Should the Government be Secular? - Philosophy Tube

What would the UK look like if it was secular? Should the church and state be separate?
Politics Playlist: • POLITICS AND LAW
Subscribe! www.youtube.com...
Facebook: www.facebook.c...
Twitter: @PhilosopyTube
Email: [e-mail]
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
Music: 'Show your Moves' and 'Pamgea' by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)

[@jollofj3902]

Plot twist: Ought implies Kant

[@unvergebeneid]

Further twist: "Kant" is actually pronounced like "cunt", not like the British "can't".

[@unvergebeneid]

TruthUnadulterated Uhm, no it's not?

[@alliesakat]

@@unvergebeneid shut up ya Kant

[@alexc2265]

Illegal to circumcise a child? Thank you! I heard rather recently discussions about this being a human rights violation. It's a permanent and perhaps painful (Ihdk) physical change. The so called medical reasons aren't so well evidenced and the child is not consenting or cannot legally consent due to being a minor.

[@Nothing_serious]

I agree. Circumcision must be stopped now.

[@oftinuvielskin9020]

Agreed. I honestly believe the only reason why it's still not illegal to circumcise infant boys in my country is because the practice is mainly seen as jewish and our politicians are more afraid of being accused of persecuting jewish parents' rights to religious freedom than they care about protecting children's right to bodily automny. If it were an exclusively muslim or brown practice I'm sure it would already have been made illegal just like fgm.

[@Otokogoroshi]

Muslims Circumcise too. *shrug*

[@fatimatuzzahra4036]

So called medical reasons are pretty significant especially in poor countries with less sexual health awareness and resources to prevent and treat STDs. AND there are no significant harms of male circumcision when performed right by a professional. However if done as an adult and not as a child= the reduced risk of cancer and papillomatosis does not hold true- so its only beneficial if done as a kid.

[@TJF588]

Recognition of religious adherence is certainly the thorniest approach to discussing regulation of circumcision specifically. That in my country it's also a normalized medical practice doesn't help when trying to frame forced circumcision as a violation of autonomy, because so many people here take it as a given and either good or not harmful, this perception further unchallenged by an avoidance of earnest sexual discussions. So when the population around you doesn't "get" why you're so upset, I suppose they would then question your motivations, and knowing this practice's significance to Judaism may lead to a suspicion of antisemitism. That some of the most prominent voices against forced circumcision have been with provocative language gives a greater impression of irrational sensationalism.

[@jezuswolf]

In a lot of ways the US is secular but as a citizen I have noticed that many of our politicians point to their religion as defense of their political beliefs which effects how they vote on policy. As a pro-secular person I think that this is problematic and is the largest reason why our congress is still debating on issues like contraception and same-sex marriage. I don't want our government to be exclusively ran by atheists for similar issues regarding bias, but thus far it has been made clear that religious members of our congress tend to let their religious beliefs interfere with how they run our "secular" country and I feel that that is wrong. I will say that it would be difficult for any person, religious or not, to remove themselves that much from their personal lives in order to act as a part of a truly secular and fair system.

[@sinnermcw2]

The US has kinda bounced around the line of secularism throughout its history sometimes being more secular and other times being less. We have hit a new high period with the rise of the tea party and evangelical right.

[@AhmedHassan-sp1mx]

It's a lot harder to detect when it's someone of the opposition. How much of their views is seeping in if instead they were an atheist?

[@jonjonboi3701]

No America is not secular. America is built on judeo christian values

[@NicoleTh3Bomb]

Thank you for making this video! I am writing an essay to present to my composition class for secular government (and how the USA isn’t secular enough). This is a subject that I am passionate about and spend a lot of time engaged in debate with other people on and offline. You helped me sum my notes up into more layman’s terms that will flow so much better in my essay. I can’t wait to use you as a citation! Thanks a bunch. Nicole

[@PhilosophyTube]

NicoleTh3Bomb My pleasure! What is a composition class, I've never head of that?

[@RadMan42069]

+Philosophy Tube In the US the vast majority of universities require students to take a set of fundamental courses regardless of your major area of study called "basics", and almost all universities have both Composition I (Comp I) and Composition II (Comp II) listed as "basics". Comp I and Comp II are courses designed to strengthen the students understanding and use of the English language in their writing

[@MadDannyWest]

Are we ever gonna get the episode "Do Alternate Realities Exist?" I was looking forward to that video/discussion.

[@0MVR_0]

Question presupposes there should be a government. But in the temporary sense of this moment and the current political climate, institutions which wish to encompass or direct human behavior should be divorced of human thought and belief.

[@SilentSonata0777]

for an equal treat of people, tolerance, more critical thinking and logic among other things Secularism!!

[@RandalGronewold]

Great post! Very engaging treatment of an important topic.

[@CarneadesOfCyrene]

I'm worried that you are discounting the general consensus around the truth of Indirect Doxastic Voluntarism when you claim that people cannot change their beliefs. It seems that if one were to immerse oneself in a religion, listen to their claims and research their practices, one could come to believe the claims presented by that religion. To be clear, are you denying Indirect Doxastic Voluntarism or are you claiming that changing religions can only be done through Direct Doxastic Voluntarism?

[@petyrf9101]

I believe France (l'état laïque) is the best example of a secular state (currently) (Read: Laïcité en France, wikipedia). In the case of the US in its current state, I would argue that the US is NOT a secular state. The state supports several religious initiatives and religious institutions are exempt from taxes.

[@unvergebeneid]

Also, "In God We Trust", "one nation under God" and swearing on the Bible.

[@ShehuStebe]

How is oppressing religious groups and banning any form of religious expression in public "The best system?" France's Secularism just shows that in order to have a society that is "religiously neutral" you need to crack the skulls of religious people and oppress their sympathizers.

[@MartijnDeGussem]

can't wait for the next one!

[@GMCiaramella]

Woooooo I finally got in the end credits of a video on KZbin! :D So very cool! Even considering that he did fully shoot down my comment, to be recognized for my input is totally cool beans!

[@iamjimgroth]

There is nothing more useful than being convinced your arguments are invalid. You can then stop wasting time thinking down that path and pick another. Whatever other path that may be is more likely to be the right one. :)

[@timetuner]

I’m pretty much on board with the secular ideal, but there are definitely some issues worth mulling over. How can a representative government secularize without anti-religious sentiment? Given the status quo of religious privilege, it would take a bit of a cultural movement to amend legislation and movements tend to demonize the things they oppose. Can governments justify their actions or even their existence without alluding to some sort of vague air of religious backing, especially in military and humanitarian action? Moral decay is often extremely overplayed in discussions about secularism, but I don’t think it’s a complete non-issue. I think mandatory periodic ethics courses/seminars would about take care of it.

[@williamlee3572]

I live in the U.S. and it baffles how so many people here can't wrap their head around the fact that we are 100% a secular state by our constitution.

[@saraa.4295]

Though not in praxis... Weirdly...

[@RylanZimny]

Not so. Morality can only be defined by applying a search for truth and order, to the human beings. This produces equality amongst humans with freedom to seek universal human needs (human rights) for all. It also reveals human nutrition, physiology, needs, the whole gamut of things which define a human and are thus, foundstional to creating moral people. Morality is the process of creating healthy functioning and independent thinking individuals. Secularism denies the existence of the metaphysical aka the spiritual. This has the logical effect of denying truth in many spheres and preferring power over it. This gets us men wanting to be women, denying the humanity of unborn humans, pretending that obesity is healthy and moral, thinking good manners is morality, a whole whack of craziness. The founder knews this. This is why our national documents refer to our creator (the assumed origin of the metaphysical concept of truth) and insisted upon a separation of church and state. This doesnt mean no religion. It means the government cannot adopt any particular religious belief and champion it. Secularism is a religious belief, invented by Frederic Nietzsche. The idea that seculstism is not religion, is itself, a religious belief and not factual. It is a secular myth used to push the ideology with supremacy.

[@benjaminscheff3052]

Roger Williams had a great point about the importance of separating church and state that I don't think is touched upon nearly enough- that its not just a risk of religion corrupting governance but politics corrupting religion. Some great examples include modern day American Evangelicalism and the broader history of the Catholic Church.

[@oreonighthawk]

As an American it’s wild to watch the US being held up as an example of secular government in this video, which of course on paper and in theory is true. But in practice the heavy influence of Christianity, particularly evangelical Christianity makes it feel less so.

[@dellb89]

A secular government would not only be better for the people of that particular country, since no one religion would be shown favoritism over another; it would also, drastically reduced wars with other country's since most of the differences are the results of religious difference/ interpretation.

[@PepperoniMage]

It's so weird seeing Olly with so little hair or flair compared to now.

