Secular humanism

[Prometheus]

Any thoughts on this? This link seems to provide a fairly accurate definition of the philosphy(As I've come to udnerstand it at least.). <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism>

I did an oral report on this my first semester of college in honors. It was a lot of fun. I was in a class with only 2 other secularists and about 30 christians/other religious groups though. The debate got pretty fierce over what seems to me to be a very uncontraversial subject. The basis of our philosophy is this, there is no afterlife or god. It is our duty as human beings to make this world as livable and just as possible(See that everyone is healthy, fed, warm, and free of oppressive forces. The world is not in such a state at present.). We should each endeaver every day to build the best possible world and be kind and tolarant toward each other. Theres another branch of this philosophy called religious humanism which could easily accommodate you theists out there(No one gets left out. ).

[SSY]

From the way you describe it sounds nice, certainly something that would improve the world overall.

Of course the problem comes when we try to decide what is best for people.

[Prometheus]

Yes that would be a problem. Also the problem of who carries authority(To make political decisions and enforce laws.) would be a problem. Humans at present are easily corruptable so long as they have something to gain. I don't really think it should be up to any "state" to decide what's best for us. They might for example decide we all need to go to church everyday to save our souls(America is like 75 percent christian I think.) That would be terrible. There are so many different view points out there as far as what makes a person happy.

I see humanism as more of a personal philosophy than as any kind of world order. It's a way for me to, while aknowledging nihilism, still have a purpose in life. There's nothing wrong with doing good based on compassion toward your fellow man instead of doing good because of fear from outside forces.(Government and gods)

[AlP]

I count myself as a Humanist. I'm a card holding member of the American Humanist Association. But I don't see Humanism as a philosophy. Rather I see the AHA as a secular organization with some teeth. They do things that I like and I support them. Philosophically right now the nihilist position appeals to me. As a philosophy, Humanism fails Hume's guillotine in my opinion.

[Prometheus]

Cool. I'd never seen that Hume's Guilletine thing before. I like it. It seems to be saying that if you can't get from point A to point B(B being the philosophies ideal state of existence. And A being our present state.) that the philosophy is useless. Also that it is impossible to have any accurate knowledge about how point B would actually function(Because such a state has never existed to be observed. I could easily see there being huge flaws in such an untested state of reality that could only be revealed once it was created. I refer you to the soviet union. Socialism sounds great on paper but in practice it quikly becomes a sort of despotism/oligarchy masquerading as a socialist state.). Is this what you were getting at? It's basically an opposition to wishful thinking or dreaming of an ideal reality that may not be so ideal in the flesh. You've taught me something here.

I do have something to add in opposition to this arguement assuming I have interpreted it correctly. How can any new idea be created if we are not free to dream? A certain amount of "intuitive leaping" is required to create anything new(Like an invention, new science or concept, or even a sprirtual revelation(Not that I'd ever have one ).). You seem to be saying that humanism fails as a philosophy because none of us has yet achieved or observed it? Or is it because a state has never been reached in which all or most of the population has achieved such a state of reasoning/understanding/being? This state would seem to be to the mutual benefit of all. I stated before though that the goal(As I understand it) was not to benefit oneself or create any such state but instead to give purpose to someone who otherwise has none(A secularist like me for example). I too am more of a nihilist, I just think that humanism as a philosophy holds some possibility for me in the future.

I've been flipflopping today on such issues. I never seem to "believe" any one thing for long. Maybe that's why I'm not a theist. Rofl.

[AlP]

Cool. I'd never seen that Hume's Guilletine thing before. I like it. It seems to be saying that if you can't get from point A to point B(B being the philosophies ideal state of existence. And A being our present state.) that the philosophy is useless.

The people who currently hold their own particular philosophical viewpoint exist. Their philosophies, however, do not exist. Philosophy cannot exist. It is abstract. It is simply part of our conceptual thinking and our language.

