You haven't answered that. You've just made some strange allusion to a problem of deduction, which seemingly has no place in this conversation. Hume said morality was a slave to the passions--there's nothing deductive about that. Pretty much the opposite of what you've said here is true.
So we're back to the is-ought problem again. Round and round we go.
Why should I? You're treating these arguments as if they don't even exist, when in reality they've existed for hundreds of years. I'm not trying to convince you that they're true; only that they exist and you've no grounds for making the claims that you have regarding secular morality without further argumentation.
Given the ridiculous treatment of Hume's moral philosophy that you've made here, the fact that you don't find any of them convincing makes me think that they may well be correct.
These people who say this would be in the minority, but presumably they aren't atheist divine command theorists so what's your point? Divine command theory must be true because one or two naturalists credit Christianity's influence on our culture?
I understand Hume's argument as well as Christian morality, and the latter is not affected by the former.
Hume wrote that a person can't form generalized moral prescription based on non-moral specifics (facts). i.e. You can't deduce morals from non-morals. i.e. A person can't get an "ought" from an "is".
As mentioned, Christians do not get "oughts" for "is". We get ought from ought. God created oughts from is.
Christian morality is based in three areas:
God's attributes, as anything God says and does will only be constrained by His attributes and character.
God's sovereignty, as He gets to comand His creation.
God's plan for designing and creating the universe, which is an extension of His sovereignty, as He will command His creation to be fit for the purpose He intended.
So, God created "ought" from His divine "is", much as you would create an "ought" by designing an building an automobile. If it won't start up and drive, it fails the "ought" from its "is" state of broken down.
God, having defined the "ought", which is based on His creation, which is based in His design, which is based in His character, has communicated the "is" as a written law on our hearts, as well as a specific revelation through scripture. We interpret that, getting "oughts" from 'oughts".
And thus, Christianity doesn't fail at Hume's dilemma and Christianity isn't cut off from morality with his guillotine.
You say that, since Christian morals are based in God's attributes, they're not moral. I say you're full of ****.
You say that, since Christian morals are based in God's command/revelation, they're not morals. I say you're full of ****.
You say that Christianity is bound by Hume's dilemma that people (humans) can't formulate "ought" from "is". I say you're full of ****, as Christians get "ought" from "ought" and God is no human.
