Secular Humanism

Post Reply New Topic

How do you figure? How is my personal belief that there is no god and that all faith should be put into your fellow man taking away from your freedom of expression? How is not putting all my faith in a deity that I don't believe to exist repressive?

I think what you're referring to isn't Secular Humanism, but is instead the lengths that some Secular Humanists go towards their idea of Political Correctness. I have no problem with people believing in their deities, I only have a problem when said people try to convince me that I'm wrong, or use my tax dollars to promote their religion, which I think is reasonable.

It is not - any society has basic ideas for its existences. Without upholding those ideas nearly unconditional, at least publicly, the society would loose its ideological bases. Therefore in our society, based on the ideology of Human Rights, those are so important that for their sake other ideas or ideologies can be suppressed.



If it would be that "matter of fact", why this idea does not appear in any legal or philosophical text prior enlightenment?

Each society has some ideas which this society declares as beyond questioning: The existence ant truth of the Christian religion in medieval times, the rightness of keeping slaves in antiquity, etc. Our western societies work on basis of the rights of the individual - therefore our laws must declare some issues beyond doubt. Therefore you find such wordings in the US-Declaration of independence, the French Declaration of Human Rights 1789 and similar text in the constitutions of western democracy.

Those text are human made and are the bases our society - but their are not of "divine" origin. Some contemporaries hold those early declarations as "monstrous", because those declarations do contradict the idealogical bases of the society of the Absolutism.



Declaring something for right - e.g. in the case of the US-Declaration 1776 is an act. In this case an act of High Treason against the rightful King George III. But even his right is based on Act, to be precise an Act of Parliament, the Act of Settlement 1701, which based on a line other of numerous other decisions alike, back to the time of William I (the Conqueror).

Giving, declaring, demanding, executing a right is an act and a decision.



Don't confuse the semantics of the English language with the issue. Other languages, like German, differ very exactly between a right in a legal sense ("Recht") and a right in philosophical sense ("Gerechtigkeit").




"Moral" is a kind of unwritten law of a society: A set of conventions, mostly outside the law books, which are used for a function.

Laws (including the Human Rights), moral and other rules are not their for own sake, but to serve a function in society.



Non of those had ever survived a test on scrutiny. Otherwise I like to refer to Spinoza's argumentation regarding miracles.



I do argue this extremely: There is no serious record about such an incident. There more of such "records" of far less dubious writers about "miracles" of Roman Gods. This does not lead to sacrifice an ox in favour of Jupiter.





Does it? Wouldn't a society of rational thinking people much better for all? No longer wasting time with kneeling, rosaries, candle and incense burning, or other madnesses like pouring milk over a statue of Ganesha.



Marx believed - and here I do follow Marx - that humans fully aware about their existence do not need any religion; that if religion will die out in a society (not by force, just because no one does bother any more) this society has better condition for its citizens than a religious one.

In this respect it perhaps not uninteresting that those societies in Europe with highest standard of living, the Scandinavian ones, are also those with the highest percentage of atheist and antagonists.

Ok, I can understand that. The issue is that this contradicts secular humanisms tenets:
"Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith."

"Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it."

As by upholding these ideas undermines our need to test beliefs, and the search for truth. Basically meaning that secular humanism either contradicts itself by the support of human rights, which you basically admit must be untested, and held to without searching, or there really is such a thing as abstract moral truths, which is non-reductionist.


Deism didn't exist until the Enlightenment either, does this mean that all Deists were just lying about what they believed? The perceived facts of an issue change, this does not mean that the real facts changed, but societies do progress.


Yep, and Secular Humanism outright denies the right of an ideology to stand beyond questioning. So, either it will create a society unlike any other, or the idea is ultimately either self-contradictory, or destructive.


I know, different ideas in society exist, but that is irrelevant to the usage of terms and their meaning. The fact that words emerge from ideologies does not mean that these words have no meaning to them.


