Questions about Humanism

[Dave]

Hmm, interesting, got me thinking there, Davin.

For the humanist the motivation for right action is mainly their humanism, maybe with 98% altruism I, for one, enjoy the warm glow I feel when I see pleasure in another's face. So I get my payback that way.

If a theist were to carry out a similar action, but motivated by their belief, "the Christian thing to do" and, maybe, earning brownie points for the "next life,"  would both actions have the same, intrinsic, value to the person who benefits?

That will depend on whatever other things you attach to outside of humanism. I don't fully subscribe to any system, so if you're asking me personally, I can answer.

When considering the benefactor, if the outcome is the same then there's no difference.

When considering the actor, the outcome is not the same. For a humanist, the actor is getting what they expect to get. For the theist actor, they are expecting a lot more than what they actually get.

This means that overall, even in this kind of clinical consideration, theist actions are net worse. This is only if we consider this in a purely clinical environment and not letting those dirty motivations and secondary effects get in the way. I think that the theist acting offers up many negative things as secondary and real world effects.

Think I will vote for any good deed, that produces a measurable output, providing the "payback" to the actor in no way refuces its overall effect. Thus I would have difficulty supporting, say, missionary medics who provided treatment only to those of faith or who were willing to be converted. Probably does not happen these days, read an account of such behaviour in the 19thC. "Need should be fulfilled regardless of creed"  - sure that is a quotation from somewhere. Though I think "Need should be fulfilled regardless of deed" possibly requires more consideration.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism?  It sounds like that is the argument being made.

[Tank]

If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism?  It sounds like that is the argument being made.

Yes it is because you a teaching your grandchildren to value faith over facts and that ancient mythologies are more valuable than our current understand of humanity. You are locking them into the past, our ignorant and superstitious past. You are setting up a fundamental dichotomy in their psyche that we are the puppets of an almighty puppet master not natural organisms with all the faults in the being evolved brings. You are continuing the mythology of a future everlasting life for which there is not evidence whatsoever. You are fooling them that this is not their one and only life. You are telling them that ultimately a mythological superstition is responsible for the creation and running of the universe. You are telling them that they are just the pets of a galactic sky daddy. You are telling then that they are a possession, a slave, a toy, a plaything that can be used, abused and discarded at the whim of a capricious supernatural entity. You are at the end of the day telling them that are worthless.
   

[Dave]

If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism?  It sounds like that is the argument being made.

Made me think more about it there, Bruce!

I am against any teachings about the nature of the Universe, including humans, that is not supported by science in some way. I do not think children at an impressionable age should be exposed to such. That all children should have moral and ethical instruction, by example pre-school and then through formal education, I am 100% in favour of. Barring genetic, injury or disease problems all parents get the children they educate, pre-school, by their own behaviour. I have seen far too many bad examples in my life of lazy and even cruel parenting - but unless obvious physical or psychological indicators are noticed not a lot can be done about that. Thus it is up to others to try to correct things, often with too little in terms of suitable teachers, time and funding.

Any teaching that involves, say, the promise of "hellfire" for "touching oneself" should earn a long prison sentence in my book. Be interesting, but very time consuming I would guess, to research the relationships between religion, atheism and neurosis in childhood and  adulthood. Using sources as objective as possible of course.

Thus, as expressed before,  I have a degree of respect for the moral ethos, if not the religious intent, of the local church school. There is no "hellfire and damnation" there and as much comparative religion (understanding others) as strictly Christian. And little overt religious symbolism. That it "graduates"  atheists, and even petty criminals, has been demonstrated over the 27 years I have lived here. So no system is perfect against human nature!

But then, how many seemingly deeply religious criminals, committing from petty theft/fraud through paedophilia to plutocratic power-pastors  have been arrested since the law stopped kowtowing to the churches?

With local authorities no longer being able to refuse churches planning permission it looks like they are in the ascendency again in America.