[@oreonighthawk]

How about now? Lol

[@reid1491]

@@oreonighthawk lmaoo what a glow up now

[@Poopdahoop]

First off, I would really like to know just how much is this channel influenced by the PBS Idea Channel, because I can certainly see some similarities (which is totally cool! btw) and I'm just curious. Big fan, of both of ya'! :D Anyway... Does the government, any government have to be completely secular? I mean, people that are dealing with politics are people that are dealing with, well - people. And people themselves are very closely connected to their religion (or lack there of). So, the question here might be - how much should the government be involved in the lives of the people it rules over? Because religion is such a big part of many people's lives (mine excluded) would the government be doing a better job of... governing if it took into consideration the beliefs and rituals of all different religions people in the country follow? Rather than just ignoring them. Because treating just one religion as part of anyone's life is unfair, but treating all religions as simply -not there- is also unfair. Government should not let beliefs seep into some decisions, but it should let them seep into others. Perhaps it should just try to do things that would benefit the majority? (ain't that democratic of me) Maybe? I don't know, I'd like to see a counter argument to this, because it does seem a bit too simple and probably flawed in some way. I just don't see it yet. (?) :p

[@WarfighterX22]

Very dear to my heart as well

[@SR-wb2cf]

A secular government is the most moral form (on the religiousity scale) mainly because A) you are not violating the right of having a free conscience, if a government is endorsing a particular religion, one may feel it beneficial or be forced to convert even though it may be against their conscience B) we could take the egalitarian route and argue all religions are equal and you can't believe one is better than the other C) giving religions such as harmful cults tax breaks is fuelling something which is destructive towards humans and it is an injustice and thus is immoral (I've just started philosophy, so there may be holes in my arguments) brilliant channel olly

[@belgarath6388]

YES! Next question

[@yourfutureself3392]

I don't think that this argument for secularism works because religious practice can be avoided, unlike religious belief. The governement could therefore punish or reward religious practice, just like it can reward or punish any practice, without violating the "ought implies can" principle. A shared religion can help bring people together so the governement could encourage/reward the most popular religion in a country to fulfill this goal. I think this is often the point behind "We are a Christian nation" or that kind of stuff.

[@boredombuster2000]

A few comments: 1. Despite the tradition otherwise, there are more than a few in the US who assert that it is, in fact, a "Christian" nation. 2. Interestingly enough, the historic record seems to suggest that the US' religious freedom is derived in large part from the Quakers' insistence on religious tolerance when they founded Pennyslvania. This is rather beside the point when it comes to Jefferson's or Paine's arguments, of course, but it does help explain why there has been significant public support for secularism throughout American history. (The Quaker ethos continues to inform a large part of the country, including Pennsylvania--of course--and a fair-sized chunk of the Midwest.) 3. Part of what maintains American secularism is that it is, anthropologically speaking, a nationless state that is a confederacy of stateless nations. (Check out Joel Garreau and related literature for more.) 4. The tax axe goes both ways. No place of religious worship in the US is taxed.

[@samjohnson1391]

If I am understanding you correctly, I do agree with your understanding of secularism. But I do have to ask, do you mean non-preference towards faith by excluding all from the public sphere or by including all? Often times this argument is made to create a vacuum of religious activity in the public space; which is an automatic preference towards non-belief. Which is something that I think is equally as dangerous as a state sponsored religion.

[@piersquareddotnet]

People have no control over what they believe? You're going to have to bring some pretty hardcore evidence to support that statement. Not only did you immediately undermine the statement by acknowledging religious conversion, but it creates the question, if you have no control over your religious beliefs, and you cannot be morally judged for those beliefs, if your beliefs dictate that you should harm others, can you be morally judged for acting on those beliefs. Furthermore, why would religious beliefs get a pass? Wouldn't the same moral exclusion apply to political beliefs? Should you be morally judged for political beliefs and by extension acting on those beliefs if those beliefs dictate that you should harm others? If political beliefs fall under the same exclusion as religious beliefs, then can we judge the participants of the Charlottesville White Nationalists Rally as morally wrong?

[@THUNKShow]

A legal distinction is made between people who violate the law due to insanity, i.e. believing something irrationally, and people who violate the law while fully understanding the consequences of their actions. Barring obvious deterministic/materialistic objections, it seems weak to me to argue that religious belief should be excluded from government because of its uncontrollable nature, at least when law already acknowledges and is applied differently to those with demonstrably false beliefs. I'd argue instead that a government based on empiricism is ideal, as it will tend to create laws that are *verifiably* beneficial to *all* of its citizens, and so (in a democracy) will tend away from inequality, oppression, etc. Religion depends on revelation & faith, rather than objectively verifiable evidence, so it simply shouldn't figure into that ideal of an empirically sound system of government.

[@JSzitas]

How does empirical approach to the government system exclude inequality and oppression? I would argue that inequality and oppression are common in nature and completely natural. Even our genetic material says as much. (That is, I am not really a far right dude, but I wonder how you came upon the idea.)

[@THUNKShow]

Juraj Szitas "Empirical" does not necessarily mean "natural," it means "supported by evidence." The problem with racism, sexism, etc. is not that people are discriminated against, but that they are discriminated against for factors that have nothing to do with their character, factors weighed according to cultural bias instead of genuine differences in ability or importance. An empirical approach in government would only consider those factors that have demonstrable relevance in protecting its citizens' rights and well-being. (There are cases where poor research has been used to justify prejudice, but I think they're exceptions to a general trend of egalitarianism. Hooray for the double-blind study.)

[@JSzitas]

THUNK I know what empirical means. And I am not speaking of racism, sexism or other isms, either. Empirical evidence shows that in most animals, there is a leader of a pack who gets his place because he beats everyone else. We can say that this is not the case with humans, but what do we have to disprove that it could be done in such a way? You could call me an elitist and you would probably be right, however, I believe that elitism is not necessarily irreconcilable with either democracy or human rights. I simply state that from my view, empirism would show us that the most logical way to lead a state for the wellfare of it's citizens in a democracy is one where everyone is granted human rights, but only those who prove capability at doing so earn the right to vote, and only those who prove capability at what they are voted for can be voted for. I see the whole idea of equality as something detrimental to society overall. Why does a man who knows nothing of politics get the same vote as one who spends his life understanding the topic? The decision should not be of equal weight. I believe that people should earn their right to vote, for example. I believe that there should not be political candidates who are unable to do best what position they are voted for prior to getting elected. I am all against equality. Let those who know best run the state, those who vote best vote for them, and let everyone who is capable of doing either do it, provided he earns it.

[@nonasuomi282]

So this is really digging deep into the woodpile here, but hey- I only found the channel recently and have decided to watch all the older material. Now, with regards to B-theory and a "fixed" future, is it not possible that there are other dimensions on which the world expands? To sort of mix concepts here, what about the possibility of a branching multiverse with infinite possible futures reaching out from any given moment- more like a fractal tree rather than a simple straight line, where the path from t-1 to t is a fixed distance in the time dimension, but where a potentially infinite number of realities exist, constantly differentiating from each other?

[@rosieo5875]

Looking at the French system, it’s not practical - people will not let go of their beliefs, and legal systems in Western countries are based on Christian ideology. In France, in theory there is laïcité, in practice it just doesn’t work - there is still discrimination in the law and among legal officials and their prejudices. So yeah, maybe the government *should* be secular, but it’s not actually practicable in current systems.

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

On the topic of secularism, I wonder how reasonable it is to base policy on principles of ethics or principles of justice that are established a priori. Following such a strategy may overlook certain historical details and other contingencies which ought to inform policy, for practical reason. Also, possessing a non-secular state might be able to catalyse a secular society: if religious organisations enjoy priviledges then they may have less of a motivation to carry out marketing campaigns to recruit people - as their success as institutions will be less dependent on the success of their recruitment process.

[@interlocution6619]

I would argue that faith based schools should still get government funding like other schools. However, that funding should be based o academic standards; leaving all reference to faith or lack-thereof out of the decision to provide that funding. Otherwise it would be discrimination against them in the form of denial of education; for having and practicing their faith. This does not mean that the government supports the faith; rather, that it supports the education regardless of faith. This does only work in a secular society however, IF there is no discrimination regarding which faith on which the school is based. The government would not chose to support schools of "this faith" but not "that faith."

[@KingofKlubs]

I am totally perplexed with 2:22 aka: People don't choose their religion. If you are persuaded to adopt or abandon a religion is not the follow-through a choice? The argument or experience is merely the driving force behind changing your behaviour, but you aren't forced to follow through. I can think a particular religion has some extremely convincing or laudable arguments or practices, but nothing forces me to adopt that religion. Why does the choice have to be flippant in order to be considered a voluntary act?

[@repsej2003]

Yeah it's a little bit confused. I think what he's getting at is that faith isn't a choice - you can choose whether to practice a religion, but you can't choose whether or not you believe it to be true. If you believe God to be real, then you couldn't possibly will yourself not to, and vice versa.

