News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

A critical look at secular humanism

Started by Mark_W, January 31, 2007, 11:49:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Mark_W

First let me say that I think secular humanism is better than any church doctrine, “christian” dogma, or any religious dogma where we are expected to obey moral laws in order to receive a reward in an afterlife or out of fear of punishment in an afterlife.  

Basically, I have touched on this in at least one other thread but, secular humanism does not focus on the need for us to change our fundamental outlook on life. It does not emphasize the importance of self-renunciation which is necessary (as it is the foundation and the roots) for a true and sincere morality, and as my 19th century friend Lev Nikolayevich says, “It is like what children do when, wishing to transplant a flower that pleases themâ€"they pluck it from the roots that do not please, and seem to them superfluous, and stick it rootless into the ground.”
This is just what secular humanism amounts to. The ethics and the morality that secular humanism seeks through reason will never be achieved without first acknowleding the rationale of needing to have a firm foundation to stand on, and this involves a fundamental shift in our perspective on life, something that is too dramatic and radical for the secular humanistic, modern-"scientist", attitude which is nearly as complacent and impotent as the church-“christian” attitude. And so secular humanism is weak and ineffective and pretty much means nothing.
If this is an unfair criticism of secular humanism, please correct me.

Whitney

#1
I haven't read enough about secular humanism to comment on if they have a foundation or not.  If they have one it's likely based on the idea that humanity is something that should be cherished.

Mark_W

#2
laetusatheos, thanks for reading my barely comprehensible rant. If that is the foundation, I agree with it, but don't see how it would translate practically into an effective and powerful moral sentiment. It would still be hopelessly vague and weak.

ImpaledSkier

#3
QuoteIt would still be hopelessly vague and weak.
to you.

I think I consider myself a secular humanist. I believe that answers are not going to come from some other source than man. I'm not sure what your rant about reason, ethics, and justice is. They seem like good traits to me to uphold.

as for your self-renunciation. Why is this needed? This doesn't make sense to me. I need to give up my self-desires, to help people give up their self-desires until we have a desire-free world where everyone is just...complacent? that's a fucked up world indeed.

Nah, I'll just put my faith in humanity, and do my little part to help make the world a better place for myself, for others around me, and for future generations...without god's help.
"Heaven's not a place that you go when you die, it's that moment in life when you actually feel alive. So live for the moment." -The Spill Canvas

Mark_W

#4
impaledskier, thanks for the response. When you say "I'm not sure what your rant about reason, ethics, and justice is. They seem like good traits to me to uphold."...yes, I was saying they are the good traits that secular humanism strives for but has no means of achieving.

when you say "as for your self-renunciation. Why is this needed? This doesn't make sense to me."...I explained the reasoning behind this more clearly in my thread on self-renunciation. It is irrational to live any other way if you follow the logic.

you say "...and do my little part to help make the world a better place for myself, for others around me, and for future generations...without god's help"....who said anything about god's help? And this delusion of making the world a better place with the secular humanist philosophy, is what I point out is an impossibility, again more-so in my thread on self-renunciaton.

MrE2Me

#5
I don't get the self-renunciation thing either.  Why is this considered so important, even integral, to morality?

EDIT: Sorry, posted this just seconds after Mark replied...
[size=92]I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts[/size]

Scrybe

#6
Great topic.  This sort of reminds me of the conundrum the I.D. community faces.  They disagree with the established theory, but have yet to compile their own.  I think the basic problem lies in the lack of consensus when it comes to social theory.  You could convince half the people in the world to be kind and courteous based on a sort of "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" logic.  But then the other half would just get their backs scratched as a diversion while their friend steals your T.V.  

It seems to me that without the ability to appeal to a higher authority then humans, you are left with a might-makes-right morality.  After all, who are you to say that I need to leave my neighbor's T.V. in their house if I have the means and will to take it?  Why is your opinion on the matter even relevant to me?  I'm just as much a human as you are, and if you can dictate your form of morality, so can I.  

