Secular Humanism
21 May 2009, 12:51 pm
joetherocket wrote:
If you look at, secular humansinm is basically good old Calvanism with a twist. That is to say, the secular humanists today are nothing more than Protostants comming from the Progressive era. Secular Humanism is just the political label. Many secular humanists are just your everyday hum drum mainstream political people trying to push an agenda. Hardly anything resembling the word "free thinker" as I am familiar with the term. It is a term which many people use who are not intellectually honest with themselves.
The only downside I see with secular humanism is blandness. Attending a secular humanist meeting is like watching pain dry.
ruveyn
21 May 2009, 1:14 pm
ruveyn wrote:
joetherocket wrote:
If you look at, secular humansinm is basically good old Calvanism with a twist. That is to say, the secular humanists today are nothing more than Protostants comming from the Progressive era. Secular Humanism is just the political label. Many secular humanists are just your everyday hum drum mainstream political people trying to push an agenda. Hardly anything resembling the word "free thinker" as I am familiar with the term. It is a term which many people use who are not intellectually honest with themselves.
The only downside I see with secular humanism is blandness. Attending a secular humanist meeting is like watching pain dry.
ruveyn
I know it's a typo but it's a good one.
21 May 2009, 2:03 pm
Sand wrote:
joetherocket wrote:
Sand wrote:
joetherocket wrote:
Secular Humanism makes no sense to me. It is people who ditched religion and replaced it with various other forms of mysticism and spooks, and with less logic usually, they just don't realize it. Either that, or it is a code word for certain groups of scheming type people who have an agenda to push forward (as with any other form of religion and mysticism). That is my opinion of many secular humanists anyway.
I am an athiest, but anymore I use the term "non-spiritual" to distiguish myself from secular humanists who use that term. Kind of how most "anarchists" actually still promote government, most secular humanists still promote religion.
I am an athiest, but anymore I use the term "non-spiritual" to distiguish myself from secular humanists who use that term. Kind of how most "anarchists" actually still promote government, most secular humanists still promote religion.
Atheism does not necessarily imply secular humanism, it merely rejects supernatural beliefs. You can be an atheist mass murderer and not a secular humanist. Religious people use a dogma which indicates that the laws of social behavior derive from supernatural commands. Secular humanists have agreed upon a group of social behaviors necessary for a decent and beneficial society based on human needs and desires and environmental considerations and can be influenced by psychological and sociological studies to modify their tenets. Some religious people seem to believe decent human behavior requires a supernatural power which implies that humans are inherently mutually destructive. Secular humanists do not accept this and history has yet to justify this hope.
If you look at, secular humansinm is basically good old Calvanism with a twist. That is to say, the secular humanists today are nothing more than Protostants comming from the Progressive era. Secular Humanism is just the political label. Many secular humanists are just your everyday hum drum mainstream political people trying to push an agenda. Hardly anything resembling the word "free thinker" as I am familiar with the term. It is a term which many people use who are not intellectually honest with themselves.
I am not particularly familiar with Calvinism but my general impression is that it is a theological version of determinism where no one has any hope of influencing their life events and is condemned from birth to be damned or saved. Secular humanism seems to be a system of man conceived interpersonal regulations for reasonable and decent society. I do not see the comparison and I cannot see how intellectual integrity is damaged by this concept.
http://mises.org/story/2225#2
Scince I am lazy, this is a long article (by an atheist) that hits on my feelings somewhat. There is much material in the article that is irrelevant to this conversation, but fortunatly you can just click on the two relevant chapters and skip the rest ("postmillennialism pietism" and the gradual secularization of "postmillennial piety")
As far as "decent society" is concerned.. whose decent society? What makes it a decent society? On what grounds does the phrase "decent society" stand on? If you want to say "scientific socialism" just say the word. It is much more honest and less decieving a word than "secular humanism"
21 May 2009, 2:17 pm
joetherocket wrote:
Sand wrote:
joetherocket wrote:
Sand wrote:
joetherocket wrote:
Secular Humanism makes no sense to me. It is people who ditched religion and replaced it with various other forms of mysticism and spooks, and with less logic usually, they just don't realize it. Either that, or it is a code word for certain groups of scheming type people who have an agenda to push forward (as with any other form of religion and mysticism). That is my opinion of many secular humanists anyway.
I am an athiest, but anymore I use the term "non-spiritual" to distiguish myself from secular humanists who use that term. Kind of how most "anarchists" actually still promote government, most secular humanists still promote religion.