[@Natalie-101]

I think it applies most to people who are born into a religion that is drilled into your head by your parents. As a loose example, think santa. Some people teach their children about santa, some don't, the ones who do all have a different way of doing it. The child may act differently when they think santa is watching, and speak to or about santa around other children. If no one ever tells the child santa is false, and the majority of the society does believe in some form of santa, it isn't that child's fault that they believe in santa. Leaving cookies and milk=choice, but believing santa exists because it's all they've ever been told=not a choice

[@theditherer7776]

There's something you haven't addressed in your video that I'd like your thoughts on. I'll use my own country as example, as comes naturally: It seems to me that because the US nation was built on a foundation of Protestantism, therefore Protestantism is inseparable from the US government. Even if the government is nominally 'secular' (and religious authorities hold no political authority), the government cannot truly separate itself from a Protestant ethic. Let's assume (generously) that Protestant values don't directly inform laws -- they still indirectly inform American culture, which then works to monitor and oppress religious difference. What do you think? Maybe you'd still call that secularism, but it doesn't seem as satisfying to me... I vote you do your next series on Foucault.

[@agentydragon]

The claim that "ought implies can" implies "you can't have a moral obligation to follow a certain religion" only follows if you believe that you don't have a choice to believe/not-believe, and I'd be surprised if religious people endorsed that.

[@ChickenWilickers]

I've always been confused by one aspect of secularism practiced. Assume or society needs to have marriage as a legal institution, what type of marriage are we advocating? The status quo in most nations with a christian history seem to be a monogamous marriage, but if we simply keep the status quo what about other areas? What if the nation was historically Islamic or Hindu? So it seems the status quo doesn't seem to provide a clear answer, nor does it even seem convincing? Well if we go back to why the state wants the legal institution of marriage, it seems to be that it is in the best interest of the state to raise citizens that are productive members of its citizenry. Then it falls to us to ask whether monogamous family models produce the best outcome. Which then seems to ask for longitudinal studies of families that are roughly the same, all but for marriage status. This seems impossible, disregarding ethical concerns, most nations where we could administer such a study do not tend to have people of similar education/wealth/income/etc. but practice a different form of marriage. So does this mean we keep monogamy, if we must have marriage as a legal institution? Doesn't this concept of marriage show preferential treatment of certain religious groups against others? Keep in mind, for me polygamy is not explicitly 1 man+multiple women, it could be 4 men+3 women, or 1 woman +20 men, etc. It seems similar to the problem of Clifford's ship, by not acting we are implicitly supporting the current belief, but in acting to change it we are supporting another.

[@brieoncrackers]

As matter of practicality, monogamous marriages (and monogamous divorces) are easier to legislate. Even with the current monogamous system there are still serious issues with the implementation of the institution of marriage. Adding more potential partners to the union adds more dimensions by which the courts could screw up. In my opinion, ideally polygamous marriages would be permitted (and there would be no exceptions on age restrictions, not even with parental consent), but I think there would be a lot of things to iron out before that was the case.

[@ChickenWilickers]

brieoncrackers Exactly. But I conclude that instead of legalizing one and not the other for practicality issues, the state should simply never provide legal benefits to marriages, ipso facto. The state should provide benefits to groups of humans that have come together with the express purpose of raising new citizens. All the advantages and disadvantages associated with this would be only relevant to the welfare of children. Marriage nowadays, does not have the idea of creating a better overall state at its heart; it's now the modern idea of love, which is fine Everything else can be done via private contracts. Family Law should solely be concerned with families (i.e. groups that are associated together to produce children). These groups would have annual checks placed upon them to insure that if they do not have children, then they are making real attempts to have children (think employment officer checks). If it turns out that they are unable to have children and unwilling to adopt, then the status will be revoked. There will be incentives to keep the number of children in circulation at near the "replacement ratio", and punishments for having children over that number if one does not have the economic means to support that number, etc, etc.

[@Seraphobe]

+PotaTOES Truly secular government would have to choose between two options: either give marriage back to religion and stop viewing it as a legal union, or allow any number of people get married to each other.

[@crabman8321]

4:17 if there is a god with a plan that we need to follow and we know it, cant it also be argued that having a secular government may be part of that god's plan?

[@1lucasgrange]

I think a tenet your argument rests upon is that we privilege people by putting them in political power. If we instead see those in politics as representative, then it would make sense that a number of religious people end up governing a society with a religious element. What those religious people decide to do in office then is theoretically the wish of the people, and so, if churches end up not paying tax, or if certain religious persons are assured seats, it must be the will of the people. However, I admit my argument would require the will of the people to be the only good a state care about, and that is very arguable (and I don't know yet how I feel about the subject). But it does make one wonder what good a state should tend towards. Also, this argument is only one I thought up quickly, and I know it to be weak, as it also neglects to analyse properly the job of a (good) politician, but perhaps that could be an interesting topic to cover in a later video.

[@GelidGanef]

Following the "ought implies can argument," I can think of a better objection to secularism than those given. If you think true secularism or religious impartiality is impossible, then logically there can be no moral imperitive to achieve it. And there are lots of reasons to think that impossible or undesirable. Religion isn't the same as race or orientation: only some laws or practices affect those, where religion can include literally anything. If religious belief or practice should be protected from discrimination, should that extend to illegal practices like drug use or those that affect others without consent like circumcision? Further, the secular roots of America for example are themselves borne of post-Christian Western-European Enlightenment philosophy, its own particular belief set. So secularism isn't necessarily blind to religion, it's biased in favor of itself. Now obviously saying that true religious impartiality is impossible doesn't actually guide you in making moral decisions about religion and government. It's tantamount to just throwing your hands in the air and giving up on moral government. I would probably resolve this by saying, "ought implies can" has less weight for society than for individuals. Just because creating the perfect society is impossible doesn't mean it's not worth attempting. And while we might see a certain inevitability to sexism or racism in historical societies, that doesn't mean those are somehow morally excused. But as it stands, this is an important hole in the argument. Great video, great channel, you make me think :)

[@xanderlander8989]

[Religion != skin color]. People absolutely choose their religion. That's the way belief works, it's a choice, by definition. Since no proof exists to date which empirically verifies a religion as factual, we cannot not know, we can only believe, should we choose to. On a separate but related note, I don't think the government should avoid punishing people for things they can't control, I think the government should avoid punishing people for things which don't affect the common wealth or the well being of the citizenry, such as religious faith. Religious actions on the other had must be evaluated individually to determine their affects.

[@PhilosophyTube]

Lots of people commented along similar lines and I ended up talking about this at the end of the next episode on supporting the troops. But like I said in the video, you can choose to go to church or eat certain foods or whatever but you can't actually choose to believe that a claim is true or not.

[@anndroid5147]

Ohh, next video should be interesting... I'll save my comments for later though

[@someoneunimportant3064]

Honey it's been six years what later?

[@capivara6094]

"Ought implies can" well, I'm a determinist.

[@julianadeau4885]

Yes, I absolutely believe that governments should be secular. I have a vested interest in this, as I am a not just a pagan, but also a hard polytheist. I practice witchcraft and I'm transgender. Each of these issues, in a Christian theocracy could very well paint a target upon my back; there are centuries of historical precedence to support this. The Holy Land Crusades, the Northern Crusade, the Albigensian Crusade, the Inquisition, the Witch burnings of France, Germany, England and Scotland, the Salem Witch Trials (which extended beyond the Village of Salem all throughout New England), the burning of Irmunsul by Charlemagne, the Burning of the Library of Alexandria by Byzantine Emperor Theodosius II... and these are just what I can recall from the top of my head. Give me a couple hours and I could find more... MUCH more! These atrocities committed against the witch, the heretic and the heathen are the reason why one of America's Founding Fathers, James Madison stressed how essential a secular government was, with: "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise. The purpose of separations of church and state is to keep forever from our shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe for centuries."

[@TheSpeep]

Yes, a government should be secular. Because even if it isn't the intention, the existence of a state religion inherently creates a form inequality. Even if it does not act on it's religious affiliation in any way, the simple fact that it exists sends a clear signal that believers of said religion are validated, while others are not. Thus, for a government to be fair, it either has to endorse every religion, including the lack thereof, or none at all, and seeing how many religions are pretty clear about how to treat nonbelievers, or even fellow believers who dont quite agree with a specific interpretation of their deity, the only viable option is to not endorse any of them.

[@merry8647]

Why is Myamoto in a philosophy video?

[@greygoose5359]

I think the right approach to start this topic is "should the goverment be?".

[@henez7621]

Wouldn't funding all schools regardless of their religious teachings also be secularism rather than just defunding religious schools?