I don't think it's possible to create a truly mutually advantageous system where everybody comes out on top.  So some segment of the population will always have to "take one for the team", right?  Who's going to agree to that?!
"Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions." ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

Johndigger

#7
It's relativism, for the win, really, isn't it?

Do whatever floats your general boat as long as it makes sense logically.

This theory has already been tried and it's failed spectacularly - it's called Utilitarianism.


Interestingly, also, as you mention  Church Doctrine (I assume Catholic) - do you think that the Moral Teaching of the Church was concieved without the reason and logic that myself and others value so highly.

Even, taking God/Heaven/Hell completely out of the equation, I would be quite happy to argue the life morals of the Catholic Church as highly beneficial to society.

Of course, secular humanism sounds quite alright to many in theory but if it is wholly implemented then we will see a rapid decline in morality, I'm sure of it.


JD

Will

#8
I couldn't disagree with you more. Tell you what, there was an amazing article written about secular humanism some years ago that I think would be important to this thread. Warning, this is long:
 The Humanist Philosophy in Perspective

Never before has interest and talk about humanism been so widespread and rarely has the humanist philosophy been so poorly understood by both supporters and opponents. What kind of philosophy is humanism? To listen to its many detractors, one would imagine it was a doctrinaire collection of social goals justified by an arbitrary and dogmatic materialist-atheist world view. We often hear NeoCon leaders say that "Humanism starts with the belief that there is no god," that "evolution is the cornerstone of the humanist philosophy," that "all humanists believe in situation ethics, euthanasia, and the right to suicide,' and that "the primary goal of humanism is the establishment of a one-world government."

Where did they get such notions? The source they most frequently cite is Humanist Manifesto II, and indeed all the above elements can be found there. The first article of Humanist Manifesto II declares, ''As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity." The second article says that "science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces." The third article states, "Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction." The seventh article speaks of "an individual's right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide." And the final section, consisting of the twelfth through seventeenth articles, stresses "world community,'' specifically "a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government." In the light of this, it seems to me that we must take much of the blame for how our philosophy is misunderstood. We have all too frequently stated our ideas as a market list of conclusions, each conclusion supposedly as basic as all the rest and of equal acceptable among humanists. This gives those conclusions the ring of "commandments." We have not usually divided our philosophy into parts and derived one part from another. In fact, we have more often intertwined our epistemology with our cosmology, ethics, and social remedies as though they were all to be treated the same.

What we need to do is explain our philosophy in a more hierarchical manner, setting forth first our basic principles*those ideas that unite all humanists and form the foundation of the philosophy. Once this is done, we can follow with our beliefs about the world*belief which, by the nature of scientific inquiry, must be tentative. Then, once that ground work is established, we can recommend appropriate social policies, recognizing the differences of opinion within our ranks. With this approach, people will see humanism in a way I find to be more accurate* and in a way that reveals humanism's non-dogmatic and self- correcting nature.

For use in promoting the humanist philosophy, I have organized the ideas of humanism into a practical structure along the aforementioned lines. Even though most humanists don't communicate the philosophy in this way, I believe that I am being accurate when I suggest that this is the way most humanists see humanism.

Basic Princeples:

1) We humanists think for ourselves as individuals. There is no area of thought that we are unwilling to explore, to challenge, to question, or to doubt. We feel free to inquire and then to agree or disagree with any given claim. We are unwilling to follow a doctrine or adopt a set of beliefs or values that does not convince us personally. We seek to take responsibility for our decisions and beliefs and that necessitates our control over them. Through this unshackled spirit of free inquiry, new knowledge and new ways of looking at ourselves and the world can be acquired. Without it, we are left in ignorance and, subsequently, are unable to improve upon our condition.