I am an athiest, but anymore I use the term "non-spiritual" to distiguish myself from secular humanists who use that term. Kind of how most "anarchists" actually still promote government, most secular humanists still promote religion.
Atheism does not necessarily imply secular humanism, it merely rejects supernatural beliefs. You can be an atheist mass murderer and not a secular humanist. Religious people use a dogma which indicates that the laws of social behavior derive from supernatural commands. Secular humanists have agreed upon a group of social behaviors necessary for a decent and beneficial society based on human needs and desires and environmental considerations and can be influenced by psychological and sociological studies to modify their tenets. Some religious people seem to believe decent human behavior requires a supernatural power which implies that humans are inherently mutually destructive. Secular humanists do not accept this and history has yet to justify this hope.
If you look at, secular humansinm is basically good old Calvanism with a twist. That is to say, the secular humanists today are nothing more than Protostants comming from the Progressive era. Secular Humanism is just the political label. Many secular humanists are just your everyday hum drum mainstream political people trying to push an agenda. Hardly anything resembling the word "free thinker" as I am familiar with the term. It is a term which many people use who are not intellectually honest with themselves.
I am not particularly familiar with Calvinism but my general impression is that it is a theological version of determinism where no one has any hope of influencing their life events and is condemned from birth to be damned or saved. Secular humanism seems to be a system of man conceived interpersonal regulations for reasonable and decent society. I do not see the comparison and I cannot see how intellectual integrity is damaged by this concept.
http://mises.org/story/2225#2
Scince I am lazy, this is a long article (by an atheist) that hits on my feelings somewhat. There is much material in the article that is irrelevant to this conversation, but fortunatly you can just click on the two relevant chapters and skip the rest ("postmillennialism pietism" and the gradual secularization of "postmillennial piety")
As far as "decent society" is concerned.. whose decent society? What makes it a decent society? On what grounds does the phrase "decent society" stand on? If you want to say "scientific socialism" just say the word. It is much more honest and less decieving a word than "secular humanism"
I'm not sure what you think decent behavior is but for me it means to be kind to each other, help each other out in trouble, do not interfere in personal matters, do not torture, rape or kill and so on. I didn't think that was particularly obscure. Secular means not supernatural. That is not necessarily scientific. I have never considered socialism the only way to have regard for fellow human beings. Your obviously irritated attitude seems quite inappropriate.
21 May 2009, 2:40 pm
Sand wrote:
joetherocket wrote:
http://mises.org/story/2225#2
Scince I am lazy, this is a long article (by an atheist) that hits on my feelings somewhat. There is much material in the article that is irrelevant to this conversation, but fortunatly you can just click on the two relevant chapters and skip the rest ("postmillennialism pietism" and the gradual secularization of "postmillennial piety")
As far as "decent society" is concerned.. whose decent society? What makes it a decent society? On what grounds does the phrase "decent society" stand on? If you want to say "scientific socialism" just say the word. It is much more honest and less decieving a word than "secular humanism"
Scince I am lazy, this is a long article (by an atheist) that hits on my feelings somewhat. There is much material in the article that is irrelevant to this conversation, but fortunatly you can just click on the two relevant chapters and skip the rest ("postmillennialism pietism" and the gradual secularization of "postmillennial piety")
As far as "decent society" is concerned.. whose decent society? What makes it a decent society? On what grounds does the phrase "decent society" stand on? If you want to say "scientific socialism" just say the word. It is much more honest and less decieving a word than "secular humanism"
I'm not sure what you think decent behavior is but for me it means to be kind to each other, help each other out in trouble, do not interfere in personal matters, do not torture, rape or kill and so on. I didn't think that was particularly obscure. Secular means not supernatural. That is not necessarily scientific. I have never considered socialism the only way to have regard for fellow human beings. Your obviously irritated attitude seems quite inappropriate.
I think secular humanism usually is given a left-wing connotation. I suppose this isn't necessarily so, as I think Michael Shermer is considered a secular humanist.
Secular humanism is aimed as being scientific though, and if you disagree, then you haven't read the tenets that Henriksson put forward at the very beginning. If one sees outright focus upon science as less viable for human societies, a position I think economist Friedrich Hayek, who joetherocket might appreciate, put forward in many of his writings. Hayek considered society to be built upon irrational things, on unquantifiable bits of knowledge, where actually social norms that could not be questioned were essential, and where people could not be fully understood to rationally manage how they should be put together in society(leading Hayek to the idea of emergent order instead scientific management and a rejection of the more analytical neoclassical school of economic thought), whereas secular humanism tries to remove the possibility of these irrational norms by promoting a questioning of all things and to some extent sides with the reducibility of all knowledge to a scientific sort of knowledge.