[@Stewiehleba]

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" - Jesus Christ

[@BethDiane]

One reason that the US became a secular nation was that so many people came to the Colonies fleeing religious persecution that there was no other way to reconcile them all.

[@IliyanBobev]

Why is passage of time prerequisite for experience. Let's take couple of examples of physical experiences: Playing soccer as a kids, occasionally one might get hit with the ball in the head. Getting hit in such a way is an experience - let's name it A. Hitting the ball with head in attempt to score is also an experience - that will be B. The difference is that if you are trying to hit the ball with your head, you will swing your head towards it. If you are being hit - your head will remain neutral until the hit, and then it will recoil. Let's look at these experiences form the perspective of the time-reversed doppelganger. If the doppelganger observes the following "the ball flies towards him he swings his head and hits the ball". Has he just experienced B or has he "unexperienced" A? What is to experience? We can differentiate between the states of an event, and the rest of the states. Let's say we're experiencing X. We either have an experience of X or we don't. Comparing the two possible states: a) I don't posses knowledge of X b) I posses knowledge of X So, to experience X, is to transition from (a) to (b) This transition itself, aligns with the direction of the passage of time. If you say that the doppelganger has "unexperienced" A - you are not talking about "experience", but some different process If you say that the doppelganger has experienced B - that will be experience, but now you do have a passage of time. It's just like our passage of time - states with lack of knowledge, precede those with knowledge. Even if you assume B theory of time, you will need something that moves through all existing times, just like "passage of time" in order to be able to talk about "experience". If you are not convinced, please provide description of "experience without passage of time".

[@PhilosophyTube]

You could have a series of events, like ball hitting face, face recoiling and so on, without time passing. Think of McTaggart's C-series, where there's order but not temporal order. I think in the case you've outlined the doppleganger does have a new sort of experience because the order of the events is reversed, but I don't quite see how that means time has passed? They could know about one event, like ball hitting face, and not the next but that wouldn't mean time passed. Remember time passing means properties of pastness, presentness and futurity with an objective present.

[@ohmygollyjoshrubin]

You missed another flaw/predisposition in your argument: you made a very typically Christian assumption that faith = belief (and therefore faith is uncontrollable). It ignores legalistic religions (Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism…) - where action is a more fundamental identifier of faith, and in which, therefore, faith is entirely controllable.

[@the1exnay]

you talked about circumcision as though without religion it was obviously wrong for a parent to do, despite many people do it for non-religious reasons. as somepony who has played devil's advocate multiple times in this argument (usually on the pro-choice [for parents] side) i have found it to be a complex topic, worthy of an entire video, not just an off-hand comment about how circumcision is obviously bad course i won't present a whole argument here, partly because it is slightly off-topic, partly because i haven't the time and partly because i am holding out for your full video on the subject that it deserves. but in short: it is debatable (as in i have had justifiable debates about it) whether circumcision is bad for the child, and if it is not significantly bad for the child then the parents might be able to choose whether it is done (like how we allow parents to teach children things which will probably permanently affect their personality without the child's consent [often in direct conflict with the child's preference]). just basically it is complicated and worth discussion.

[@the1exnay]

also more on topic, i think removing the ability to circumcise is necessarily a religious policy and not a secular policy, because, in absence of direct serious danger to the child, religious freedom implies being able to practice what your religion dictates you do. this is of course a trade-off of the child's autonomy in being able to choose and the parent's autonomy to practice religion and raise their child.

[@the1exnay]

Firaro this also brings into question should we as outsiders or governments have any right to interfere with parents raising their child no matter how they do it (and yes i am including actions such as *warning graphic words coming* rape, assault, sensory deprivation, indoctrination, etc.). and my answer would be no, we don't have any obligation, reason or right to forcefully interfere (assuming both parents are in agreement and that "we" does not include family members which morally complicate this) although my reasons are far to complicated to fit in this already too long comment chain i made, and are rather debatable

[@IliyanBobev]

OK, where do I do the backing up - in the comment to this video or at the video for "Does Time Pass?" I'll post at both places, but if there is common practice to adhere to - let me know. 10x.

[@ZirthDrince]

Here's an argument against the claim that religion is not a choice, in special situations considering our current state of nature of today's human civilisation. Choice is a privilege. Some are privileged enough to chose to be or not to be informed. Being informed of course includes making distinction between facts, hypotheses and conjectures or to not be informed. Given the technology available to us, we live in the 'age of information' where information is mostly at the tips of our fingers, for many of us. This availability of course is a privileged. A large number of societies and families of course are not born with such privileged for many possible causes. But for those who are privilege but still take the mythical aspect of their religion as reality, some may intentionally chose to not make distinction between facts, hypotheses and conjectures, whereas those who aren't aware of the distinction, did chose to not be informed about such distinction. Knowing that information and research is available to one anytime, it is a choice to not do said research. What does this say about secularism?.. Let me just post this first before going into that.

[@grnlfe01]

I've been looking forward to this one. I am very much in favour of a secular government. The only arguments against it as far as I can see is if you could prove that adherence to a certain religious doctrine or it's tenants of morality have produced a significantly better way of life for it's citizens as opposed to secularism. The only other possible problem is, as has happened in America, if all religions are equal they become like big businesses, (tax breaks and all) and as such often they are one step ahead of the government in terms of legislation and the influence they wield in the public sphere. It's often pointed out that Britain with a state religion has far less trouble keeping religion out of public and political discourse than does America. Neither is perfect but still at least in principle secularism is a fairer state for all.

[@grovertigo]

I have no issue with giving no particular religion privilege or punishment, or forbidding laws that give government positions based on religious station. (democracy pretty much makes that moot though) What i don't like is when people say that religious belief is not a legitimate reason to support a governmental law or policy. I don't think that's the same as supporting a religion. I also don't like being told that my beliefs are not my choice, but really that comes down to free will vs. determinism sow whatever.

[@TJF588]

I'm not sure where I am on taxation of churches, especially herein squared up against church-run school public funding. There is a distinction of the latter from the former as applying to regulations for academic standards, but if a school meets government-set standards and is taxed by that government, then do they not have a case to present themselves for funding? Even if we leave that bees' nest alone, churches are supposedly non-profit (I think?), or at the least do charity work via their funds. So, I do not think churches should be wholly exempt, but as someone very oblivious to tax structure, I would think churches would need to have their taxation be faceted and subject to a lotta record-keeping, so that taxation is applied to revenue that is not toward the furtherment of the church's assets. These are my initial reactions, as I've generally distanced from considering the functions of churches and bodies of faith (got other stuff on muh mind), so I'll admit I'm nowhere near learned enough as to the arguments made and comparable situations (like any current taxation of secular non-profits). And props on speaking against forced circumcision. If it violates an individual's autonomy for no therapeutic urgency, then this supersedes a warden's autonomy of religious practice. Hell, forced ear-piercing (which I on multiple occasions have had ruin my rare treat and good mood upon witnessing its enforcement on passage in our mall) is, to my knowledge, secular in application, so it has even less excuse other than our society/s just being so used to it!

[@calebharmon7404]

While I have no issues with the conclusion that secular government is the best model, it seems odd to say "a person does not choose their beliefs." Certainly we say the belief that ones own race is better and more human than other's is wrong. But if racist beliefs are not chosen then we cannot say person is bad for being racist, we can only call them incorrect and harmful.

[@timetuner]

Yup.

[@sinnermcw2]

It is not bad to be a racist. It is bad to act on that racism. Someone can think they are racially superior but its not until they voice it or otherwise act upon that thought when it becomes morally wrong. Thats why secularism is still preferable. It is not saying that people involved in government can't have a religion. They just can't act on that religion through the government.

[@headsworthtg3585]

@@sinnermcw2 it is bad to be a racist, actually. If you believe racist stuff, it'll make you assume in certain ways, feel about things in certain ways and that would inevitably influence your actions. Your point is nonsense and also kinda ignores how racism exists/works

[@Will-bo7kg]

I think it odd that you relate belief to something that is innate or unchanging. As if it was there would be no such thing as reform, conversation and etc. Just because it takes an effort to do so, not on a wim, doesn’t mean it’s unchangeable. Making the argument irrelevant as it no longer applies in a religious context.

[@Night-rage]

You can most definitely choose a religion, you might be raised on way, but if you do some research you can change your stance, most people don't because of stubbornness of fear of what other people might think of them, but religion is most definitely a choice.

[@marusak72]

Yes but its must be protected any way. When you are 13 you must not be disqualified from higher education just because your family faith is not the right one or good enough.

[@paulsmart4672]

I would say that as regards this particular question, a theist can get around the Euthyphro dilemma by just choosing a horn. Any ideas about following God's plan fall apart really quickly in a way that reminds me of the problem of evil, though: If God has a plan, then can the principles on which a government is ordered defeat that plan? If not, then we don't need a religious state to ensure God's plan. If so, just what are we talking about and why are we calling something so limited "God"?