Also that it is impossible to have any accurate knowledge about how point B would actually function(Because such a state has never existed to be observed. I could easily see there being huge flaws in such an untested state of reality that could only be revealed once it was created. I refer you to the soviet union. Socialism sounds great on paper but in practice it quikly becomes a sort of despotism/oligarchy masquerading as a socialist state.). Is this what you were getting at?

I mean that on the basis of observation of what exists, justification of action does not logically follow. My action is arbitrary and does not need justification. It is limited only by what is presently possible. My nihilist philosophy is much like atheism in that it frees me from delusion but gives me no guidance as to what I should do.

I do have something to add in opposition to this arguement assuming I have interpreted it correctly. How can any new idea be created if we are not free to dream?

We are free to dream. An action being unjustifiable does not make it impossible.

You seem to be saying that humanism fails as a philosophy because none of us has yet achieved or observed it?

I mean that I am unsatisfied with it as a philosophy because I am unaware of any convincing argument that justifies it from existence or possibility. I am satisfied with it as a movement because it appeals to my arbitrary likes.

I too am more of a nihilist, I just think that humanism as a philosophy holds some possibility for me in the future.

That is my view also, except I replace "philosophy" with "movement".

[Prometheus]

Makes a lot of sense. Sorry it took me so long to reply. So the Guillitine if I am understanding is a nihilistic concept. There is no "should be" in much the same way as presently upheld morals(Thou shalt not kill, etc) have no real substance(They just happen to be the best way we have come up with to regulate society in such a way as to inhibit violence. They have passed a sort of "natural selection" because they allow us as a culture to thrive and dominate other cultures(Look at how easily we justify killing in war and through executions. Its the same act as murder I believe. Our morals are hypocritical.).).

From what you've said, no idea or philosophy can "pass" the guilitine test. All of them are abstract just as our very thoughts at this moment are.(Everything we think is a composite of symbols which we believe that we understand. These symbols themselves too are abstract representations of reality.)

So each of us (Me and you at least) feel compelled to act in a humanistic manner(So long as it doesn't inconvenience us too much. There seems to be some internal threshold here.). You're saying that we don't need any justification for our actions other than that we feel both compelled to perform them(By some compassion/death anxiety function evolution has bred into us as a mechanism to help our culture/community thrive. This seems to explain why we don't consider killing people in war or through execution murder. We have no reason(From an evolutionist standpoint) to protect/help people who are outside our group(Even people we execute are no longer part of the community as they have been outcast).) and rewarded once they are done(A feeling of benevolence/selfworth/selfrighteousness).

I would agree. This has led me to understand something hopefull/hopeless about our species. We seem to be constantly evolving and culturally adapting in ways that preserve our community. Perhaps we are doomed to war with other cultural entities(Ethnic groups and/or nations). It seems that this is part of natures design and actually furthers the survivability of our species. Hitler may have had it right. We all seem compelled to help individuals according to how close they are to us(Think about it. We put oursleves/offspring first. Then our family. Then our local community. Then our nation. And lastly the world.(There are off course finer points to be made here but you get the idea.)).

Maybe since morality is a delusion(We do feel pity/compassion toward all humans but we do so in order of those humans' relationship to us.) it makes perfect since for us to want to destroy/displace other cultures. I've been feeling this moral outrage about the way our world works. Nature has encouraged us to live this way. Those individuals and cultures who have been truly altruistic(Toward all humans equally) were less fit than us(They hypotheticaly gave resources unselfishly to any who seemed to need them which would seem to lead to their downfall.) which is why we thrive now. Maybe the most progressive thing for us to do(Assuming we want the species as a whole to eventually reach some sort of prosperous state(I personally seem to be compelled to see this as a world where every individual is happy. Such a world could not exist for long though unless all stressors(Environment and other species) remained constant. We know that such a thing will never happen because the universe is in a constantly increasing state of entropy.)) is to let nature take its course. It seems we'll never have utopia as such a state would soon lead to our complacent demise.

