News:

Unnecessarily argumentative

Main Menu

Questions about Humanism

Started by drfreemlizard, June 12, 2018, 03:59:26 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

drfreemlizard

I am afraid I do not follow the contention that ascribing free will to God is a  cop out or sophistry.  If He were simply an input/output system like a machine or computer, and given enough time and experimentation we could discover what input it takes to receive a given output, between him and mankind who would actually be God?

At that point man would be God, with God being in the position of a genie minus the three wish limit.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk


Dave

Quote from: drfreemlizard on June 15, 2018, 12:37:55 PM
I am afraid I do not follow the contention that ascribing free will to God is a  cop out or sophistry.  If He were simply an input/output system like a machine or computer, and given enough time and experimentation we could discover what input it takes to receive a given output, between him and mankind who would actually be God?

At that point man would be God, with God being in the position of a genie minus the three wish limit.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Point of view problem here, maybe.

To my mind if a patient's life of death it at the will of "God" then he can be praised in either case. He can never be wrong. But that, to me, is a cop-out - maybe to you it is the nature of "God"

Bit like saying, "You must honour your father even though he beats the crap out of you daily (for what he sees as faults) and starves you half to death."  Fundamental line here, I simply cannot concieve (never could) of any kind of authority without corresponding responsibility, in this world or any other.

The survivors of an earthquake praise the same "God", for their delivery, that killed thousands of others, by injury or subsequent disease. But is "God" is omnipotent then he must also be omni-culpable. Another cop-out to preserve the conditioning those people would feel uncomfortable without, more to do with themselves than their deity?

Omnipotence must be absolute or nothing. Same goes for the other omnis.

I will cop out of the rest of this post by offering a quotation I am sure you are familiar with:

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Tank

It all seems pointless discussing the existence of a myth, when discussing Humanism which is a world view that functions whether or not god(s) exists but for safeties sake operates on the premise that it(they) do not. It is essentially Pascals wager playing the odds that it's safer to accept the odds of 4,000+ to 1 that gods don't exist. If humanity just assumed the null position that without proof of gods existence there is no god it would stop following myths and take responsibility for its own actions. Humans are not toys of some genocidal maniac puppet master, we are quite capable of fucking things up on our own. But as long as 3/4 of the human population believe in some sort of delusion sky daddy humanity can't progress.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Arturo

I believe I can answer some questions and provide some insight here into the scientific method. And perhaps some psychological phenomenon for Drfreemlizard.

For something to be considered scientific, it has to be repeatable, and therefore reliable - for testing - in order to figure out if this "something" is true or false. Such in the case of God, you say that he .... well I'll refer to what I believe what you were saying.

QuoteSo you will not, now or ever, be able to see or measure him, but you can still see his influence on the world. But you can still see him if he reveals himself to you. But you still can't, now or ever, see or measure him - unless you cannot explain it, in which case he does exist in some measurable or sensible way, in which only you yourself can be able to measure or sense for yourself.
If this is so, then he should be reliable in some way. And therefore scientific and testable in a lab or some case. If your idea of him is always changing, like I thought before, then perhaps it's more of a wish fulfillment. Which brings me to my next point.

There is a psychological phenomenon that has to do with leadership qualities. It has to do with having and fulfilling a vision. It relates a lot to the article Dave posted from NPR about the families in Mexico raising their children in a different more competent way than United State's parents. In looking at the case of the children there, they have a desire, a "vision" in it's beginning stages, and then they fulfill that desire and their parents give them the blessing to do so. This is why it was so hard to live with my step-parent because I felt my vision was not being fulfilled and faltered hard for several years.

Now, do I know that this is truth? No. But I have my hypothesis and therefore it can be tested. After several tests done on that, from different angles using different methods and analyzing it properly, I can therefore know if what I say it true. I would like it to be true, I would love it to be true, I believe it has the possibility to be true, but that does not make it true.