[@connorjohn9256]

Small correction about the start; if churches were taxed, that wouldn't be total separation of church and state. That's why they're not taxed in the US, or NZ etc. Granted, I find it problematic that we can't tax them, because taxing them would bring lots of money that can be put to better use rather than being spent on bibles, indoctrinative youth programmes, and the maintenance of those who virally spread misinformation (and, in the megachurch cases, quite high-class maintenance). I would make an argument, but I'm too busy giving my opinion all the time

[@Othelbark]

If you get the chance please do make that argument. A lot of churches are organisations that make money; so if you are being religion neutral surely they should be taxed. Now most countries don't tax charitable organisations so any church the qualifies as such should not be taxed. But that's the clincher: they should have to qualify. Many countries just give a blanket tax exemption to all churches; but that is privileging religious organisations over others. If a church wants to be tax free they should have to jump though all the hoops other organisations have to.

[@the1exnay]

Othelbark i would disagree, churches not being taxed is a necessary part of division of church and state, and even more so if you would suggest tax-free status to charitable churches, which would mean the government encouraging religions which are charitable and punishing ones which are not. furthermore even if you decide only charitable churches should get tax-free status, most religious places offer free counseling of a sort, free seminars, a community center, occasionally free food. meaning the taxed church would be the exception (in fact i cannot think of a religion which is not charitable, if nothing else by offering free seminars on their religion and how you should live your life) not the rule. meaning more work for the government for relatively low income. also the strongest reason to not tax churches: there really is no reason to tax them. all your reasons (both of you) seemed to just be because you don't like churches, religion, or "misinformation". if there was a place like a church for atheists that only spread what you thought was good information, for free, occasionally helped people, and ran on donations, would you say it should be taxed? and if so, why? how does it benefit the government by alienating whatever religion they choose to tax?

[@MrPontob]

Even if you believe that a religious doctrine should be upheld by the government you should still want it to be secular as the understandings of some texts change all the time so to fully support one religion would be not the best scenario. Best if all have the same opportunity to convince followers rather than to presuppose that one is true.

[@Shangori]

I normally refute the idea that religion should be in politics, by taking another religion as an example. There is this scare in europe that 'the muslims are taking over'. Besides it being silly, it does give the opportunity to say that if you have a secular country, no religion, also not the one you don't like, will get benefits over yours. I'm normally met with in mouth mumbling when I bring this up. Kinda cute, isn't it?

[@MrPontob]

Shangori Yeah people only like to use the golden rule when it suits them usually. The people who hesitate to accept that rule usually have already made up their minds over how things should be done and aren't likely to change their minds any time soon. : /

[@SB-ki3jw]

if a government can be respectful to religion and be secular I'm for it. Mostly because I fear if government starts backing a more radical religion it could start dictating how or who a person must pray to.

[@PhilosophyTube]

shaun Brown Well the argument would be that a secular government is the only kind that respects all religions equally, since no religion or lack of one is privileged.

[@SB-ki3jw]

the problem is the government is made up of individuals each with a personal belief which can affect their decision no matter how impartial they believe they are being.

[@PhilosophyTube]

Mmhmm, but that's consistent with no religion or lack of one being officially institutionally privileged.

[@SB-ki3jw]

if its religions or lack there of being treated equal that's one thing, but a definition I looked up said "denoting attitudes or activities that have no religious or spiritual basis.". In that case why would they even have laws to protect religious liberties of equality ..

[@PhilosophyTube]

Mmhmm, it is sometimes used that way. When used to describe the political movement though it's used the other way.

[@alejandramoreno6625]

I have the impression that being a atheist in the US is more difficult and exposes you to ostracism more than it does say, in México. Plus the whole thing about "In God we Trust". I do not consider the US to be really secular.

[@yt_Ajay_]

There isn't a single reasonable argument I can think of against secular government.

[@saeedbaig4249]

There r some other arguments 4 secular government, as Locke pointed out. These r... a) Governments (and a lot of people in general) probably rnt very capable at determining what the correct religion is. Thus, it is extremely risky 4 da government 2 attempt 2 do so. b) Pragmatism: Attempting 2 force religious uniformity on a nation will make its citizens more unhappy, rebellious and probably lead 2 more social disorder than if u simply allow religious diversity.

[@Contrariwise37]

I totally agree with everything said, don't get me wrong, but I feel like to make some arguments made here religion itself needs to be defined. I'd like to see an episode purely on religion itself. What is religion? Why do we have religion? What constitutes as religion, or where is the line drawn between strong morals and beliefs and an actual religion? Can religion be helpful or beneficial to mankind in any way? Why do we accept Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, etc. as 'valid' religions, while Satanism and Scientology not so much, and some random new religion your friend makes up not at all? Is atheism a religion? Is agnosticism a religion?

[@mackdmara]

The government was to be free from any particular religious institution in the US Because a large section of the population at the founding was seeking to avoid persecution from specific churches that were in government in Europe. Since the group here was diverse, choosing one church was Not an option. That is far different from stating that they wanted a secular government. There was mass held in public buildings at the on set to cement this new nation repeatedly. The idea was to keep a power base other than the government from infiltrating & controlling said government. We are still a Christian nation, just not a Catholic or Methodist or Quaker or Baptist or any other specific church nation. Still, to characterize the founding as secular in nature is a bit off from the record. It is like claiming Newton was not Christian or that he would not have been if born today. He was Christian & theories about what he privately thought are intellectually interesting, but not well founded from what we know. The same can be said about the US. Side note: So your telling me that if your Jewish in Britain, you have to leave the country to circumcise your child? That is not being secular! That is interfering with religious practices held by a faith. How about abortions? I hope you at least do not let babes die, but get bent over a piece of flesh they may one day want. Not that it is vital piece of the male anatomy.

[@MrBull1832]

I agree with the separation of Church and State but as regards taxes, Religious organisations are charities which rely on donations and therefore should share the same freedom from tax as any other charity. To treat them like businesses would be wrong.

[@Hecatonicosachoron]

Entropy is not a measure of disorder! That's a bit of an oversimplification. However, it is correct to say that there is nothing in thermodynamics or statistical mechanics to support the A theory. Or the B theory for that matter.

[@PhilosophyTube]

(Yeah I know sorry it was a bit simple. I didn't really have time to go into a full explanation of it in that little comment section, haha.)

[@padraigmcgrath3876]

A person could make a Marxist argument AGAINST secularism, and then throw in a little Feyerabend. It might run like this. "Secularism" simply does away with the dominance of the old priesthood, and replaces it with the dominance of a new crypto-priesthood - namely, technocrats. One way or another, there will be a dominant ideology in every state, even if it's not religious or enshrined in law. In bourgeois nation-states with no constitutionally enshrined ideology, the market dominates everything. So the absence of a constitutionally enshrined ideology does NOT equate with the absence of domination. Secularism would simply result in another type of ideological domination - instead of calling it "secularism," we should give it a more accurate label - "technocratism."

[@Shangori]

Yes, we should. Your reasons are mine, really. There is one thing you mentioned that I want to ask a follow up on. You said that churches should pay taxes. One argument against this, that I heard, is that paying taxes gives you the right to have an influence in government. You gain the right to vote where that tax-money goes to. Meaning, the church will have the right to influence politics, going against the idea of secularism. I wonder what your thoughts about this is and if you have an argument against it. Personally I do want to see churches paying taxes, but I haven't been able to argue 'successfully' (read: satisfies me) against this.

[@iamjimgroth]

Individuals, companies and other organisations benefit from law, order and other aspects of government. Taxes are paid to keep government able to provide these benefits.

[@ferencgazdag1406]

Not just secular, but technocratic!

[@johntanner1528]

Regarding tradition - Christmas Dinner is traditionally goose which is tastier and more filling. Turkey is an American import and far inferior - in my opinion

[@PhilosophyTube]

I dunno, I've had goose for Christmas dinner once and I'm a turkey man through and through. More filling isn't my chief concern on Christmas day tbh :P

[@johntanner1528]

Goose is much better - flavoursome and filling !

[@Calvinxc1]

I like the discussion, but I'm not convinced that belief is something we have no control over. I have known several people who 'religion hop' (my mom being a prime example), and I, myself, have taken a mix-and-match approach to my belief. Both of these imply a degree of control that is had over belief. The alternative to having control over ones belief is that it is something that is imparted exclusively by environmental factors, which defeats the purpose of having a belief. Also, if belief wasn't a choice, then why do beliefs change over time? If belief is imprinted on us by our environment (read: family), then our beliefs would be identical to theirs, yet in Christianity alone there is several revisions and denominations that have occurred through history. Plus why does belief need to be tied to a religious institution? If belief has nothing to do with what one practices, externally, but what one actually believes, internally, than the existence of a definable, identifiable, organized religion is immaterial. My belief in feminism, or rational thought, or if I was having an off day that bananas should be purple, is not inherently any different than traditional religious belief. Those kinds of beliefs change even more frequently than religious ones, but are qualitatively no different from religious ones, as long as we are limiting our analysis to the internal process for understanding them. I'm not saying that belief is entirely in the control of an individual, as I think that belief is a systemic combination of internal and external factors, but to say that a person has absolutely no control over their belief seems rather absurd to me.