I don't feel bad anymore about starving/oppressed people in the world. The universe(God to you theists) demands they live in such a state and there seems to be nothing we can do about it(despite the fact that we are compelled to do so because they are human.). War, pain, suffering, and oblivion are inevitable and our lives have no purpose. Why does this make me feel happy? Only by simply acting on my personal desires and fulfilling them as much as possible will I be able to attain anything close to happiness/contentment(We are simply very "aware" animals). Our natural tendencies to put our own kind first make the most sense.

[AlP]

Hey Prometheus. There's a reply coming. I've had a few beers though so I'll wait until tomorrow to respond.

[AlP]

So the Guillitine if I am understanding is a nihilistic concept.

Hume's Guillotine is relevant to nihilism. But it applies outside of nihilism as well. Hume was not a nihilist.

There is no "should be" in much the same way as presently upheld morals(Thou shalt not kill, etc) have no real substance(They just happen to be the best way we have come up with to regulate society in such a way as to inhibit violence. They have passed a sort of "natural selection" because they allow us as a culture to thrive and dominate other cultures(Look at how easily we justify killing in war and through executions. Its the same act as murder I believe. Our morals are hypocritical.).).

Yeah I think I agree with that. There is a certain amount of "design" in ethics and there is an element of the evolution of humans as social animals and perhaps even the evolution of ethical memes.

From what you've said, no idea or philosophy can "pass" the guilitine test. All of them are abstract just as our very thoughts at this moment are.(Everything we think is a composite of symbols which we believe that we understand. These symbols themselves too are abstract representations of reality.)

An idea can "pass" the test if it doesn't justify a "should" on the basis of an "is" or in my opinion a "can". Atheism (as the position that deities do not exist) and nihilism (as the position that values do not exist) both "pass". Humanism does not.

So each of us (Me and you at least) feel compelled to act in a humanistic manner(So long as it doesn't inconvenience us too much. There seems to be some internal threshold here.). You're saying that we don't need any justification for our actions other than that we feel both compelled to perform them(By some compassion/death anxiety function evolution has bred into us as a mechanism to help our culture/community thrive. This seems to explain why we don't consider killing people in war or through execution murder. We have no reason(From an evolutionist standpoint) to protect/help people who are outside our group(Even people we execute are no longer part of the community as they have been outcast).) and rewarded once they are done(A feeling of benevolence/selfworth/selfrighteousness).

Mostly agreed. Though evolution is a process centered around genes rather than individuals or groups. Natural selection has no "interest" in culture or community. I recommend Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene.

I would agree. This has led me to understand something hopefull/hopeless about our species. We seem to be constantly evolving and culturally adapting in ways that preserve our community. Perhaps we are doomed to war with other cultural entities(Ethnic groups and/or nations). It seems that this is part of natures design and actually furthers the survivability of our species. Hitler may have had it right. We all seem compelled to help individuals according to how close they are to us(Think about it. We put oursleves/offspring first. Then our family. Then our local community. Then our nation. And lastly the world.(There are off course finer points to be made here but you get the idea.)).

We are not doomed to war. That is fatalism.

Nature's design! Hold on there... Nature is largely undesigned. And the parts that are designed are designed by humans and perhaps some other existent intelligent creatures.

Hitler may have thought he was right. But do you? I don't. See moral relativism.

Maybe since morality is a delusion(We do feel pity/compassion toward all humans but we do so in order of those humans' relationship to us.) it makes perfect since for us to want to destroy/displace other cultures. I've been feeling this moral outrage about the way our world works. Nature has encouraged us to live this way. Those individuals and cultures who have been truly altruistic(Toward all humans equally) were less fit than us(They hypotheticaly gave resources unselfishly to any who seemed to need them which would seem to lead to their downfall.) which is why we thrive now.

Nature does not encourage. It has no motive.

Again, it is not individuals and cultures that are less fit. Natural selection works at the level of individual genes.

Maybe the most progressive thing for us to do(Assuming we want the species as a whole to eventually reach some sort of prosperous state(I personally seem to be compelled to see this as a world where every individual is happy. Such a world could not exist for long though unless all stressors(Environment and other species) remained constant. We know that such a thing will never happen because the universe is in a constantly increasing state of entropy.)) is to let nature take its course. It seems we'll never have utopia as such a state would soon lead to our complacent demise.