However, you mentioned Drfreemlizard the results of the link to the study that Dave posted were....inaccurate? If so, this would not be the best place to ask those sorts of questions as I do not think there are any psychologists active on this forum who could tell you why they analyzed the results of the situation as they did. And for background purposes, I think it would probably be best to ask those people who did the study as they have to do a certain amount of research before they can start their methods and formulate a hypothesis. They may have been trying to test prayer answering from different perspectives such as the one they gave and the one you subscribe to. But it all boils down to "does prayer work? and if so which kind? or what kind of perspective should one take to see the efficacy of prayer?"

It all goes back to giving people time and letting be themselves and we will all reach the same conclusion eventually. That was one reason I did not like Richard Dawkins because like one had mentioned before in a video (at the "Honorary HAF Member" thread), he does insult and belittle people. And that is no way to make people believe you - unless you are in a fascist dictatorship, then they have no choice, but then they all want to overthrow and kill you.

So going back to the quote I gave
QuoteSo you will not, now or ever, be able to see or measure him, but you can still see his influence on the world. But you can still see him if he reveals himself to you. But you still can't, now or ever, see or measure him - unless you cannot explain it, in which case he does exist in some measurable or sensible way, in which only you yourself can be able to measure or sense for yourself.
Knowing now what I explained about the scientific method, we can now start to break these ideas down into smaller pieces. First we could separate the answers both you and Bruce (Ecurb) gave. And then break those down into single hypothesis. For example - "you cannot, now or ever, see or measure him" well now we can throw this idea out the window because it's not reliable. It's not repeatable so therefore not reliable for testing. The next part is "you can see his influence on the world". Alright this is testable and repeatable but it is where it gets tricky, for me, because what would be his influence that is not already explained by science? "Tides go in, tides go out, can't explain that" - Bill O'Reilly. If you believe that God is merely a psychological phenomenon that influences things through the actions of others, and the actions that are God's will can only be described when the outcomes are "good" then that brings me to a couple other things - one I mentioned before. What do you describe as good? And is it the same as other people's description of good? Because we all have different values and come from different places and have different experiences that shape who we are and what our definition of "good" is. And this brings me back to the theory that God's identity, plan, ect. or "Will" in this case is projected upon to by those who believe in him because of the shared vision, or at least perceptually, that believers have. And it gets more rambunctious when there is a church because when people share a ideal and get along well, they feel empowered. And that goes back to saying that feeling "good" is apart of God's Will. So saying that when one church finds their selves outsider, their instincts kick in as tribalism and that's when you have angry people like the Westboro Baptist Church and the persecution complex of some members of the Christian faith. They call that "the belly of the beast" in Joseph Campbell's "The Hero's Journey" where all the changes are ready to take place. And from a country wide perspective, Trump and his side kick Mike Pence are the distraction that leads the Hero off of their journey before they get the gall to reconcile with the "father" or in this case, the idea or whatever it is that holds the ultimate power over them. And then after that, the "boon" is given to the Hero - their reward from the result of their actions for defeating the monster that holds the ultimate power over them. And this brings me to my second point - if, say you, find something that is "not good" but to the other person says "yes it is" that may be the point for you to say "this person is influenced by the devil" but they may find that you saying that to be not good. So the fact that we all have a concept of right or wrong shows that we all think alike. But one may take that "influenced by the devil" concept too far and start destroying things that make them feel bad. That's - in depth, how a psychopath thinks. They cannot see beyond the fact that people are just like them. That we all think alike and, given time, we might all just have the same concept for right or wrong. They have to accept that idea that we all have similarities if they are to continue to grow.

For example - Jordan Peterson describes the last thing I mentioned there as a "philosophy of evil" which sure is fine and all, might be scary to some. But I think the idea here is that we all have a connection. While some see something as evil, another sees that as good. And it's important to accept that because it's part of the reconciliation with the ultimate power that holds over the psychopath's life. One may explain this as I did in the paragraph above. Or that, if given a different birth place / path in life, one may have ended up just like those people they thought were so evil - and still think they are doing the right thing. I think that's true, it does give people power and feel empowered - at the end of the day we all work the same underneath.