Umm..... Dussel, you must not have read the Declaration, as it states that these rights already exist:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

And that this existence is both a fact, and a self-evident fact. I mean, yes, I am aware of other definitions of "rights", but they are irrelevant for the matter at hand. I have reproduced a document that uses the term rather prominently, and the meaning that it shows is relatively clear. This is a matter of truth, not of anything else, and declaring that it is a matter of something else requires us to claim that the writers outright lied in their statement.(which to me seems absurd, as even if it is polemical, the significance of the lie posited is enormous)


Ok, but human rights are a philosophical sense. They are considered to be true, regardless of the situation, once again, I point to the Declaration of Independence, where these rights are given to all men, and are inalienable, standing ABOVE the governments. So, really, I am not being confused here, the usage I am pointing to is utterly correct.


No. Utterly wrong. If this is the case, why is ethics a branch of philosophy and not a branch of psychology or sociology? How can people say that something that is outside of the bounds of their society is moral: example Peter Singer's stance of animal and human rights, or the abolitionist stance on slavery. How can people consider the actions in other societies to be wrong, if the moral code is only a law for their society? Why would the moral argument for the existence of God exist, if morality is only a set of material facts? How can a position known as moral nihilism exist intelligently if your point is correct? It cannot, but intelligent men have taken that position (philosopher J.L. Mackie)


Laws do serve a function. Morals stand above functions by saying how something "ought" to be. How can something stand above an "ought"? There is no sense in a meta-ought. The only thing close is purpose, but purpose for oughts would thus be even more of a metaphysical abstraction than the ought itself, and thus somewhat teleological.


Ok...


Well, the issue depends on whether or not you consider the Gospels to be serious records.

I mean, in Luke there was some amount of stated concern for the factuality of the claims:
Luke 1:1-4 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, (2) just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, (3) it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, (4) that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

Joh 21:24 This is the disciple who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.

And usually those who argue for the resurrection argue that the Gospels are relatively reliable records, and that a lack of resurrection leads to an incoherence in these records that cannot be rationally resolved otherwise. In any case, I understand that you personally might disagree with the veracity of the Christian claim on this matter, but there are efforts by Christians to defend this occurring, with William Lane Craig, who got a PhD studying this matter, often debating people on this issue, and a majority of experts who agree that the resurrection did occur. It can be admitted that this is a biased sample, but still, there are experts who have undergone years of training who support this case.


I don't see how anything you presented is a problem in the first place. Particularly given that believers usually profess to enjoy doing these things. So, "rational thinking people" would lose a source of benefit and psychological comfort. Not only that, but even without institutional religion, it is still the tendency of people to be mystical, not to be rationalists. So, I don't see your case at all.


Ok, but I see no reason to uphold your faith in that matter, as you have not provided much reasoning.

I also don't see how Scandinavian nations prove a lot. You just made an assertion, and then you argued that there is a specific instance in which this seems true. However, I live in the US, where there are a lot of people who live comfortable lives and who are extremely Christian. So, I mostly just see a cultural matter at work here.

I'm more of a fence-post sitting secular transhumanist.

No - I see the Human Rights as the ideological basis of our societies. The idea of Human Rights is an "mere" instrument of our societies and serves a similar role as the absolute truth of the Catholic faith in medieval Europe. At least I am aware about this. I do defend the Human Rights as the basis of the most successful form of society humans ever developed. But I am aware that they are not true, because they are "self-evident", but because they serve this society so well.


Deism didn't exist until the Enlightenment either, does this mean that all Deists were just lying about what they believed? The perceived facts of an issue change, this does not mean that the real facts changed, but societies do progress.[/quote]

"Real facts" do not change, but our grade of knowledge regarding those facts do change - one the cornerstones of the Enlightenment, the idea of a free will, becomes questionable and therefore our ideas regarding the Human Rights and their function may need re-adjustment too.



At first: Destruction can be very positive. Without destruction you do not have any progress. The secular thinking is destructive, because it does destroy everything which does not stand scrutiny.

It works here less than an idoeology but more as a tool for progress.



Don't get fooled by an old rhetoric trick. When something new and revolutionary had to be declared it is always a good idea to declare this "self-evident". When the Netherlands declared neary 200 years earlier their independence form Spain they did the same, when Henry VIII made himself King of Ireland or demanded full authority also on spiritual matters, he did also the same. The founding father of the USA followed here just a rhetoric well proven pattern.