2) We make reasoned decisions because our experience with approaches that abandon reason convinces us that such approaches are inadequate and are often counterproductive for the realization of human goals. We find that, when reason is abandoned, there is no "court of appeal" where differences of opinion can be heard. We find, instead, that any belief is possible if one lets oneself be aided by arbitrary faith, authority, revelation, religious experience, alternative states of consciousness, or other substitutes for reason and evidence. Therefore in matters of belief, we find that reason, when applied to the evidence of our senses and our accumulated knowledge, is our most reliable guide for understanding the world and for making our choices.

3) We base our understanding of the world on what we can perceive with our senses and with we can comprehend with our minds. Anything that is said to make sense should make sense to us as humans, else there is no reason for it to be the basis of our decisions and actions. Supposed transcendent knowledge or intuitions that are said to reach beyond human comprehension cannot instruct us because we cannot relate concretely to them. The way in which humans accept supposed transcendent or religious "knowledge" is by arbitrarily taking a "leap of faith" and by abandoning reason and the senses.

We find this course unacceptable, since all the supposed "absolute" moral rules that are accepted as a result of this arbitrary leap are themselves rendered arbitrary by the baselessness of the leap itself. Furthermore, there is no rational way to test the validity or truth of transcendent or religious "knowledge" or to comprehend the incomprehensible. As a result, we are committed to the position that the only thing that can be called knowledge is that which is firmly grounded in the realm of human understanding and verification.

4) Though we take a strict position on what constitutes knowledge, we are not critical of the sources of ideas. Often intuitive feelings, hunches, speculation, and flashes of inspiration prove to be excellent sources of novel approaches, new ways of looking at things, new discoveries, and new information. We do not disparage those ideas derived from religious experience, altered states of consciousness, or the emotions; we merely declare that testing these ideas against reality is the only way to determine their validity as knowledge.

5) Human knowledge is not perfect. We recognize that the tools for testing knowledge, the human senses and human reason, are fallible, thus rendering tentative all our knowledge and scientific conclusions about the nature of the world. What is true for our scientific conclusions is even more true for our moral choices and social policies. These latter are subject to continual revision in the light of both the fallible and tentative nature of our knowledge and constant shifts in social conditions.

To many, this will seem an insecure basis upon which to base a philosophy. But, because it deals honestly with the world, we believe it to be the most secure basis possible. Efforts to base philosophies on super-human sources and transcendent "realities" in order to provide a greater feeling of security only end up creating illusions about the world which then result in errors when these illusions become the basis for decisions and social policies. We humanists hope to avoid these costly errors, and, thus, we have committed ourselves to facing life as it is and to the hard work that such an honest approach entails. We have willingly sacrificed the lure of an easy security offered by simplistic systems in order to take an active part in the painstaking effort to build our understanding of the world and thereby contribute to the solution of the problems that have plagued humanity through the ages.

6) We maintain that human values only make sense in the context of human life. A supposed non-humanlike existence after death cannot, then, be included as part of the environment in which our values must operate. The here and now physical world of our senses is the world that is relevant for our ethical concerns, our goals, and our aspirations. We therefore place our values wholly within this context. Were we to do otherwiseâ€"to place our values in the wider context of a merely hoped for extension of the reality we knowâ€"we might find ourselves either foregoing our real interests in the pursuit of imaginary ones or trying to relate human needs here to a very different set of nonhuman needs else where. We will not sacrifice the ethical good life here unless it can be demonstrated that there is "another life" elsewhere that necessitates a shift in our attention and that this "other life" bears some relation and commonality with this life.

7) We base our ethical decisions and ideals upon human needs and concerns as opposed to the alleged needs and concerns of supposed deities or other transcendent entities or powers. We measure the value of a given choice by how it affects human life, and in this we include our individual selves, our families, our society, and the peoples of the earth. If supernatural powers are found to exist, powers to which we must respond, we will still base our response on human need and interest in any relationship with these powers. This is because all philosophies and religions are created by humans and cannot, in the final analysis, avoid the built-in bias of a human perspective. This human perspective limits us to human ways of comprehending the world and to human drives and aspirations as a motive force.