So I made a long post. Sorry if my one paragraph was long. I couldn't find a place to break them up but since we all have something to say on this subject, I think we will reach conclusion eventually. And hayy, I brought the conversation back to humanism yayy
It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Tank

Another issue is the 'unfalsifiable' nature of the god hypothesis. Which is one reason why the idea so seductive. You can claim anything and everything in the name of god and you can't be proven wrong, which of course is not the same thing as being right.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Dave

Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2018, 01:42:21 PM
It all seems pointless discussing the existence of a myth, when discussing Humanism which is a world view that functions whether or not god(s) exists but for safeties sake operates on the premise that it(they) do not. It is essentially Pascals wager playing the odds that it's safer to accept the odds of 4,000+ to 1 that gods don't exist. If humanity just assumed the null position that without proof of gods existence there is no god it would stop following myths and take responsibility for its own actions. Humans are not toys of some genocidal maniac puppet master, we are quite capable of fucking things up on our own. But as long as 3/4 of the human population believe in some sort of delusion sky daddy humanity can't progress.

As a mental exercise I enjoy it, and that is not to belittle the value of that "myth" to those who believe in it.

Theists usually come as one variety at a time in these discussions. I try to keep to that denominations but, in my mind, the basics are little different whether the deity be a supernatural entity, a river, an animal or whatever. My main interest is the effect of belief on the way humans live their lives and interact with others.

Though I am of the school that considers morals and ethics are part of our evolutionary/genetic survival kit (similar, if rudimentary, systems exist in other animal groups - and I don't think that can easily be dismissed as instinct) perhaps we have to offer some organised religions historical thanks for our current, more or less, moral and ethical status. It is, historically, only a very short tine ago, what, three generations, that we shrugged off most of Christianity's authority in England. The process proceeds in Ireland somewhat more slowly but seems to be accelerating. Quite a lot of the reasons for that loss of authority can probably be laid at religion's own door due to it's sometimes arrogant opinion of its own history. America seems to be reversing this trend currently, going against the movement even in some parts of the Islamic world.

But our basic modern ethos is still based on fundamental values promoted by the RCC, historically - even as they went against them in their own actions and behaviour. I am always a bit jealous of the ethos of our local parochial primary school, the kids are reasonably quiet and well mannered, their ratings are always high . . . I was even surprised to find at least a couple of the teachers are atheists! I was also pleased to see that the previous, very ambitious, head's omnipresent religious symbolism has been replaced by stuff more related to houw we should respect our fellows.

I think I said that, for some, religion has a valid place - believe in anything you like that does gentle more good than damage to others. Given the power I would deny them, and even humanists, from doing more than passively offering tge belief to others. But would have to find a way of maintaining that afore mentioned ethos in at least schools dealing with kids up to 12. Morals and ethics are more widely taught in this country, at senior level, than before, if only in lessons on citizenship and correct relationship behaviour. That the church's yoke has been broke may be indicated in that the latter may apply to any kind of gendre mix.

The generation that ticks "Christian" on the census form simply because their head was wetted at their parent's request (because it was "the done thing" socially) is thinning out now. Society is still evolving out of the constraints of the past and needs to find something to fill a few gaps. Increasing violence is partly due to increasing pressures, socially and financially - and antisocial Internet media does not help. Recognising that most of the most violent countries in the world are also highly religious it seems that religion is not a universal panacea, a cure-all, for mankind's ills. And, historically, never was - many wars had a religious origin since pre-Roman times. Greed (another trap religion often fell into) is the other one. The RCC became the biggest commercial industry on Earth at one point. Some American and African pastors might be able to rival it now though in terms of collective wealth per denomination.

So that myth still has teeth, to ignore it is like trying to ignore the 'flu. Liable to in affect you or someone you know and value if precautions are not taken. Those that enjoy catching 'flu must be allowed to do so, civil rights an' all that, but then shut away from others until "cured". Those who chose religion have the right to do so, if they are of a personal age/maturity to make an educated and uncoerced choice. But they should not have the right to evangelise, prosetylise or otherwise seek to influence others directly.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Arturo

Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2018, 02:47:27 PM
Another issue is the 'unfalsifiable' nature of the god hypothesis. Which is one reason why the idea so seductive. You can claim anything and everything in the name of god and you can't be proven wrong, which of course is not the same thing as being right.