I'm not following you here.

I don't feel bad anymore about starving/oppressed people in the world. The universe(God to you theists) demands they live in such a state and there seems to be nothing we can do about it(despite the fact that we are compelled to do so because they are human.). War, pain, suffering, and oblivion are inevitable and our lives have no purpose. Why does this make me feel happy? Only by simply acting on my personal desires and fulfilling them as much as possible will I be able to attain anything close to happiness/contentment(We are simply very "aware" animals). Our natural tendencies to put our own kind first make the most sense.

I feel bad about the starving and oppressed people of the world. I attempt to do something about it (though not much). But I do not justify it with philosophy. It can be explained partly with evolution (e.g. of altruism). There is surely an element of vestigial morality in my case. And there is also an element of whim.

I, personally, am fulfilled by seeing the world as it actually exists and realizing what is possible, predicting outcomes and then taking action accordingly.

[Prometheus]

Mostly agreed. Though evolution is a process centered around genes rather than individuals or groups. Natural selection has no "interest" in culture or community. I recommend Richard Dawkin's The Selfish Gene.

I agree. This was the point I was trying to make. The two factors, evolution(genes) and cultural adaptation(Memes) work indapendant of each other. I believe thet each of these factors have a very powerful effect on our species and its ability to "evolve/adapt" to our constantly changing environment. Thanks for mentioning "memes." I'd never heard of them before(Or knew that others were aware of them.) but have been postulating their existence through my own observations. I've always thought of such traits as vital to our continued existence as civilized beings(Imagine not having the "meme" that we should not kill one another. Society would collapse).

We are not doomed to war. That is fatalism.

Nature's design! Hold on there... Nature is largely undesigned. And the parts that are designed are designed by humans and perhaps some other existent intelligent creatures.

Hitler may have thought he was right. But do you? I don't. See moral relativism.

I disagree about us not being doomed to war. How to you propose we free our selves from war? I am not a fatalist, I just believe that our species and environment are such that we can not(As best as I can reason) be shed of war(Unless of course the stressors within our environment changed and/or we as a species evolved in such away as to get along without war. It is currently the only thing keeping us from overpopulating I believe and I just can't see pacifism ever working in the world we see today. If a nation demilitarized another nation would surely overrun their borders and take what is theirs.). As to natures design, you  assume a lot of meaning which I did not intend from one word. I never implied that nature was "designed" that would seem to make me a theist which I am not. Let us just say that I believe the system as it exists has guided our species toward its present state of existence(I'm not saying that there is a conscious entity or "designer" behind this. Its just a sum of probable occurances.). When I say nature's design, I am refering to the fact that environmental factors(Like temperature, available food sources, and the presence of other species) have a profound influence on how a species evolves. And as to Hitler: I'm a Nihilist. I don't believe in right or wrong. On a side note I personally don't agree with what Hitler did. I've just come to see that his actions were no more evil than our own(I'm putting nihilism aside here to reason as if morals had substance and/or absolution.). What Hitler did seems to me a more blatant form of our own daily actions. Each of us looks out first for ourselves then for our family then for our community and so on. We do care about life, all life, we just tend to prioritize the importance of that life with respect to ourselves. Think about it. Somewhere someone is starving and today I'm sure each of us has eaten more than was neccessary for survival. If we were truly altruistic creatures this would not be so. It seems to me that it would have been impossable for our species to have evolved any other way. If we were true altruists, we would have died out long ago. I'm simply saying(Not that Hitler's actions were "righteous") but that his actions were pragmatic, to be expected, and no different from those of our nation and each of us as individuals when one looks at the sum of such actions.(Look at what we did to Japanese citizens after Pearl Harber and how we treated the native americans. Our history books look sadly back at these occurances but when we get to Hitler suddenly we're on a moral crusade rofl.)

Nature does not encourage. It has no motive.

Nature does encourage and it does have a motive(To create the most fit species possible). I agree that nature isn't some sort of conscious entity with a rational motive. I never implied anything like this. But the realities of this system have led ineveitably to our creation. The creation of a species fit and capable of prospering despite and often because of the factors we are forced to confront.