[@Bri_1219]

Baby Olly! 😂

[@havenbastion]

Secularism is not incompatible with anti-religion. In practical terms you cannot have the former without the latter as the latter (as all ideologies) is an ideology which inherently seeks to perpetuate itself.

[@noticias6111]

Philosophy Tube Before I heard this video the only reason I had was that the possibility of unfavorable political engagement by a religion is something I would not ever like to reflect upon that's religion's community of adherents (that would be like an fallacy would it not?).It's what I feel sorta happened to Muslims at large after 9/11.And also the possibility a single religion's political and legal influence finding itself at odds with the facets of another religion (particularly ritualistic,organizational status,didactic,internal reasoning,internal culture components etc) and the evaluative diversity entailed by the presence of other religious groups There's plenty of other things that a secular society's law can be based on if not the theistic mileau of Abrahamic religions like Christianity.Justice for one thing,preservation of life (ain't that a particular ideal of many a green party?,esp.when they extend it to non-human living things like animals) ,personal responsibility and egalitarian freedom. Something that you might've missed out on?.You didn't mention how ppl convert to marry someone in a different religion and this this video made me think of this tangentially related bit from an article describing Jurgen Habermas “In an interview in 1999 Habermas stated that, 'For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriation and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk.' ” [a point that can be taken with reservations but the next one is more important imo] "Habermas now talks about the emergence of "post-secular societies" and argues that tolerance is a two-way street: secular people need to tolerate the role of religious people in the public square and vice versa.” Also are there really Rabbi's and bishops in the UK's House of Lords and what did you mean at 3:52 with “cut off a part of a child without there consent”?. Thanks for this vid and still going forward with doing one on a past mentioned topic.

[@wilguineralessandro]

That is a really unfair debate for the ones who counter argue a laic state, unless for political maintenance of democratic representation in cases of a country's identity I see not other reason what so ever to dismiss equity and favour one faith in particular.

[@blergenmeblorger6658]

So, I pretty much agree with your first two arguments, but I think you're misinterpreting the Euthyphro Dilemma. Generally, when we think of God, we think of a being that knows everything which it can possibly know, and we generally think that includes morality. We also think of God as a being that will always tell the truth, including about what we ought to do. Therefore, if God tells us (through holy writings, through revelation, reason, enlightenment, etc.) that secularism is wrong, then, whether morality comes from God or not, God is correct and, therefore, government should not be secular. Now, obviously, we can debate our assumptions about the nature of God, or whether we can know what its plan is, although I think they're self-evident, or at least intuitive. You could also think that morality needs to be coherent if it is to be part of the universe, and the ought-implies-can argument seems to show that this moral principle is incoherent. In any case, simply saying 'morality doesn't come from God' doesn't cut it if God is supposed to know virtually everything, so could you please elaborate on this particular section of the argument, or reconsider it?

[@michaelpastoors639]

Lots of people choose their religion. They can change if they so desire.

[@jindrichzenisek6041]

You choose your religion even if it is taught from your parents you must decide on your own if it is true or not and there are many converts, so you definitly choose your religion. You actually choose to believe or not because faith is act of will, so you have to choose every moment wheter you believe or not. I agree that there should be freedom of religion, but not because people can change that, when obviously they can, I choose freedom of religion because truth can be know only if there are presented competing ideas. But i disagree with that are religions are equal, as in all things we can find grades of perfection, so too in religon we can se that one is better than the other, therefore we should derive our laws from the more perfect one.

[@jimgell9057]

Jindřich Ženíšek But Islam and Christianity are so similar that they are basically the same. There is no better religion, they just belong to different cultures

[@petersmythe6462]

Secularism > State atheism > Religious nationalism > Theocracy.

[@thuggie1]

i find it odd we haven't done it yet a lot of people relate themselves to christianity here in the uk but most people i have spoken to about it who say they are christian really don't know much about the doctrines. i think most people take it as a philosophy other than an ordered strikt way to live. i think really the humanist movement has really watered down christianity to the point in the uk you look at places like america and most people see the christian fundies there as nutjobs. very few people go to religious service here, i think a lot of people just call themselves christian out of habit because their parents or grandparents where. i left a strict religion they are horrible if you don't fit their idea of normal i would advise anyone against mostly all religions they can take a rational person and turn them erational very quickly.

[@InspiringTheology14]

Of course you can choose what to believe in. Even if your brought up in a particular religion at home or dictated by the general culture to pick a religion; the choice is still yours. My gosh is not that difficult to understand. People dont mindlessly digest everything you hear, first weigh the facts and use some common sense.

[@Amy-zb6ph]

The US isn't a secular state in practice, even though our Constitution says there should be a separation between church and state. The only thing we seem to use this separation for is to keep churches from paying taxes. We've had several politicians claim that this is a Christian nation too. It's probably harder to have a secular state than a religious one but I think we should have a secular state because it's the moral thing to do with all the different religions that people have.

[@eloujtimereaver4504]

I do not believe in 'belief', there is truth, and ignorance. However, any being is much happier if it is allowed to do whatever it wants to itself. So any practice that does not harm an unwilling participant such as children, should be allowed. Any practice that does harm an unwilling participant, such as maiming children, should immediately be stopped with lethal force.

[@thegnatintheroom]

Yes, the government should be secular. Look at historical examples! One of the best is the Dutch Republic during the 1600s. It practiced complete religious toleration and basically cornered most of the European trade markets for, oh, say, a century. Plus look at religious extremism. Don't want that in a government.

[@redeamed19]

I take issue with the concept that religion is not a choice. Outside of a deterministic view of the world religion is no less a choice than our choice in jobs, friends, schools we attend, crimes we either commit or don't. Persuasion and experience influence choices we make but outside of determinism they do not constitute a lack of choice. I think a stronger defense of secularism is right of the individual to make their own free choices when those choices do not infringe on the freedoms of others.

[@gabemckelvey6779]

The argument for secularism assumes that being secular is the same as being religiously neutral, but it isn’t. You wouldn’t have a government divorced from religion, you’d be replacing one religion with another (a religion constructed by the state, and I’m using the term religion loosely here, to just mean a set of moral principles founded on faith). That’s why true religious neutrality would be closer to what the UK and America do now (or purport to do now) which is not to remove all state-sponsorship of religion, but to try to sponsor all religion equally, to give funding to different kinds of religious organizations, allow people of different faiths to do what they will, etc.

[@Turalcar]

Where does this put civil religion e.g. whereby US Constitution is treated as scripture.

[@D347H1NC4RN473]