8) We practice our ethics in a living context rather than an ideal one. Though ethics are ideals, ideals can only serve as guidelines in actual situations. This is why we oppose absolutistic moral systems that attempt to rigidly apply ideal moral values as if the world were itself ideal. We recognize that conflicts and moral dilemmas do occur and that moral choices are often difficult and cannot be derived from simplistic yardsticks and rules of thumb. Moral choices often involve hard thinking, diligent gathering of information about the situation at hand, careful consideration of immediate and future consequences, and weighing of alternatives. Living life in a manner that promotes the good, or even knowing what choices are good, is not always easy. Thus, when we declare our commitment to a humanist approach to ethics, we are expressing our willingness to do the hard thinking and work that moral living in a complex world entails.

Tentative Beliefs About The World:

1) Our planet revolves around a medium-sized star, which is located near the outer edge of an average-sized galaxy, which is part of a galaxy group consisting of nineteen other galaxies, which is part of an expanding universe that, while consisting mostly of cold, dark space, also contains perhaps one hundred billion galaxies in addition to our own. Our species has existed only a very short time on the earth, and the earth itself has existed only a short time in the history of our galaxy. Our existence is thus an incredibly minuscule and brief part of a much larger picture.

In the light of this, we find it curious that, in the absence of direct evidence, religious thinkers can conclude that the universe or some creative power beyond the universe is concerned with our well being or future. From all appearances, it seems more logical to conclude that it is only we who are concerned for our well-being and future.

2) Human beings are neither entirely unique from other forms of life nor are they the final product of some planned scheme of development. The evidence shows that humans are made from the same building blocks from which other life forms are made and are subject to the same sorts of natural pressures. All life forms are constructed from the same basic elements, the same sorts of atoms, as are nonliving substances, and these atoms are made of subatomic particles that have been recycled through many cosmic events before becoming a part of us or our world. Humans are the current result of a long series of natural evolutionary changes, but not the only result or the final one. Continuous change can be expected to affect ourselves, other life forms, and the cosmos as a whole. There appears to be no ultimate beginning or end to this process.

3) There is no compelling evidence that the human mind is separate from the human brain, which is itself a part of the body. All that we know about the personality indicates that every part of it is subject to change caused by physical disease, injury, and death. Thus there is insufficient grounds for belief in a "soul" or some form of life after death.

4) The basic motivations which determine our values are ultimately rooted in our biology and early experiences. This is because our values are based upon our needs, interests, and desires, which, themselves, often relate to the survival of our species. As humans we are capable of coming to agreement on basic values because we most often share the same needs, interests, and desires and because we share the same planetary environment.

Theoretically, then, it is possible to develop a scientifically based system of ethics once enough is known about basic human needs, drives, motivations, and characteristics and once reason is consistently applied toward the meeting of human needs and the development of human capacities. In the meantime, human ethics, laws, social systems, and religions will remain a part of the ongoing trial-and-error efforts of humans to discover better ways to live

5) When people are left largely free to pursue their own interests and goals, to think and speak for themselves, to develop their talents, and to operate in a social setting that promotes liberty, the number of beneficial discoveries increases and humanity moves further toward the goal of greater self-understanding, better laws, better institutions, and a good life.

Current Positions On Social Policy:

1) As humanists who are committed to free inquiry and who see the value of social systems that promote liberty, we encourage the maximizing of individual autonomy. In this context, we support such freedoms and rights as religious freedom, church-state separation, freedom of speech and the press, freedom of association (including sexual freedom, the right to marriage and divorce, and the right to alternate family structures), a right to birth control and abortion, and the right to voluntary euthanasia.

2) As humanists who understand that humans are social animals and need both the protections and restraints provided by effective social organization, we support those laws that protect the innocent, deal effectively with the guilty, and secure the survival of the needy. We desire a system of criminal justice that is swift and fair, ignoring neither the perpetrator of crime nor the victim, and ignoring neither deterrence nor rehabilitation in the goals of penalization. However, not all crimes or disputes between people must be settled by courts of law. An alternative approach, involving conflict mediation wherein opposing parties come to mutual agreements, has shown much promise and therefore has our support.