[Bad Penny II]

If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism?  It sounds like that is the argument being made.

Yes it is because you a teaching your grandchildren to value faith over facts and that ancient mythologies are more valuable than our current understand of humanity. You are locking them into the past, our ignorant and superstitious past.

They can reinterpret as times change, it's OK to be gay so many places now and there's religious that support that.

You are setting up a fundamental dichotomy in their psyche that we are the puppets of an almighty puppet master not natural organisms with all the faults in the being evolved brings.

Free range puppets though, we can choose to burn.
We agree we're fundamentally faulty, just not on the why of it.

You are continuing the mythology of a future everlasting life for which there is not evidence whatsoever. You are fooling them that this is not their one and only life. You are telling them that ultimately a mythological superstition is responsible for the creation and running of the universe. You are telling them that they are just the pets of a galactic sky daddy. You are telling then that they are a possession, a slave, a toy, a plaything that can be used, abused and discarded at the whim of a capricious supernatural entity. You are at the end of the day telling them that are worthless.

I'm sad you feel that way, Jesus loves us all, even you Tank

[Ecurb Noselrub]

If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism?  It sounds like that is the argument being made.

Yes it is because you a teaching your grandchildren to value faith over facts and that ancient mythologies are more valuable than our current understand of humanity. You are locking them into the past, our ignorant and superstitious past. You are setting up a fundamental dichotomy in their psyche that we are the puppets of an almighty puppet master not natural organisms with all the faults in the being evolved brings. You are continuing the mythology of a future everlasting life for which there is not evidence whatsoever. You are fooling them that this is not their one and only life. You are telling them that ultimately a mythological superstition is responsible for the creation and running of the universe. You are telling them that they are just the pets of a galactic sky daddy. You are telling then that they are a possession, a slave, a toy, a plaything that can be used, abused and discarded at the whim of a capricious supernatural entity. You are at the end of the day telling them that are worthless.
   

You seem to be assuming a lot about what I teach my grandchildren, Tank, and that surprises and disappoints me somewhat.  Why do you think I teach them to value faith over facts?  Remember, you haven't proven that "no god" is a fact.  You pile assumption upon assumption.  I don't find any inconsistency between the facts that science teaches us and the faith in a loving God who has a purpose for us.  Perhaps you do, but that's you and not me.  I don't have any idea what you are talking about when you say that I teach them that we are puppets, pets and playthings.  You seem to have a very superficial understanding of faith - at least my faith.  But at least I know where you are coming from.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism?  It sounds like that is the argument being made.

Made me think more about it there, Bruce!

I am against any teachings about the nature of the Universe, including humans, that is not supported by science in some way. I do not think children at an impressionable age should be exposed to such. That all children should have moral and ethical instruction, by example pre-school and then through formal education, I am 100% in favour of. Barring genetic, injury or disease problems all parents get the children they educate, pre-school, by their own behaviour. I have seen far too many bad examples in my life of lazy and even cruel parenting - but unless obvious physical or psychological indicators are noticed not a lot can be done about that. Thus it is up to others to try to correct things, often with too little in terms of suitable teachers, time and funding.

Any teaching that involves, say, the promise of "hellfire" for "touching oneself" should earn a long prison sentence in my book. Be interesting, but very time consuming I would guess, to research the relationships between religion, atheism and neurosis in childhood and  adulthood. Using sources as objective as possible of course.

Thus, as expressed before,  I have a degree of respect for the moral ethos, if not the religious intent, of the local church school. There is no "hellfire and damnation" there and as much comparative religion (understanding others) as strictly Christian. And little overt religious symbolism. That it "graduates"  atheists, and even petty criminals, has been demonstrated over the 27 years I have lived here. So no system is perfect against human nature!

But then, how many seemingly deeply religious criminals, committing from petty theft/fraud through paedophilia to plutocratic power-pastors  have been arrested since the law stopped kowtowing to the churches?