Dear Reader: I know this comment goes on a bit, but you don't have to read all of it. The first 3 paragraphs cover the important bits of the video, the rest is more or less the proof upon which my arguments are based. On the point about secularism: Secularism can, by allowing certain practices such has abortion, be anti-Catholic, and allowing the consumption of alcohol, be anti-Islam, etc. You can't say that secularism is completely indifferent about religious beliefs. Also, secularism does not hold any view as 'better' or 'worse' (thus is libertarian). But that is itself a view that is in fact claiming that one view is 'better' than all others. This is a contradiction! Also, secularism can be against religious practices by refusing the liberty of people to follow their religion. Thus you can say that Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia. Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia etc are secularist. There is indeed an argument against secularism here. You mentioned circumcision, which proves my point: that is not total religious freedom. In fact, that's religious persecution! Now onto the point about choice of religion: I need only say one word: converts. Ollie, I sincerely have not seen something as absurd as this since Albert Camus! There is no likeness of religion to age, race or sex. This is because no rational argument can ever change my age, race or sex. A rational argument can change my religious belief. Indeed people do choose to believe certain things, even without rational thought. Your argument is invalid for this reason; I need not counter Kant's ought implies can. Indeed I believe it to be true. Therefore there is no moral requirement for supporting secularism. A point on the Euthyphro Dilemma: This has probably been mentioned in another comment, but there is a solution. Let us assume God exists. The argument is as follows: Everything that is imperfect must be preceded by something more perfect, in that the created is more imperfect than the creator. Since God is the uncaused first cause and the unmoved mover, the Creator of creation, He must be the most perfect. Furthermore, God is pure act and in no way in potency. Since all things in pure act are perfect, and God is, then God must be most perfect. Now, a thing is good as much as it is perfect. Since God is perfect, He must be good. Further, "good is what all things desire" (Aristotle). But all things desire to be in act. Since God is pure act, he is what all things desire; Good. Further, for each being to be in act is it's good. God is not only a being in act; He is the very act of being. Thus He must be essentially good; God is goodness itself. Since this is the case, there cannot be evil in God; God is good perfectly, which is opposed to evil. Q.E.D. On the existence of God, here's three: 1) God is the unmoved mover. Everything that moves is moved by another. Some things are in motion, as is evident. Therefore it is moved by something other that itself. Either this mover is moved or not moved. If not, we have reached our conclusion; we must posit and unmoved mover. That is what we call God. If so, it was moved by another mover. Thus we must regress to infinity or reach an unmoved mover. Since infinite regress is impossible, we must have an unmoved mover: God. 2) In nature, there is matter and energy that make up everything. Since e = mc^2, matter is a form of energy. Also energy cannot be created or destroyed. But since the Big Bang theory, we know that energy was created. This creation of energy cannot be natural; cannot be explored in physics/science. Thus some super-nature exists. This is what we label "spiritual" or "immaterial". But even philosophy "ex nihilo, nihilo fit"! Unless you have infinite power or omnipotence. That is what we call God. 3) There are things that are hot. The hotter they are, the more closely they resemble that which is hottest. The same is true for whiteness, goodness, truth, nobility and being-ness; that which is utmost being. The maximum of all in a genus is the cause of that genus. Therefore there must also be something which gives each thing it's being, goodness, etc. That is what we call God. With that covered, let's move onto His plan: Yes, God has a plan. That plan is Christianity. More accurately, it is Catholicism. But first: since we have proven God's existence (if you don't accept the proofs given, assume we have for the sake of argument). You see, God is omnipotent. That is, He needs nothing. So to create the universe, He can do this out of pure love, since love is complete self-giving. Thus, God loves the world. Thus, we have purpose to our existence. Thus, we need a plan, or religion. On to the different religions: Polytheism and atheism are not valid. Atheism because God exists and polytheism because the extant one, Hinduism, is false. This is because of the belief of reincarnation (among others). Reincarnation has the implication that all life has to follow the moral law. Hinduism teaches that if you do good in one life, you progress to a higher state (humans being the highest). The moral law must be constant because God is constant. But if that's the case, what if you reincarnate into a lion, or any other carnivorous animal. That means that you have a necessity to kill to survive; you must break the moral law to even exist! This is illogical. Also, God is one God. Any more is unnecessary; if you have two (or more) unmoved movers, both perfect, both the highest good etc, by Leibnitz' Law, you only have one! They all have the same properties. All other polytheistic religions (Greek and Roman etc) propose imperfect physical beings. This is not what God is. On the remaining religions: (Islam, Judaism and Christianity) Judaism is not necessarily false, but it is fulfilled by Christ. Comparing all the prophecies of the Old Covenant with the New, there is no denying that all have come to pass with Jesus. More on Jesus later. Islam, though, is false. It makes the claim that it follows from Christianity, and thus from Judaism. However, the moral law changes; they do not follow the Old Covenant and no Old Covenant prophecies were fulfilled because they do not recognise Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God. They also dispute the authenticity of the New Testament, which is ridiculous. There are quotes from the texts that make up the N.T. by Church Fathers (Christians) before the Bible was even compiled. There are many other morally questionable things taught in Islam that are not coherent to anything in Judaism or Christianity. This leaves Christianity. All protestant denominations can be refuted on the basis of James 2:24 which denies their doctrine of 'sola fide' or faith alone. There are many other points, but as Luther himself said: The doctrine of sola fide is that which the church (protestantism) stands or falls. Sola Scriptura can be refuted with simple reasoning. The Papacy can be traced back to St Peter (I've seen it in Church Fathers' writings). The Anglican community can be refuted on the basis of King Henry VIII having no authority to split with Rome. Also, they support divorce (the main reason for Anglicanism's existence) which is refuted by Christ in the Bible. That only leaves two denominations: Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodox. To be honest, there are so few doctrinal issues here that it's really not worth arguing over (almost). The main reason for the split was political anyway. I include the Orthodoxy when I say Catholicism anyway: both can be traced back to the Apostles in succession and doctrinal beliefs. One final point on this: Christ. Why Jesus of Nazareth? There were loads of people like Him! Hundreds of Jewish revolutionaries tried to overthrow or free Israel from the Romans. They all met their end on a cross. So I ask again, why Jesus of Nazareth? Apart from the Resurrection, there's not much that's special about Him. The Resurrection must be true. How else could 3000 people convert in one day? How else could St's Peter, Paul, Stephen, and all the thousands of martyrs have gone that far based upon a bunch of hallucinating followers of some Galilean revolutionary? It is a greater leap to say that Jesus was not the Son God raised from the dead than to say He was. I hope this answers the questions about God's plan, our need to follow that plan, and our need to spread the Good News. If you want more detail on any topic, just ask. That's pretty much about it. But before I forget, did you know that the Bible has been translated into LOLCat: www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page I wouldn't recommend it for theological study, but hey, it's kinda funny.

[@slaterrox23]

Just a few questions: - Where does the argument "Everything that is imperfect must be preceded by something more perfect [etc etc all the way back to god] come from, and what points can be given to support it? - To be perfectly honest I wasn't able to keep up with that entire paragraph under your section on the Euthyphro Dilemma. Similar to my question above, if god is the Creator of creation, doesn't your own argument mean god is actually the more imperfect version of whatever comes before god? How can one know how far back to go, before you settle on the point which you deem to be where god is? Does that not have similar holes in it as, which you also mentioned, the scientific belief that energy cannot be created nor destroyed? (Except when it was, of course, lol) - In relation to your 3 points about the existence of god, can you expand on number 3 a bit? I don't understand how "The hotter they are, the more closely they resemble that which is hottest" works as a standalone argument (unless you're literally talking exclusively about how the temperature of an object is closer in temperature to other things of similar temperatures), or how that can be extended to measure the inherent "goodness" of anything, or what "whiteness" has to do with it (maybe that's a religion-thing? I'm not very educated on the subject which is why I ask!), and finally how that relates to or proves any kind of existence in god. - Although I can see where you're coming from in regards to secularism, in it's very attempt to negate any religion or side being better or worse, does in some way deem itself in a position that is 'more right' by very way of having such authority, I do think the crux of the matter is that it does not mean to hold that authority under the guise of a religious standpoint, but rather it's doing so as an attempted neutral force between them. I say attempted because I don't think it would take anyone of any belief long to find issues with the applied secularism within (for example) the UK - as many religions have extremely conflicting beliefs about how life should be lived. Arguably it's impossible for any state to truly be secularist as most of the ways they favour one religious practise over the other are in part due to the history of said state, and what practices/norms are left overs from when those in power were more formally religious. I think there's an important distinction though you've left out, which is the difference between the state impeding on a persons religious freedom (such as making marriage illegal or something) and the inaction or refusal of the state to comply or enforce said religious beliefs upon the general public (such as abortions remaining legal for certain circumstances). Though the practice of abortions may be against what your, or other, religions believe to be acceptable, allowing them (under certain circumstances) does not inherently impede on your religious practice. If you see that as, like you said, not actually being given "total religious freedom", then the very idea of protecting religious freedoms becomes far more dangerous to value in our law. Surely you can see how if your religion was given the "freedom" to decide (or rather, ensure) that all members in society lived life in accordance with what your religion has deemed right or true, then it would actually impede on people's other rights to a far greater extent. Secularism, though imperfect, is at least an attempt to keep government decisions free from the explicit agendas of any and all religious affiliation, and so (in my opinion) does not intend to see itself as "better" that any other viewpoints and is actually necessary to mediate between all groups and types of people. I thought your point on converts was quite good though as the fact a rational argument can change (even if slowly) a persons religious beliefs definitely does differentiate it from other personal distinctions like age or race. Can I ask then, as you made this point and so agree with the notion, do you ever find yourself conflicted or unsettled as you might be one conversation away from seriously questioning your belief system? Or do you already question it but have yet to come across a solid enough argument? (I truly hope this won't be met with a response like "but I /know/ my faith is correct" as I'm sure I don't have to tell you what's wrong or weak with that stance, hah). It was very interesting to read that brief history of major religions and how they came to be, so thanks for that. I also looked up lolcatz bible (though your link is broken) and did find that quite funny. Looking forward to your response :)

[@aaranburnsart3336]

Just a thought about your argument for secularism. You say that we cannot choose our religious beliefs because they are either caused in us via experience or some rational argument. Perhaps you're right. But aren't all of our beliefs like that? If so, then we never choose any of our beliefs. And, by your argument, we should not punish or privilege any person for any belief they might have. Suppose two separate people come in looking to adopt a child. You only have one child at this particularly strange orphanage and so must choose which person to give the child to. Suppose that both have the same financial circumstances and what not. The only difference is that one of them believes pedophilia is ok, and one finds it horrific. Neither of them has ever been a pedophile however. In this situation, it seems to me that it would be ok to privilege the person who finds pedophilia horrific and give him the child. Now, you might say that some decision has to be made here, so someone will have to be privileged. The important thing however, is that the decision should be made on the basis of the differences in belief. But then, your argument must be flawed, must it not?