21 May 2009, 2:49 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Sand wrote:
joetherocket wrote:
http://mises.org/story/2225#2
Scince I am lazy, this is a long article (by an atheist) that hits on my feelings somewhat. There is much material in the article that is irrelevant to this conversation, but fortunatly you can just click on the two relevant chapters and skip the rest ("postmillennialism pietism" and the gradual secularization of "postmillennial piety")
As far as "decent society" is concerned.. whose decent society? What makes it a decent society? On what grounds does the phrase "decent society" stand on? If you want to say "scientific socialism" just say the word. It is much more honest and less decieving a word than "secular humanism"
Scince I am lazy, this is a long article (by an atheist) that hits on my feelings somewhat. There is much material in the article that is irrelevant to this conversation, but fortunatly you can just click on the two relevant chapters and skip the rest ("postmillennialism pietism" and the gradual secularization of "postmillennial piety")
As far as "decent society" is concerned.. whose decent society? What makes it a decent society? On what grounds does the phrase "decent society" stand on? If you want to say "scientific socialism" just say the word. It is much more honest and less decieving a word than "secular humanism"
I'm not sure what you think decent behavior is but for me it means to be kind to each other, help each other out in trouble, do not interfere in personal matters, do not torture, rape or kill and so on. I didn't think that was particularly obscure. Secular means not supernatural. That is not necessarily scientific. I have never considered socialism the only way to have regard for fellow human beings. Your obviously irritated attitude seems quite inappropriate.
I think secular humanism usually is given a left-wing connotation. I suppose this isn't necessarily so, as I think Michael Shermer is considered a secular humanist.
Secular humanism is aimed as being scientific though, and if you disagree, then you haven't read the tenets that Henriksson put forward at the very beginning. If one sees outright focus upon science as less viable for human societies, a position I think economist Friedrich Hayek, who joetherocket might appreciate, put forward in many of his writings. Hayek considered society to be built upon irrational things, on unquantifiable bits of knowledge, where actually social norms that could not be questioned were essential, and where people could not be fully understood to rationally manage how they should be put together in society(leading Hayek to the idea of emergent order instead scientific management and a rejection of the more analytical neoclassical school of economic thought), whereas secular humanism tries to remove the possibility of these irrational norms by promoting a questioning of all things and to some extent sides with the reducibility of all knowledge to a scientific sort of knowledge.
Thanks for the explanation. I assumed it was a term not formalized but merely defined by the two words that composed it. I am not sure how precise science can enter such a generality without some sort of formal discipline so the concept seems vague to me.
21 May 2009, 3:03 pm
Sand wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. I assumed it was a term not formalized but merely defined by the two words that composed it. I am not sure how precise science can enter such a generality without some sort of formal discipline so the concept seems vague to me.
Ah, not at all. There are even manifestos for the terms, often promoting the application of science to the general workings of society, and these manifestos generally have a left-wing connotation in what they promote as well. joetherocket isn't wrong to tie this to the progressive movement, as the manifestos seem to tie into this movement.
To go even further, the first humanist manifesto is pretty openly socialist.
"The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world."
If joetherocket likes Rothbard, then he will generally distrust secular humanism, as this idea is an expression of secular humanism being an ideological opponent of Rothbard's worldview and by association his own worldview.
21 May 2009, 4:07 pm
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Sand wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. I assumed it was a term not formalized but merely defined by the two words that composed it. I am not sure how precise science can enter such a generality without some sort of formal discipline so the concept seems vague to me.
Ah, not at all. There are even manifestos for the terms, often promoting the application of science to the general workings of society, and these manifestos generally have a left-wing connotation in what they promote as well. joetherocket isn't wrong to tie this to the progressive movement, as the manifestos seem to tie into this movement.
To go even further, the first humanist manifesto is pretty openly socialist.
"The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world."
If joetherocket likes Rothbard, then he will generally distrust secular humanism, as this idea is an expression of secular humanism being an ideological opponent of Rothbard's worldview and by association his own worldview.
I suppose you gave a much better and more lucid description than I did. When I was refereing to the term "secular humanism" I only refer to it in a practicle sense, not the more academic one. In other words, secular humanism as it is known to most people. For example if I were to use the word "liberal", it would mean left wing. "Libertarianism" would refer more to US Libertarian Party types (not the way the word was first used in its origen). I use the word "time" in a linear sense. I use the words "I" or "self" in a Cartesian manner usually. These terms are used because it is just more practicle to use them in anything other than an academic discussion, in my ever changeing opinion.