3) As humanists who see potential in people at all levels of society, we encourage an extension of participatory democracy so that decision-making becomes more decentralized and thus involves more people. We look forward to widespread participation in the decision-making process in areas such as the family, the school, the work place, institutions, and government. In this context, we see no place for prejudice on the basis of race, nationality, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, political persuasion, religion, or philosophy. And we see every basis for the promotion of equal opportunity in the economy and in universal education.

4) As humanists who realize that all humans share common needs in a common planetary environment, we support the current trend toward more global consciousness. We realize that effective programs in ecology require international cooperation. We know that only international negotiation toward arms reduction will make the world secure from the threat of thermonuclear, chemical or biological war. We see the necessity for worldwide education on population control as a means of securing a comfortable place for everyone. And we perceive the value in international communication and exchange of information, whether that communication and exchange involve political ideas, ideological viewpoints, science, technology, culture, or the arts.

5) As humanists who value human creativity and human reason and who have seen the benefits of science and technology, we are decidedly willing to take part in the new scientific and technological developments all around us. We are encouraged, rather than fearful, about biotechnology, alternative energy, computer technology, and the information revolution, and we recognize that attempts to reject these developments or to prevent their wide application will not stop them. Such efforts will merely place them in the hands of other persons or nations for their exploitation. To exercise our moral influence on the new technologies, to have our voice heard, we must take part in the revolutions as they come about.

6) As humanists who see life and human history as a great adventure, we seek new worlds to explore, new facts to uncover, new avenues for artistic expression, new solutions to old problems, and new feelings to experience. We sometimes feel driven in our quest, and it is participation in this quest that gives our lives meaning and makes beneficial discoveries possible. Our goals as a species are open-ended As a result, we will never be without purpose.

Conclusions:

Humanists, in approaching life from a human perspective, start with human ways of comprehending the world and the goal of meeting human needs. These lead to tentative conclusions about the world and relevant social policies. Because human knowledge must be amended from time to time, and because situations constantly change, human choices must change as well. This renders the current positions on social policy the most adaptable part of the humanist philosophy. As a result, most humanists find it easier to agree on basic principles than on tentative beliefs about the world, but easier to agree on such beliefs than on social policies. It is my hope that clarity on this point will erase many prevalent misunderstandings about humanism.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

Johndigger

#9
Quote from: "Johndigger"It's relativism, for the win, really, isn't it?



When you abolish ideals and absolutes as that article suggests. This is exactly what happens. And when that kicks in morality will decline sharply - we've seen it in society before and we'll see it again.


JD

SteveS

#10
Willravel - thank you very much for sharing this.  It was terrific, and I enjoyed reading it thoroughly.  Thanks again,  :cheers:  

I was asking on another thread about how people define humanism.  In particular, I cited the wiki page as being unsatisfactorily unclear.  When I read through this article, I felt major resonance, and can clearly state that defined in this manner I feel that I am definitely a humanist.  Even this part rang true to me,

QuoteThis renders the current positions on social policy the most adaptable part of the humanist philosophy. As a result, most humanists find it easier to agree on basic principles than on tentative beliefs about the world, but easier to agree on such beliefs than on social policies.

As I went down the list, I found my selfing "twitching" more at some of the points, especially in social policy (not major disagreements, but definitely some things that didn't sit nearly as well as the basic principles at the top).  Imagine my surprise (and delight) when I found that the article accurately predicted that I'd probably feel this way!  Enlightening.

SteveS

#11
Johndigger, I'd like to offer up a respectful disagreement here,

Quote from: "Johndigger"When you abolish ideals and absolutes as that article suggests. This is exactly what happens. And when that kicks in morality will decline sharply - we've seen it in society before and we'll see it again.
Someone may suggest that this sharp moral decline is begging the question, but I have a different objection.

