesting that all claims not explicitly rooted in an edict received from God cannot be religious?

I think anything religious requires some sort of supernatural element to it, so in the absence of a better word than God, yes.

Without that, it's not a religious stance.

Not to say that someone couldn't adhere to a stance with "religious" zeal.

it's because I think you are trying to get me to say that it all eventually boils down to religion. I disagree with that. I can see how views on social issues are influenced by religion (they often are). You could make the argument that any other policies can have some sort of religious justification or objection.

For example, I could argue that Christians should champion environmental conservation and clean energy, because we are called to be good stewards of the earth. In fact, that's something I strongly believe, for both Christians and nonreligious people alike. But my nonreligious basis for believing that is that we are doing harm to the environment with our current practices, harming wildlife and polluting. We are creating a world that is less clean and less safe for future generations, leaving them a mess to clean up well after we are gone. That's my secular reasoning for believing the way I do.

For worker rights, I believe that every worker is entitled to basic human dignity and treatment. Their dignity and needs should not be sacrificed just so their bosses and corporate execs can make more money. I find that morally reprehensible. That is from my personal sense of morality and values. I could also formulate a religious argument to back that up, but that's not where my views come from on this matter.

Abortion is a sacrament to many, the most important one in their faith, even.

More or less you see that your position is indefensible so you're refusing to engage with the question. Fair enough.

In the end, all value claims are rooted in a philosophical axiom - a definition of the good, some statement about the value of human life, and so on. I don't think you can really make a distinction between a religious axiom and a philosophical one -- which is why no one is even trying to do so.

Do you consider the intrinsic value of a human life to be an appeal to the supernatural?

I feel like I've answered your question directly multiple times. Not sure why you are being so indignant about it. I'm just rejecting your (apparent) argument that all values and morality come from religion.

barbacoa taco said:

---

I feel like I've answered your question directly multiple times. Not sure why you are being so indignant about it. I'm just rejecting your (apparent) argument that all values and morality come from religion.

---

This is not his argument or question. Re-read his last post as it was quite clear.

whos indignant? its just funny that you haven't even attempted to answer how you would distinguish a non-religious value claim from a religious one.

what's kind of sad is that you apparently have never reviewed your own beliefs or values with any kind of critical eye. for example - why does it matter if the world is less clean or safe for future generations?

why is every worker entitled to basic human dignity? what basis do you have for something being morally reprehensible? you have to see that is an appeal to an external authority. your personal morality and values is just a handwave, it isn't really an answer.

Zobel said:

---

Do you consider the intrinsic value of a human life to be an appeal to the supernatural?

---

I don't know that there is an intrinsic value to a human life. I value my own life and those i love and care for (and not exclusively those). Because of that, i can recognize such feelings in other people and agree that laws to protect human life are valuable and necessary to protect those i care for and the same goes for every one else.

But there is no cosmic scale that decides human life is more valuable than anything else. I think the tremendous amount of violence and loss of life from natural disasters in history makes that clear.

that's interesting. so in the end you wouldn't argue that it is inherently evil or wrong to kill a human? and you wouldn't say that a human life has objectively more value than, say, a goldfish?

your love for your life and the lives of your family is not different than a goldfish's love for their own and theirs?

taken further - you say you can project from your own love to recognize the love of others, and from there you say we can form laws on that ground. what do you do about disagreement? how would you address where someone's value based on their own sincerely held belief is fundamentally incompatible with yours?

Zobel said:

---

whos indignant? its just funny that you haven't even attempted to answer how you would distinguish a non-religious value claim from a religious one.

---

If it comes from a religious text or church teaching, or relates to it in some way. I consider it a religious value. An example of this would be alcohol being illegal or heavily restricted in many Muslim countries.

Quote:

---

what's kind of sad is that you apparently have never reviewed your own beliefs or values with any kind of critical eye. for example - why does it matter if the world is less clean or safe for future generations?