With local authorities no longer being able to refuse churches planning permission it looks like they are in the ascendency again in America.

Like Tank, you make a lot of assumptions about my particular faith. What churches in America do has nothing to do with the quality of love I have for my grandchildren (which is what my post is about).  If you don't want to step outside the bounds of humanism for your world view, I have no problem with that.  But you have not made the case that the love or deeds that a Christian has or does is of less value than that of a humanist.

[Dave]

If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism?  It sounds like that is the argument being made.

Made me think more about it there, Bruce!

I am against any teachings about the nature of the Universe, including humans, that is not supported by science in some way. I do not think children at an impressionable age should be exposed to such. That all children should have moral and ethical instruction, by example pre-school and then through formal education, I am 100% in favour of. Barring genetic, injury or disease problems all parents get the children they educate, pre-school, by their own behaviour. I have seen far too many bad examples in my life of lazy and even cruel parenting - but unless obvious physical or psychological indicators are noticed not a lot can be done about that. Thus it is up to others to try to correct things, often with too little in terms of suitable teachers, time and funding.

Any teaching that involves, say, the promise of "hellfire" for "touching oneself" should earn a long prison sentence in my book. Be interesting, but very time consuming I would guess, to research the relationships between religion, atheism and neurosis in childhood and  adulthood. Using sources as objective as possible of course.

Thus, as expressed before,  I have a degree of respect for the moral ethos, if not the religious intent, of the local church school. There is no "hellfire and damnation" there and as much comparative religion (understanding others) as strictly Christian. And little overt religious symbolism. That it "graduates"  atheists, and even petty criminals, has been demonstrated over the 27 years I have lived here. So no system is perfect against human nature!

But then, how many seemingly deeply religious criminals, committing from petty theft/fraud through paedophilia to plutocratic power-pastors  have been arrested since the law stopped kowtowing to the churches?

With local authorities no longer being able to refuse churches planning permission it looks like they are in the ascendency again in America.

Like Tank, you make a lot of assumptions about my particular faith. What churches in America do has nothing to do with the quality of love I have for my grandchildren (which is what my post is about).  If you don't want to step outside the bounds of humanism for your world view, I have no problem with that.  But you have not made the case that the love or deeds that a Christian has or does is of less value than that of a humanist.

Sorry, Bruce, that was not intended as a personal attack. In any group there are going to be a spectrum, a range of strengths of belief. I get as annoyed with humanists who refuse to let their kids explore rreigion for themselves as I do with theists who keep their kids on a short leash.

Without personal knowledge or experience of individuals one can only discuss generalities. That you love your grandkids I have no doubt, everything you have written here indicates a generous and sensitive person. But if you were to, say, insist they accept Creationism then I would be concerned for those kids future understanding of the world. (Not saying you would do such a thing.) Using your faith to give them moral and ethical "tools" to navigate a clear course through life is a real bonus for them

Sorry if I have put anything in a way that offends. As I have said several times before I "judge" a person more by their actions than their beliefs.

[Tank]

.. Remember, you haven't proven that "no god" is a fact.  ...

The onus to prove that gods exist and are a fact is on theists. You know that, yet you deny responsibility for providing that proof. The very fact that you profess to be a Christian means you live in a world based on myth and delusion. You once said that maybe theists are just 'mistaken'. Well they are very much mistaken and live in a world of self conceit and fantasy. And the fact that an intelligent adult like you can still kneel to unproven myths and legends disappoints me greatly. If you don't like the answer to the question you asked that is not my fault is it? You appear to have a very superficial understanding of the reality that faith is meaningless to me. In fact it's a poison running deep through the history of humanity. I have no doubt whatsoever that you love your children and grandchildren, but if you teach them that they are loved by something you can't prove all you are doing is perpetuating the mythology you believe and have no evidence to support. You might as well be a Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Jainist or follow any one of the thousands of myths that hide behind the fallacy of special pleading.

[Sandra Craft]

If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism?  It sounds like that is the argument being made.