Because philosophy goes back into the period pre-scientific thinking. Today the creation and nature of moral is subject to scientific investigation (namely evolutionary, but also psychology). We try today to understand how moral was created and how it serves societies (even within animal groups).



Because people don't look further than their small horizon of their time and thinking. I never would say that e.g. the Spanish Inquisition was morally wrong - I may say that this institution did hinder the progress of the Spanish society or try to understand the function of this institution in society.



No - Not in my viewpoint. The main difference between the (formal) laws of a society and the moral standards of society is the form. A law is set in specific manner and formal declaration, a moral law does just comes into existence in a less formal way. But both serve the same porpuse and have the same function.




When we use the scrutiny to the gospels we do with other writing from antiquity the fail very short.



The scientific method in investigation of historical record does imply a double-check with other non-related records and achorological evidences. The gospel do fail here very short.




We had to see how societies do develop over long periods - western societies became more-and-more rational thinking: At least since the end of the Middle Ages. We have a current snapshot, when we compare this snapshot with a snapshot 100, 200, 300 or 500 years ago we see a development to a more rational thinking within the wider population.



I must confess that the strong religous tendencacies within the USA still cause me puzzle. Th

No - I see the Human Rights as the ideological basis of our societies. The idea of Human Rights is an "mere" instrument of our societies and serves a similar role as the absolute truth of the Catholic faith in medieval Europe. At least I am aware about this. I do defend the Human Rights as the basis of the most successful form of society humans ever developed. But I am aware that they are not true, because they are "self-evident", but because they serve this society so well.


Deism didn't exist until the Enlightenment either, does this mean that all Deists were just lying about what they believed? The perceived facts of an issue change, this does not mean that the real facts changed, but societies do progress.[/quote]

"Real facts" do not change, but our grade of knowlegde regarding those facts do change - one the cornerstones of the Enlightenment, the idea of a free will, becomes questionable and therefore our ideas regarding the Human Rights and their function may need re-adjustment too.



At first: Destruction can be very positive. Without destruction you do not have any progress. The secular thinking is destrutive, because it does destroy everything which does not stand scruteny.

It works here less than an idoeology but more as a tool for progress.



Don't get fooled by an old retoric trick. When somethink new and revolutionary had to be declared it is always a good idea to declare this "self-evident". When the Netherlands declared neary 200 years earlier their indenpence form Spain they did the same, when Henry VIII made himself King of Irland or demanded full authority also on spiritual matters, he did also the same. The founding father of the USA followed here just a retoric well proven pattern.



Because philosophy goes back into the periode pre-scientific thinking. Today the creation and nature of moral is subject to scientific investigation (namely evolutionary, but also psychology). We try today to understand how moral was created and how it serves societies (even within animal groups).



Because people don't look further than their small horizont of their time and thinking. I never would say that e.g. the Spanish Inquisition was morally wrong - I may say that this institution did hinder the progress of the Spanish society or try to understand the function of this institution in society.



No - Not in my viewpoint. The main difference between the (formal) laws of a society and the moral standards of society is the form. A law is set in specific manner and formal declaration, a moral law does just comes into exitence in a less formal way. But both serve the same porpuse and have the same function.




When we use the scrutiny to the gospels we do with other writing from antiquity the fail very short.



The scientific method in investigation of historical record does imply a double-check with other non-related records and achorological evidences. The gospel do fail here very short.




We had to see how societies do develop over long periods - western societies became more-and-more rational thinking: At least since the end of the Middle Ages. We have a current snapshot, when we compare this snapshot with a snapshot 100, 200, 300 or 500 years ago we see a development to a more rational thinking within the wider polpulation.



I must confess that the strong religous tendencacies within the USA still cause me puzzle. THe USA are an exception from the general rule that the wealthier and more secure a society is the less religous those societies are. I do not have good idea what exactly causes this.e USA are an exception from the general rule that the wealthier and more secure a society is the less religous those societies are. I do not have good idea what exactly causes this.

However, an ideology under secular humanism, MUST BE QUESTIONED. If you aren't allowing it to be questioned and rejected by individuals, then you cannot uphold secular humanism.