Again, it is not individuals and cultures that are less fit. Natural selection works at the level of individual genes.

You yourself just made reference to Memes. Think about it. What if you lived in a purely pacifistic culture and I lived in a very warlike one. What if we both inhabited the same river valley and were competing for use of the fertile land within said valley. My culture would either kill off or enslave yours. Natural selection encourages the most fit species/group to survive. I'm sure this isn't exactly what Darwin meant by the term but the principle still applies perfectly.

I'm not following you here.

I'm just saying utopia is in its very nature impossible. Why eat if your not hungry? Why innovate when your perfectly content with your world as it is? If our world somehow ceased to change this would be fine but I believe that without want/suffering/death we would be unable to adapt to changes in our environment and would soon die out.

I feel bad about the starving and oppressed people of the world. I attempt to do something about it (though not much). But I do not justify it with philosophy. It can be explained partly with evolution (e.g. of altruism). There is surely an element of vestigial morality in my case. And there is also an element of whim.

I, personally, am fulfilled by seeing the world as it actually exists and realizing what is possible, predicting outcomes and then taking action accordingly.

This is maddeningly parallell to my own beliefs and the subject of this thread. I agree with you completely. I just try to understand more fully the factors which have caused our current system and species to come into being. I'm basically using science at once to justify/explain our lack of true absolute altruism and the presence of our semi-altrustic urges.(I'm not justifying anything with just philosophy. The philosophy is just a manifestation of urges which are already present in each of us.) We care, just not enough to cause our families and communities to go without.

There is surely an element of vestigial morality in my case. And there is also an element of whim.

I could spend paragraphs discussing this(In fact I just have.). I believe this "morality" is just an adaptation which has made our species more fit. We care about all humans because nature encourages us to do what we can to increase the survivability of members of our own species. Again we just focus more of members of said species which are more closely linked to our own genetic sequences.

[AlP]

Hey prometheus. I think I understand what you're saying and I think you understand what I'm staying. I'm rather surprised you agree with me. Keep thinking =). Nihilism doesn't happen in two days. Think it through. We'll talk soon. And I hope we never meet across a river valley!

Edit:
I thoroughly recommend Twilight of the Idols by Friedrich Nietzsche. It's an introduction to his philosophy. There's an English translation here.

[Prometheus]

Hey prometheus. I think I understand what you're saying and I think you understand what I'm staying. I'm rather surprised you agree with me. Keep thinking =). Nihilism doesn't happen in two days. Think it through. We'll talk soon. And I hope we never meet across a river valley!

 

I've been nihilistic for a few years now. I still think its possible, while aknowledging that our morals and virtues are social delusions, to do humanistic things simply because we feel compelled to do so(I'm not talking about complete altruism here. I just try to do what I can without inconveniencing myself to any great extent.). My beliefs seem to involve a lot of "nothing." Agnostic means without knowledge and nihilism means the belief in nothing lol. If someone asks us what we believe/think we should just say, "Oh, nothing."

I just saw your edit, I'll definately give that a read.

[Prometheus]

I just clicked the link. It was Nietzche's philosophies that origionally led me to nihilism. I haven't read the book through yet, just a few excerpts here or there.

[AlP]

I've been nihilistic for a few years now. I still think its possible, while aknowledging that our morals and virtues are social delusions, to do humanistic things simply because we feel compelled to do so(I'm not talking about complete altruism here. I just try to do what I can without inconveniencing myself to any great extent.).

Yeah I agree. Your choice of language was well thought out. You said "we feel compelled" as opposed to, for example, "the reason why". But I think even your compulsion idea is still too strong for me. Just to be clear, I don't need reasons. There are no reasons. Reasons are abstract and at best conceptual. I am quite happy with my "reasons" being completely arbitrary. I am not compelled. Nature itself cannot compel. I will do what is possible until I die and then there will be nothing.

Edit: Apologies. I read this again and thought I might have come across as having rejected causality. I have not.