That's true. That goes right along with the God of The Gaps theory(?) and a cop-out and persecution complex that me and Dave were speaking about. It doesn't help that we have aggressive individuals on both sides, and ever more so that they have grouped together. But that's the way it is. One person's hero is another person's villain. They have the power.


It's Okay To Say You're Welcome
     Just let people be themselves.
     Arturo The1  リ壱

Dave

Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2018, 02:47:27 PM
Another issue is the 'unfalsifiable' nature of the god hypothesis. Which is one reason why the idea so seductive. You can claim anything and everything in the name of god and you can't be proven wrong, which of course is not the same thing as being right.

Tried to cover that in my comments about "God" being right whether he saves or kills - it's all in the mind . . .
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Davin

Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2018, 01:42:21 PM
It all seems pointless discussing the existence of a myth, when discussing Humanism which is a world view that functions whether or not god(s) exists but for safeties sake operates on the premise that it(they) do not. It is essentially Pascals wager playing the odds that it's safer to accept the odds of 4,000+ to 1 that gods don't exist. If humanity just assumed the null position that without proof of gods existence there is no god it would stop following myths and take responsibility for its own actions. Humans are not toys of some genocidal maniac puppet master, we are quite capable of fucking things up on our own. But as long as 3/4 of the human population believe in some sort of delusion sky daddy humanity can't progress.
That's the way it goes though. The only way for humanism to be bad is to show that there is a god and that god will punish people for being humanists. Because in itself, there is nothing inherently wrong with humans figuring out how to solve their problems through human means (not like we have any other means, but I think you get what I mean).

Look at the mass shootings in America. "Thoughts and prayers" only appear to be making the problem worse, but there has been a bit of movement lately in some states to make some laws, which is good, but also a humanistic approach. Humans make things better, supernatural things do nothing.

Further thoughts.
The discussion goes out on too many tangents, attacking the periphery of humanism, where humanists have failed. This addresses the failures of it, ignoring the massive amounts of successes. Bringing a god into the discussion while ignoring the massive amounts of nothing and failures on that side, while only bringing up parts where it cannot be shown absolutely to not have caused harm, is, in my opinion, a dishonest tactic. Though it is a common tactic.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Tank

Quote from: Davin on June 15, 2018, 03:17:48 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2018, 01:42:21 PM
It all seems pointless discussing the existence of a myth, when discussing Humanism which is a world view that functions whether or not god(s) exists but for safeties sake operates on the premise that it(they) do not. It is essentially Pascals wager playing the odds that it's safer to accept the odds of 4,000+ to 1 that gods don't exist. If humanity just assumed the null position that without proof of gods existence there is no god it would stop following myths and take responsibility for its own actions. Humans are not toys of some genocidal maniac puppet master, we are quite capable of fucking things up on our own. But as long as 3/4 of the human population believe in some sort of delusion sky daddy humanity can't progress.
That's the way it goes though. The only way for humanism to be bad is to show that there is a god and that god will punish people for being humanists. Because in itself, there is nothing inherently wrong with humans figuring out how to solve their problems through human means (not like we have any other means, but I think you get what I mean).

Look at the mass shootings in America. "Thoughts and prayers" only appear to be making the problem worse, but there has been a bit of movement lately in some states to make some laws, which is good, but also a humanistic approach. Humans make things better, supernatural things do nothing.

Further thoughts.
The discussion goes out on too many tangents, attacking the periphery of humanism, where humanists have failed. This addresses the failures of it, ignoring the massive amounts of successes. Bringing a god into the discussion while ignoring the massive amounts of nothing and failures on that side, while only bringing up parts where it cannot be shown absolutely to not have caused harm, is, in my opinion, a dishonest tactic. Though it is a common tactic.
Agreed on all points.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

Dave

Quote from: Davin on June 15, 2018, 03:17:48 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2018, 01:42:21 PM
It all seems pointless discussing the existence of a myth, when discussing Humanism which is a world view that functions whether or not god(s) exists but for safeties sake operates on the premise that it(they) do not. It is essentially Pascals wager playing the odds that it's safer to accept the odds of 4,000+ to 1 that gods don't exist. If humanity just assumed the null position that without proof of gods existence there is no god it would stop following myths and take responsibility for its own actions. Humans are not toys of some genocidal maniac puppet master, we are quite capable of fucking things up on our own. But as long as 3/4 of the human population believe in some sort of delusion sky daddy humanity can't progress.
That's the way it goes though. The only way for humanism to be bad is to show that there is a god and that god will punish people for being humanists. Because in itself, there is nothing inherently wrong with humans figuring out how to solve their problems through human means (not like we have any other means, but I think you get what I mean).

