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

Johndigger

#15
Yes, I think it would be folly to cite that the only reason for the Communistic failure was for " Lack of Absolute Morals." But I would stick to my guns when I say that lack of Absolute Morals was a reason.

Another reason to be cautious, as you so rightly state is that there is a massive difference between theory and implementation - we must tread carefully here.

Again, we've jumped wholly into speculation but sometimes that is necessary for a greater understanding of the picture.


JD

Scrybe

#16
Quote from: "Willravel"there was an amazing article written about secular humanism some years ago that I think would be important to this thread.

My take:  (because it's very important!)  (Just kidding.)


" 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."

Isn't this exactly what the humanists fear from the religious?  This seems to be a human condition, not bound by philosophical disposition.  


"our experience with approaches that abandon reason convinces us that such approaches are inadequate"

"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."


Here, only certain kinds of knowledge are allowed.  Is that truly a sign of one who is open minded enough to accept truth?  

"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."

This is a theory.  I'm sure it's true for some.  Does the author realize how profoundly one-dimensional he is sounding?  Must one abandon all reason and sense to accept the transcendent as a possible reality?  

" 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."  

Again, the author must assume a priori that certain kinds of knowledge simply do not exist.  When such a claim requires the complete abandonment of several fundamental human needs, that claim should be subject to suspicion.  

"Furthermore, there is no rational way to test the validity or truth of transcendent or religious "knowledge" or to comprehend the incomprehensible."

This is true for some religious claims and not for others.  For example, many Mormon artifacts with specific religious claims can be disproved.  Many cults made specific predictions for the end of the world or other such things that went unfulfilled.  

"we merely declare that testing these ideas against reality is the only way to determine their validity as knowledge."

This, I agree with.  With the caveat that much of this valid knowledge regards issues that can not be current tested using current tools for measurement.  To discard such knowledge is somewhat like discarding a theory about the earth being round back before they could measure such things.  And further, there is some proposed knowledge that can not be verified by human methods as they fall outside the scope of our power.  Pretending that the limit of our power is the limit of actual knowledge or fact is ridiculous.  If there is a reality that we can't measure with our tools, does that cause the reality to not exist?  That's just silly.  

"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."

Wow… now there is a big can of worms.  

"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."

Haha!  What an amazingly loaded statement.  Let's see here, what can I unpack…

1.   Religious systems are simplistic.  (Tell that to my cousin getting his doctorate in theology!  Look at the library in any seminary!  Simple?  Please.)
2.   Apparently the religious community isn't pulling their weight when it comes to the "painstaking effort" involved with understanding the world and proposing solutions to its problems.  Yeah.  "Turn the other cheek" and "Love your neighbor" were real setbacks to humanity, huh?  "Do not kill", "Do not commit adultery" "Do not steal".  Real progress halters there.  "An eye for and eye and the whole world goes blind."  Damn that Gandhi and his retro ways!  Look...  Ignoring half of the issues that come with being human does not constitute "painstaking effort".  It's just ignoring half the equation.  THAT seems simplistic to me.

"The here and now physical world of our senses is the world that is relevant for our ethical concerns"

I think loving others and moral behavior in this context is a very beautiful thing.  Unspoiled by the carrot or the stick of heaven and hell.  Sadly, pompous, self congratulation usually takes their place.

"We base our ethical decisions and ideals upon human needs and concerns as opposed to the alleged needs and concerns of supposed deities"  


Is the author proposing that we humans have no religious needs?

"we are expressing our willingness to do the hard thinking and work that moral living in a complex world entails."

Again with the idea that religious people don't do any hard work in ethical thinking.  It is humans that desire simplistic answers to complex problems, not religious frameworks that demand them.  Humans working within a religious framework will use religious terminology to oversimplify problems.  Humans working within a humanistic framework will use humanistic terminology to oversimplify problems.  

" There appears to be no ultimate beginning or end to this process."

Wait… if the universe is expanding…  And I follow the process backwards…  don't I end up at a beginning?  




Ultimately, I think I share the author's concern about people who use their beliefs to impose their will on others.  However, I don't see the abandonment of religion as a silver bullet to kill this beast.  It (imposing beliefs) is what humans do.  Secular humans do it with the same verve and tenacity as religious ones.  They simply substitute adjectives and terms while carrying about the same activities.  


Religion is made a scapegoat because it has been the justification for so many evils.  I have little doubt that nationality, race, philosophy, politics or any other difference in people would be used as justification for the same evil acts if religion did not exist.  

P.S.  I really like how #8 turned into an emoticon with sunglasses.
"Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions." ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

SteveS

#17
Quote from: "Scrybe"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.
Sadly, I agree.  And I admit there is difficulty with moving these ideals to practical reality.  In fact, these difficulties are beyond my ability to do anything with except use them to guide my lifestyle (I'm not running for public office - yuck).  Lead by example, if you will.  

I don't know, I guess I just think it's a better starting point than invoking an absolute moral, since if the absolute doesn't exist, then we are just fighting over which interpretation of whatever-it-is-that-is-supposedly-absolute is going to carry the day.  The winner then invokes their "absolute" interpretation "absolutely".

I'm trying to invoke a compromise arrived at through reasonable rationality.  Could be impossible.  Oh well, as an atheist I'm already very well used to holding a minority opinion   :lol:  .

Scrybe

#18
Quote from: "SteveS"Oh well, as an atheist I'm already very well used to holding a minority opinion   :lol:  .

Try being a universalist in an evangelical church!   :lol:
"Man's mind, once stretched by a new idea, never regains its original dimensions." ~ Oliver Wendell Holmes

SteveS

#19
Quote from: "Scrybe"Try being a universalist in an evangelical church!
Lol, sounds tricky.  It guess we're both used to sitting in the same sort of boat.