I'm not sure I understand this debate at all, but I would say that, all things being equal, an act that benefits others has the same value no matter who does it or why.  The problem comes in with things very rarely being equal, and with how they are unequal. 

For instance, you have two groups handing out bags of food, water and sundries to homeless people.  One group gives them the supplies without asking for anything in return, the other group requires each homeless person to declare that they "accept Jesus" before they receive a bag of supplies (which is what one church in my city does).

Both groups benefited homeless people, and those who dealt with the "accept Jesus" first group only had to go thru a religious ritual that was functionally meaningless.  But do these acts still have the same value?  For me, I'd have to say no.  Tho there isn't much difference between them, I think the group who held the supplies hostage briefly has tainted their action.

As far as you personally in the love of your grandchildren, I would accept that it's equal in value to a humanist's love for his grandchildren, based on what I've learned about you in this forum.  Tho I'm still curious about what "in the context of your faith" involves.  I'd bet a lot of money that you wouldn't beat a child for disrespecting you as a way of showing your love of your god, tho there are plenty of Xtians who would and in my opinion that would certainly reduce the value of their love.

As for not proving that there is no god, 1) most of us don't make that claim, and 2) proving a negative is a logical impossibility so don't even bother asking for it.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

.. Remember, you haven't proven that "no god" is a fact.  ...

The onus to prove that gods exist and are a fact is on theists. You know that, yet you deny responsibility for providing that proof. The very fact that you profess to be a Christian means you live in a world based on myth and delusion. You once said that maybe theists are just 'mistaken'. Well they are very much mistaken and live in a world of self conceit and fantasy. And the fact that an intelligent adult like you can still kneel to unproven myths and legends disappoints me greatly. If you don't like the answer to the question you asked that is not my fault is it? You appear to have a very superficial understanding of the reality that faith is meaningless to me. In fact it's a poison running deep through the history of humanity. I have no doubt whatsoever that you love your children and grandchildren, but if you teach them that they are loved by something you can't prove all you are doing is perpetuating the mythology you believe and have no evidence to support. You might as well be a Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Jainist or follow any one of the thousands of myths that hide behind the fallacy of special pleading.

I'm not trying to prove anything, Tank.  I have no onus, no burden of proof. You are the one who seems to have taken the offensive, so the burden is on you.  To suggest that my love for my grandchildren, because I am a believer, is in any way inferior to yours, is offensive and abhorrent in the extreme. But I'm not inclined to pursue this further, so I will bow out of this conversation.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism?  It sounds like that is the argument being made.

I'm not sure I understand this debate at all, but I would say that, all things being equal, an act that benefits others has the same value no matter who does it or why.  The problem comes in with things very rarely being equal, and with how they are unequal. 

For instance, you have two groups handing out bags of food, water and sundries to homeless people.  One group gives them the supplies without asking for anything in return, the other group requires each homeless person to declare that they "accept Jesus" before they receive a bag of supplies (which is what one church in my city does).

Both groups benefited homeless people, and those who dealt with the "accept Jesus" first group only had to go thru a religious ritual that was functionally meaningless.  But do these acts still have the same value?  For me, I'd have to say no.  Tho there isn't much difference between them, I think the group who held the supplies hostage briefly has tainted their action.

As far as you personally in the love of your grandchildren, I would accept that it's equal in value to a humanist's love for his grandchildren, based on what I've learned about you in this forum.  Tho I'm still curious about what "in the context of your faith" involves.  I'd bet a lot of money that you wouldn't beat a child for disrespecting you as a way of showing your love of your god, tho there are plenty of Xtians who would and in my opinion that would certainly reduce the value of their love.

As for not proving that there is no god, 1) most of us don't make that claim, and 2) proving a negative is a logical impossibility so don't even bother asking for it.

"In the context of my Christian faith" simply means that I believe that my grandchildren have a purpose, are here for a reason, and are guided by a loving God.  I don't beat my grandchildren, although I find it curious that I would find it necessary to say that.