Look at the mass shootings in America. "Thoughts and prayers" only appear to be making the problem worse, but there has been a bit of movement lately in some states to make some laws, which is good, but also a humanistic approach. Humans make things better, supernatural things do nothing.

Further thoughts.
The discussion goes out on too many tangents, attacking the periphery of humanism, where humanists have failed. This addresses the failures of it, ignoring the massive amounts of successes. Bringing a god into the discussion while ignoring the massive amounts of nothing and failures on that side, while only bringing up parts where it cannot be shown absolutely to not have caused harm, is, in my opinion, a dishonest tactic. Though it is a common tactic.

Yup, can't find much to argue with there either, Davin.

Though we all share some things in common, and may cooperate in need, we are all individuals in reality. Thus I avoid "organised humanism" and try to follow those principles I feel are right - regardless of their origin. Better, for me, to do one or two, small but nice things a day than be a right barstard all week and ask for forgiveness on Sunday.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Davin

Quote from: Dave on June 15, 2018, 03:58:27 PM
Quote from: Davin on June 15, 2018, 03:17:48 PM
Quote from: Tank on June 15, 2018, 01:42:21 PM
It all seems pointless discussing the existence of a myth, when discussing Humanism which is a world view that functions whether or not god(s) exists but for safeties sake operates on the premise that it(they) do not. It is essentially Pascals wager playing the odds that it's safer to accept the odds of 4,000+ to 1 that gods don't exist. If humanity just assumed the null position that without proof of gods existence there is no god it would stop following myths and take responsibility for its own actions. Humans are not toys of some genocidal maniac puppet master, we are quite capable of fucking things up on our own. But as long as 3/4 of the human population believe in some sort of delusion sky daddy humanity can't progress.
That's the way it goes though. The only way for humanism to be bad is to show that there is a god and that god will punish people for being humanists. Because in itself, there is nothing inherently wrong with humans figuring out how to solve their problems through human means (not like we have any other means, but I think you get what I mean).

Look at the mass shootings in America. "Thoughts and prayers" only appear to be making the problem worse, but there has been a bit of movement lately in some states to make some laws, which is good, but also a humanistic approach. Humans make things better, supernatural things do nothing.

Further thoughts.
The discussion goes out on too many tangents, attacking the periphery of humanism, where humanists have failed. This addresses the failures of it, ignoring the massive amounts of successes. Bringing a god into the discussion while ignoring the massive amounts of nothing and failures on that side, while only bringing up parts where it cannot be shown absolutely to not have caused harm, is, in my opinion, a dishonest tactic. Though it is a common tactic.

Yup, can't find much to argue with there either, Davin.

Though we all share some things in common, and may cooperate in need, we are all individuals in reality. Thus I avoid "organised humanism" and try to follow those principles I feel are right - regardless of their origin. Better, for me, to do one or two, small but nice things a day than be a right barstard all week and ask for forgiveness on Sunday.
Pretty much as I see it. We can and do argue about how to solve the problems, and whether those solutions cause harm or how much... anyway, the arguments are about the actions of humanists not humanism itself.

The argument should be whether humanism as a whole works. But that is a losing argument for theists who are against humanism. Because when humanism is compared to trusting in the supernatural, it's a demonstrable success and the supernatural is a demonstrable failure.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

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?
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Dave

On the other side of the coin is taking responsibility for wrong action. Or in the case of some religious individuals and groups shrugging the blame off onto their deity. "I do God's work!",  "God made me do it," "God forgive me for doing it."

The atheist or humanist takes all the rap. Theirs is the only responsibility. (Special cases apply in the armed forces.)

Of course, insanity is a plea that all may make.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Passed Monday 10th Dec 2018 age 74

Davin

Quote from: Dave on June 15, 2018, 04:30:33 PM
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.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.