---

what gives you the right to say that about me? the fact that I have looked at my beliefs critically got me to where I am today.

Not sure if you're serious with the last question as it's pretty common sense. The environmental problem will only get worse, and the worst effects likely wont come to fruition until well after we are gone. So it's easy to dismiss it as "not my problem." But I believe it is the moral thing to do to leave future generations with a better world. In fact I think it is very wrong and selfish to do the opposite.

Quote:

---

why is every worker entitled to basic human dignity? what basis do you have for something being morally reprehensible? you have to see that is an appeal to an external authority. your personal morality and values is just a handwave, it isn't really an answer.

---

now you're getting into the realm of subjective morality. This is just what I believe. I think it's wrong that companies continue to treat employees like ****, deny them benefits, health insurance, sick leave, maternity leave, overtime, and make them work long hours just to barely survive. All while paying their execs exorbitant salaries and bonuses.

It also makes me sick when I hear people say we should not have a social safety net. Like let's just let people be destitute, downtrodden, and hungry because we don't want our taxes going toward it. But bailing out big criminal banks? no problem. I find that so obscene and horrible, the only word I can use to describe it is evil. I am sure people would disagree with me on this, but that's a nonreligious moral view I hold.

I came to this belief through my own real-world experience and hearing real life stories about this unfortunate reality so many people face. I don't believe my views come from religion, but experience. However, one could make a religious argument for this.

"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

So if a religious person has personal experience that leads them there, what makes their claim inferior to yours? I won't speak for zobel but I believe that's part of his point. What's the underlying difference between philosophical and religious claims? Based on your answer there isn't one.

don't know why you insist on being disrespectful about this. just say you disagree and move on.

AGC said:

---

So if a religious person has personal experience that leads them there, what makes their claim inferior to yours? I won't speak for zobel but I believe that's part of his point. What's the underlying difference between philosophical and religious claims? Based on your answer there isn't one.

---

I didn't say inferior to mine. It's just different. And in my earlier post, I explain what makes a belief religious or based in religion. And i think you know the answer too.

Not sure why you are being so indignant about it.

do you really not see the irony in your post? you're talking about morality and evil and beliefs, while saying these are definitely not the same as religious claims.

I disagree with the notion that morality must come from religion. Yes, it sometimes does. But I do not believe the two have to be intertwined.

Zobel said:

---

that's interesting. so in the end you wouldn't argue that it is like inherently evil to kill a human? and you wouldn't say that a human life has objectively more value than, say, a goldfish?

your love for your life and the lives of your family is not different than a goldfish's love for their own and theirs?

---

Objective according to who? There is no supreme arbiter. We're all on this merry-go-round together and history has shown there are no guard rails or referee that steps in when things go south. We have to do it ourselves.

Human life only has value in a society that values human life.

That's not to say that i don't place value on human life, i do. But that doesn't mean a whole lot when everyone else, or the people in power decide it doesn't.

yeah, we get that. the problem is there is no qualitative difference whatever between your personal beliefs and religious beliefs.

so... no? same same as goldfish?

"taken further - you say you can project from your own love to recognize the love of others, and from there you say we can form laws on that ground. what do you do about disagreement? how would you address where someone's value based on their own sincerely held belief is fundamentally incompatible with yours?"

I guess that's where society falls apart. If you can't meet on a common ground for basic understanding of what is valuable, how can you have a functioning society?

Given the risk associated with having no "tribe" there's good reason to come together if you can.

barbacoa taco said:

---

Political philosophy and policies are not religion. One could argue that some policies are driven by religion (or lack thereof), but still it's not religion.

---

Going back to what you said, what's the material relevance in this distinction? Why is it important? It's all personal experience.

so if i understand you, in the end you're just a pragmatic moral relativist. there's no actual meaningful difference between your values and someone else's, it's just societal convention plus whatever actually comes out when rubber meets the road.

would you say that power becomes the ultimate arbiter of truth?