If we understand that there is not a rational reason to believe in god, then we are left with the conclusion that there is not a rational reason to believe that any "absolutes" actually exist.  You can't defend an "absolute" moral that came from god if there is no god.   If there is not a sufficient reason to believe there is a god, and/or that any human works were truly "inspired by god", then how can there be a sufficient reason to believe there is an "absolute" moral?

What I'm getting at, is that there appears to be a good reason to think that these absolute morals don't really exist afterall, they are literally just someone else's morals, and that individual is "passing them off" as absolute.  Usually for purposes that I find personally despicable (i.e. manipulation and control of others, or just imposing their own personal will upon everyone because they like it that way).

Also, Scrybe, another respectful disagreement,

Quote from: "Scrybe"It seems to me that without the ability to appeal to a higher authority then humans, you are left with a might-makes-right morality. After all, who are you to say that I need to leave my neighbor's T.V. in their house if I have the means and will to take it? Why is your opinion on the matter even relevant to me?
The problem is, what if there is no "higher authority then humans" in the form of a god?  Then this appeal is completely empty.  To me, you answer your own question.  The reason you should not take your neighbor's T.V. is because,

Quote from: "Scrybe"I'm just as much a human as you are
and vice versa.  The realization that since we're just as human as each other, let's put ourselves on equal ground.  We'll use our remarkable trait of empathy to achieve this.  I see the "higher authority then humans" really being a "higher authority then individuals".  So, let's make the higher authority a shared, or collective, idea.  Afterall, if god is just a human conception, then we're already doing this, we're just not doing it in  a way that is open to everyone.  We're letting one priveledged sect dictate their values as religious absolutes.

Johndigger

#12
Quote from: "SteveS"Someone may suggest that this sharp moral decline is begging the question, but I have a different objection

Well, firstly, I will answer the question you didn't ask.

I'm going to assume that the question you wanted to ask me was "Well, where is this sharp decline in moral standards that you mention?"


Let's look at Karl Marx writings in the Manifesto of the Communist Party

The selfish misconception that induces you to transform  into eternal laws of nature and of reason, the social forms springing from your present mode of production and form of property - historical relations that rise and disappear in the progress of production - this misconception you share with every ruling class that has preceded you.


In English:
You richer/higher status people have invented eternal laws when it's just your own selfish morals.


Now, I would agree with him here in some ways - as I'm sure many of you do. However, we have a very clear idea of what happenned when this theory was integrated into society - it was an intrinsic part of Communism.

And look where that got the Modern world.




Steve, where I do absolutely agree with you is that absolute moral values can lead to manipulation and various other disgusting things and I hasten to speak out against these things. But then again, any type of moral values (Indeed, anything) involving the interaction of people can lead to manipulation.


JD

Scrybe

#13
Quote from: "SteveS"and vice versa.  The realization that since we're just as human as each other, let's put ourselves on equal ground.  We'll use our remarkable trait of empathy to achieve this.

This would certainly work in a community composed of you and myself.  However, I have incontrovertible evidence that not everyone is willing to put themselves on equal ground.  History shows that when someone has power they use it to oppress those without it.  Sadly, empathy is a scarcity.
"Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions." ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

SteveS

#14
Quote from: "Johndigger"But then again, any type of moral values (Indeed, anything) involving the interaction of people can lead to manipulation.
Indeed.  We must be cautious  :wink:  .

I have a political theory that governments fail for reasons other than the principles upon which they are founded.  In fact, I wonder if Karl Marx were to look at Soviet Russia before it failed, would he feel that it stuck to the principles he laid out?  Would he view it as a failure of his ideas, of a failure of the application of his ideas?  Certainly, if the ideals are impractical to implement, then he must share some responsibility in their failure.  I just don' t think it's fair to claim that communism failed solely because it didn't appeal to absolute morals.  There's a whole lot of grey in the implementation.  But, the reason I didn't ask the question (although I am responding to the answer, hahaha!) is that I'm on very speculative ground here.  I have no real way of distinguishing if my thoughts are correct in this regard.  Read this as "pure guess".