[@MusikCassette]

I belive in a Scular state, but I do not think, that the kantien argument works here: a) it is questionable, if religion is not a question of joice in the sence of the paradime. b) If a state fosters a particular religion, that does not mean, that it punishes those who don't belife in that religion. Not more than, lets say a pacifist can claime being punished If the state he lives in goes to war.

[@Flippyfloppy007]

Another thing, re-circumcision. Circumcision for many (I daresay most) is not a religious decision. Yes it has religious origins, but this does not mean all decisions to circumcise your child are religious decisions. On to the matter of consent, as a baby, you do not have the capacity to consent to anything. Nonetheless things should be done to you, or else you would die of neglect. Circumcision might be one of those things, at the discretion of the parent, due to the claims for health benefits, much like vaccinations. Yes, many argue that circumcision has no health benefits and may cause health problems, but the same can be said even more convincingly for child vaccinations. If you believe circumcision of babies is immoral than you should probably think the same of vaccination - either way it's not a question which relates to secularism.

[@thegnatintheroom]

I do want to make one minor philosophical criticism of the video: it seems that the video could easily be construed as saying that the government and the law act and decree according to morality. I disagree. You want the government to act in a moral way, to be sure, but you don't want the law to claim a representation of morality. Morality is not nearly objective enough to be the basis for a system of law. The law should exist to protect the peoples rights, not enforce a moral system.

[@SenpaiTorpidDOW]

And what do you people's rights are? People's rights aren't an objective fact of the universe. The claim that people have any given right is merely a moral claim... Morality is objective and it is precisely the basis of legislation.

[@SenpaiTorpidDOW]

Dreamfightijoken People having different opinions on morality does not make it subjective. Nor is the amount of wavering in one's own moral philosophy in anyway related to the objectivity or lack thereof of morality.

[@SenpaiTorpidDOW]

Dreamfightijoken On the absolute contrary, I think that the fact that we have similar emotions innately is actually just a result of culture and then when we extend that scope outside of our culture we see that humans innately do not feel the same emotions. I mean, how can we feel the same emotions if past societies permitted without question something like slavery? That is a level of abhorrence that very few contemporary people could tolerate. Culture affects our emotions. Emotions are not objective. For something to be an objective fact - it must be true and its truth must be determined by something external to human beliefs. I do believe that moral claims such as "Stabbing someone 700 times in the face because they are Muslim and you disagree with Muslims fundamentally and for no other reason, when you are of otherwise perfect sound mind, is wrong" is a claim that is either true or false. I think upon rational, objective, culturally unbias reflection that any human with a certain threshold of intelligence will come to the conclusion that such behaviour is not what we ought to do. And morality is ultimately when used in common language typically a reference to what we ought to do and what we ought not to do, being good and bad respectively. We don't need to go deeper into it really and start talking about the property of 'good' and so on. I mean, we can if we want to and that discussion helps us understand the basis for our actions in general and why we have legislative systems and so on. But that isn't necessary for morality to be absolute. In order for it to be not absolute the truth of moral claims must be somehow related to the thoughts of humans (an individual human; a human society; multiple humans; all humans; one or more humans). If so then morality would be relative. OR moral claims might actually just be talking about nothing part of the real world and thus they cannot be true or false. In which case moral relativism and moral objectivism are false. Moral nihilism is true. Now, some people will disagree with me. That doesn't mean I'm wrong and that morality cannot be objective. On the contrary, it just means that if they disagree they themselves are not rational, culturally unbias sorts of people above that threshold of intelligence. Does this make sense or sound like nonsense?

[@mackdmara]

Ethics & morality go hand in hand. Unless the group is homogeneous enough to have a consensus view, the government needs to be neutral to religious beliefs. In other words unless you accept an objective morality claim, it is subjective. In effect if people are fine with murder, then the government making a law against it would be unnecessary. Fortunately, most people agree that is not acceptable, so the morality sticks. Still, other things, like when does a person become a person allows for odd morals in countries. Things like abortion well after the child is formed, but not allowing things like circumcisions (a religious practice that kills no one). Apparently less than one ounce of flesh after being born, that you can live without, is more important than your life beforehand to some people. So it is a complex issue that should not favor either, but often favors one or the other. Balance is what is needed.

[@Terraincognita65]

I have only 4 fundamental questions in my mind....... 1.Why don't we build a single world governance? Alright, this will be unfair for some developed country citizens, but this will accelerate the human race assimilation and peaceful society. While we live under one national language with different dialects such as English as the national language. And one national currency. Last, Single national safety army or police. Automatically, the benefits of this is leading us no more weapon conflicts, except for separatist movement or terrorists. Peaceful time for humanity and all of us. I know some of us are pretty smart and in the future you are available to make it more efficient than what i just said above. 2.Why don't people manage their governors with more flexible systems and people could hire or fire the government head and staffs depend on their working performances, whether or not is the performance likely as people wish? But basically, anything should be made up without any highly restricted presidential period such now and without the needs of mass demonstration or other mass violence behaviors anymore. 3.Third question. Why the people should own less power and position than the government? While logically, the people hire the government head and staffs by paying them taxes and many other maintenance fees? If it's about the government could create laws, I think it's unnecessary. Because the people are the one who should have this right to create laws of the public. 4.Final question. Do we forget about the motto of government of the people, by the people, and for the people??? So, what does it truly mean? I know inside this motto, there will be a very precious meaning for us to learn. But unfortunately, it's not pointing the corrupt human government nowadays. I hope in this 21st century, I could get my answer as soon as possible. thanks for everyone who could tell me the answers..

[@gilliqbal13]

A religious man is afraid of God. What's a secularist afraid of?

[@nATATATpsn]

I don't think one has to show that "ought implies can" is invalid in order to defend an opposing view, nor do I think one necessarily has to meet all the criteria you listed (though I think it's possible to). It seems to me that it would become a question of grounding objective morality. I currently am of the impression that we can't arrive at objective moral truths without a 'transcendent cause' like a god or gods giving laws. This of course doesn't mean there IS indefinitely no other way. To show that different people believe differently depending on when and where they are raised as though that would render religion as a purely subjective reality commits the genetic fallacy. Some people are unaware of certain scientific truths but that doesn't make those truths any less valid. Take vaccination for example, I feel confident that the data support all people being vaccinated, but some people can't get the through their thick skulls, what am I to do about it? Well I might make them if I had the power to because I believe that it's ultimately in their best interest. Is that pretentious of me? Euthyphro's dilemma is a false dichotomy, btw. I feel like if you've looked into that dialogue at all you'd find some reasonable responses. Someone can change their beliefs, and they ought to if their beliefs are not true. This is not strictly true to religion mind you, I work on cars and hold several beliefs about cars, once in a while I find someone holds a belief about their car that disagrees with my belief about cars. I find it right to do everything in my power to convince them that their belief is in fact wrong. Further, if I cannot convince them their belief is wrong, say they believe that corn bread is good for the radiator, I would persist in refusing to put corn bread in their radiator because I hold a belief about how radiators are designed to work. To be quite sincere, I am not even sure what a purely secular government would look like. That is to say, I can imagine what it might look like if tomorrow America started calling itself secular, but that doesn't mean it will be anything like what a genuinely secular government IS. It would appear to me that without objective moral beliefs a nation might regress into subjective laws or simply popular opinion. Both of these are littered with internal contradictions. This would escalade into a deeply epistemological question even.

[@csegely]

I think your premise that "people don't choose their religion" which you seem to take to be equivalent with "people can't help but have their religious beliefs" is both very simplistic and very implausible. You yourself admit that based upon rational deliberation one can choose whether or not one has a religious belief. Many religions explicitly demand that you make such a choice, e.g. Anabaptism. Furthermore, from what you say it seems to follow that, say, religious fundamentalist can't help having their religious beliefs, so, for example, they can't help hating gays on religious grounds. And if they can't help having these belief, how can you resist the conclusion that they can't help acting upon these beliefs? So if a guy beats up another one because he believes that the other guy is gay and gays are hateful to God, how is he responsible for doing this, if all he did was drawing the conclusion of the practical syllogism the premises of which were his religious beliefs he couldn't help having? I think the view that hate crime is not crime if it is committed by religious people who don't have control over their beliefs and cannot be but slaves to their upbringing anyway is, again, very implausible, and quite offensive to both religious people and hate crime victims.