And on a personal note, while I love the Austrian view of economics and do have some respect for Rothbard (mostly as a revisionist historian) I am probably more akin to a Max Stirner type of guy, who for the purpose of this discussion, said the woderful line "our atheists are such pious people".
21 May 2009, 4:27 pm
joetherocket wrote:
Secular Humanism makes no sense to me. It is people who ditched religion and replaced it with various other forms of mysticism and spooks, and with less logic usually, they just don't realize it. Either that, or it is a code word for certain groups of scheming type people who have an agenda to push forward (as with any other form of religion and mysticism). That is my opinion of many secular humanists anyway.
Yes, that is your opinion. It is rather different than how the word is generally used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
21 May 2009, 5:23 pm
monty wrote:
joetherocket wrote:
Secular Humanism makes no sense to me. It is people who ditched religion and replaced it with various other forms of mysticism and spooks, and with less logic usually, they just don't realize it. Either that, or it is a code word for certain groups of scheming type people who have an agenda to push forward (as with any other form of religion and mysticism). That is my opinion of many secular humanists anyway.
Yes, that is your opinion. It is rather different than how the word is generally used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
If you can show me how I think the word is genrally percieved by the mainstream; that is essentially a word associated with more left wing dogma, I will renig, I am not married to that idea.
However: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
Just looking at the word "humanism" you can automaticaly see the mysticism and agenda machine gears turning. It is a political term, which in my opinion already makes it semi-obnoxious and inherently belligerant. Political postions divide and harm by their strong desire to centralize.
No matter what terms an atheist uses, or what propaganda he tries to sell off all, or how sweet and humane the voice sounds, all he can say is "might makes right" and this is the way we should all live because "I" feel it is the best way to do so. If not the person is no longer an atheist and a spiritual being.
21 May 2009, 5:24 pm
monty wrote:
joetherocket wrote:
Secular Humanism makes no sense to me. It is people who ditched religion and replaced it with various other forms of mysticism and spooks, and with less logic usually, they just don't realize it. Either that, or it is a code word for certain groups of scheming type people who have an agenda to push forward (as with any other form of religion and mysticism). That is my opinion of many secular humanists anyway.
Yes, that is your opinion. It is rather different than how the word is generally used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
If you can show me how I think the word is genrally percieved by the mainstream; that is essentially a word associated with more left wing dogma, I will renig, I am not married to that idea.
However: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
Just looking at the word "humanism" you can automaticaly see the mysticism and agenda machine gears turning. It is a political term, which in my opinion already makes it semi-obnoxious and inherently belligerant. Political postions divide and harm by their strong desire to centralize.
No matter what terms an atheist uses, or what propaganda he tries to sell off all, or how sweet and humane the voice sounds, all he can say is "might makes right" and this is the way we should all live because "I" feel it is the best way to do so. If not the person is no longer an atheist and a spiritual being.
21 May 2009, 5:24 pm
monty wrote:
joetherocket wrote:
Secular Humanism makes no sense to me. It is people who ditched religion and replaced it with various other forms of mysticism and spooks, and with less logic usually, they just don't realize it. Either that, or it is a code word for certain groups of scheming type people who have an agenda to push forward (as with any other form of religion and mysticism). That is my opinion of many secular humanists anyway.
Yes, that is your opinion. It is rather different than how the word is generally used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
If you can show me how I think the word is genrally percieved by the mainstream; that is essentially a word associated with more left wing dogma, I will renig, I am not married to that idea.
However: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
Just looking at the word "humanism" you can automaticaly see the mysticism and agenda machine gears turning. It is a political term, which in my opinion already makes it semi-obnoxious and inherently belligerant. Political postions divide and harm by their strong desire to centralize.
No matter what terms an atheist uses, or what propaganda he tries to sell off all, or how sweet and humane the voice sounds, all he can say is "might makes right" and this is the way we should all live because "I" feel it is the best way to do so. If not the person is no longer an atheist and a spiritual being.
21 May 2009, 5:26 pm
monty wrote:
joetherocket wrote:
Secular Humanism makes no sense to me. It is people who ditched religion and replaced it with various other forms of mysticism and spooks, and with less logic usually, they just don't realize it. Either that, or it is a code word for certain groups of scheming type people who have an agenda to push forward (as with any other form of religion and mysticism). That is my opinion of many secular humanists anyway.