[Tank]

.. Remember, you haven't proven that "no god" is a fact.  ...

The onus to prove that gods exist and are a fact is on theists. You know that, yet you deny responsibility for providing that proof. The very fact that you profess to be a Christian means you live in a world based on myth and delusion. You once said that maybe theists are just 'mistaken'. Well they are very much mistaken and live in a world of self conceit and fantasy. And the fact that an intelligent adult like you can still kneel to unproven myths and legends disappoints me greatly. If you don't like the answer to the question you asked that is not my fault is it? You appear to have a very superficial understanding of the reality that faith is meaningless to me. In fact it's a poison running deep through the history of humanity. I have no doubt whatsoever that you love your children and grandchildren, but if you teach them that they are loved by something you can't prove all you are doing is perpetuating the mythology you believe and have no evidence to support. You might as well be a Muslim, Hindu, Jew, Jainist or follow any one of the thousands of myths that hide behind the fallacy of special pleading.

I'm not trying to prove anything, Tank. 

That is quite true. You expect others to believe what you believe on the basis of millennia old mythology and no evidence. Not going to happen.

I have no onus, no burden of proof.

Oh yes you do Bruce. The null condition is that nothing exists. Gradually humanity has amassed evidence that some things do exist. Theists posit that gods exist. The burden of proof lies with the people making the claim.

You are the one who seems to have taken the offensive, so the burden is on you.

See above.

To suggest that my love for my grandchildren, because I am a believer, is in any way inferior to yours, is offensive and abhorrent in the extreme.

If I had said that you would be quite right. I specifically commented that the love you and I hold for our families is unquestionable and equal. It's propagation of irrational belief by theists that is the issue.

But I'm not inclined to pursue this further, so I will bow out of this conversation.

This is of course always your choice.

[Tank]

If I, as a Christian, love my grandchildren and act accordingly, in the context of my faith, is that a net negative for the world when compared to the humanist who loves his grandchildren in the context of his humanism?  It sounds like that is the argument being made.

I'm not sure I understand this debate at all, but I would say that, all things being equal, an act that benefits others has the same value no matter who does it or why.  The problem comes in with things very rarely being equal, and with how they are unequal. 

For instance, you have two groups handing out bags of food, water and sundries to homeless people.  One group gives them the supplies without asking for anything in return, the other group requires each homeless person to declare that they "accept Jesus" before they receive a bag of supplies (which is what one church in my city does).

Both groups benefited homeless people, and those who dealt with the "accept Jesus" first group only had to go thru a religious ritual that was functionally meaningless.  But do these acts still have the same value?  For me, I'd have to say no.  Tho there isn't much difference between them, I think the group who held the supplies hostage briefly has tainted their action.

As far as you personally in the love of your grandchildren, I would accept that it's equal in value to a humanist's love for his grandchildren, based on what I've learned about you in this forum.  Tho I'm still curious about what "in the context of your faith" involves.  I'd bet a lot of money that you wouldn't beat a child for disrespecting you as a way of showing your love of your god, tho there are plenty of Xtians who would and in my opinion that would certainly reduce the value of their love.

As for not proving that there is no god, 1) most of us don't make that claim, and 2) proving a negative is a logical impossibility so don't even bother asking for it.

"In the context of my Christian faith" simply means that I believe that my grandchildren have a purpose, are here for a reason, and are guided by a loving God.  I don't beat my grandchildren, although I find it curious that I would find it necessary to say that.

So the inference being that non-Christian humans have no purpose or reason to exist. Look in the mirror Bruce, can you see that plank in your eye?

[Sandra Craft]

"In the context of my Christian faith" simply means that I believe that my grandchildren have a purpose, are here for a reason, and are guided by a loving God.  I don't beat my grandchildren, although I find it curious that I would find it necessary to say that.

So do I, since I thought it was clear I didn't think you did.