Yes, that is your opinion. It is rather different than how the word is generally used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
If you can show me how I think the word is genrally percieved by the mainstream; that is essentially a word associated with more left wing dogma, I will renig, I am not married to that idea.
However: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
Just looking at the word "humanism" you can automaticaly see the mysticism and agenda machine gears turning. It is a political term, which in my opinion already makes it semi-obnoxious and inherently belligerant. Political postions divide and harm by their strong desire to centralize.
No matter what terms an atheist uses, or what propaganda he tries to sell off all, or how sweet and humane the voice sounds, all he can say is "might makes right" and this is the way we should all live because "I" feel it is the best way to do so. If not the person is no longer an atheist and has some "geist" floating around in his head.
21 May 2009, 5:27 pm
monty wrote:
joetherocket wrote:
Secular Humanism makes no sense to me. It is people who ditched religion and replaced it with various other forms of mysticism and spooks, and with less logic usually, they just don't realize it. Either that, or it is a code word for certain groups of scheming type people who have an agenda to push forward (as with any other form of religion and mysticism). That is my opinion of many secular humanists anyway.
Yes, that is your opinion. It is rather different than how the word is generally used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
If you can show me how I think the word is genrally percieved by the mainstream; that is essentially a word associated with more left wing dogma, I will renig, I am not married to that idea.
However: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
Just looking at the word "humanism" you can automaticaly see the mysticism and agenda machine gears turning. It is a political term, which in my opinion already makes it semi-obnoxious and inherently belligerant. Political postions divide and harm by their strong desire to centralize.
No matter what terms an atheist uses, or what propaganda he tries to sell off all, or how sweet and humane the voice sounds, all he can say is "might makes right" and this is the way we should all live because "I" feel it is the best way to do so. If not the person is no longer an atheist and has some "geist" floating around in his head.
21 May 2009, 5:38 pm
joetherocket wrote:
I suppose you gave a much better and more lucid description than I did. When I was refereing to the term "secular humanism" I only refer to it in a practicle sense, not the more academic one. In other words, secular humanism as it is known to most people. For example if I were to use the word "liberal", it would mean left wing. "Libertarianism" would refer more to US Libertarian Party types (not the way the word was first used in its origen). I use the word "time" in a linear sense. I use the words "I" or "self" in a Cartesian manner usually. These terms are used because it is just more practicle to use them in anything other than an academic discussion, in my ever changeing opinion.
And on a personal note, while I love the Austrian view of economics and do have some respect for Rothbard (mostly as a revisionist historian) I am probably more akin to a Max Stirner type of guy, who for the purpose of this discussion, said the woderful line "our atheists are such pious people".
And on a personal note, while I love the Austrian view of economics and do have some respect for Rothbard (mostly as a revisionist historian) I am probably more akin to a Max Stirner type of guy, who for the purpose of this discussion, said the woderful line "our atheists are such pious people".
Well, it makes some sense to do this, but the academic point is often much more apparent to others I think, at least if they are unfamiliar with the practical sense.
Max Stirner? Good figure. Very wonderful line.
monty wrote:
Yes, that is your opinion. It is rather different than how the word is generally used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
Umm.... the issue is that he is a fan of Max Stirner, and from a Stirnerite perspective, that is what Secular Humanism would in fact be, even keeping in mind the uses of the term. So, you cannot just do the whole "bust a wiki" thing, as that is missing the point.
To help you aid why the ideas of Max Stirner would be important, a major issue is that Max Stirner was an egoist, considered to be a proponent of anarchism, and generally opposed to metaphysics and ethics, calling these ideas "spooks", a phraseology that joetherocket has maintained in describing secular humanism. Max Stirner also attacked liberalism, which most secular humanism is descended from/emulates, in terms of attacking the philosophical background for being too religious.
So, right, I can understand why you would attack this, but there is really nothing to attack, just a miscommunication of ideas. Before you just dismiss it as a crazy result of a certain ideology, his attacks can easily pin themselves on the assumptions found in the tenets, and that can also be found in the manifestos, particularly I and II, but not so much III.
21 May 2009, 6:30 pm
Sorry for the triple post, the "submit button" got stuck. Once again, I think you are right. More of a miscommunication. How often does that happen when people talk politics and ideologies? Too often I forget that people come from completley different grounds as far as the thinking process is concerned, so people keep talking over or under
everyone's head. It certainly can wreck havoc on any productive discussion, and in that regard, I think I may have been guilty.