In any case, the idea of a moral value serving another moral value seems absurd. It is like saying "murder is inherently wrong because if we say that murder is inherently wrong, then we all get more sandwiches". In such a case, the point that murder is inherently wrong is never defended, it just becomes a lie which is openly admitted to, which makes it an absurdity.


We do not know real facts, only current bits of data, which may or may not have a relationship to a grand truth. So, referring to "real facts" is pointless.

The issue is that your "re-adjustment" ends up distorting "human rights" into something that it is not conceived as at all. Because your redefinition seems so massive, I cannot really say that you are talking about the same thing as people of the past were talking about.


I never said that destruction couldn't be positive, but that is not the sense of destruction that I was referring to, as I was referring to the notion of collapse. In this case, the inherent criticism is that the secular thinking is destroying its own foundation, along with the foundations of things that you are upholding as necessary. Meaning that it is destructive in the negative sense connoted.

In any case, an idea beyond questioning IS an ideology, without much question or doubt. I mean, saying it is a "tool" is to deny that there are other theoretical tools and certain conclusions of these tools that others might dispute and disagree with. So, I really just say your "tool for progress" is a dodge, for all ideologies seek progress, but that does not mean that they aren't ideologies.



Dussel, that does not refute my point, which was that these people were referring to facts. The fact that "self-evident" is an overstatement is irrelevant to that issue. Particularly given that the US was formed in a time of philosophical upheaval, of which the US took the forefront, and sometimes took stances that seem somewhat ideological(not saying the US was made of ideologues, but they certainly weren't just calculating utilitarians), and that the US revolution paved the way for others to come to similar conclusions as the US.



Dussel, the origin of philosophy is irrelevant, nor is that an answer to the question. The problem I was pointing out, was that your definitions are wrong, and that the wrongness of your definitions is proven by the existence of certain disciplines.

Today, the creation and nature of morals is not subject to scientific investigation. The reason being? Morals are subject to another study, that of ethics. This study of ethics comes to conclusions on their nature. The study of meta-ethics studies the emergence of ethics. Based upon these studies, some people take the position that morality does not exist.


Umm..... no, that's utterly misunderstanding the intuition at hand. This isn't a matter of small horizon of their time and thinking, because I am also referring to people who criticize their own society on ethical grounds.

In any case, I would imagine that you have secretly reified ethics, while undercutting them, by taking the idea of "progress" to be your ethics. I might also not be surprised if your idea of "progress" actually conceals utilitarian ethical foundations. If my theory is correct, then you are fundamentally engaging in an internal contradiction that would be difficult to ever outright discover or treat, simply because you have been utterly destroying the very language to describe this kind of a problem.


Dussel, your viewpoint basically is based upon the utter warping of definitions. That itself makes me question what it does.

In any case, the fundamental point that you will find under this kind of worldview is that morals and laws are both inherently arbitrary, as in they reduce to nothing purposive, or to something fundamentally subjective. If the laws and morals are purposeless or subjective, then there is no real reason to uphold either laws nor morals, and as such a secular humanist will dismiss these laws and morals according to preference. This dismissal ultimately undermines the fabric of society, because the laws and morals are things that as you point out, cannot be analyzed to be dismissed at whim, but the secular thinking inherently gives the right to dismiss at whim because there is nothing divine to these laws and morals such that they cannot be questioned and rejected. Thus, I get back to the earlier point that secular humanism would then be destructive if we hold to your assumptions on reality.


Ok, others argue that the historical record of early Christianity is such that it is only likely true if the gospels are good records.


Well, I would imagine that the elites or those who identify with these elites are the ones that are actually doing much of the changing.


Right, well, I am more familiar with the US than the rest of the world, so I probably over-emphasize it in my own thinking, but I actually think it probably disproves your theory, because it is an exception that must ultimately be based in a different view of how society fundamentally works.


In any case, I end up thinking that your line of thinking is problematic. However, here's a question:
If human beings are the result of pre-scientific processes, why would human foundations necessarily fit into scientific realities? I mean, take the placebo effect, it is effective by the appeal to the illogical human foundation, but not the scientific reality as the pill technically does nothing. Why should society be different? Why should human behavior on the fundamental level be different? Isn't it possible that we actually depend upon non-scientific ideas for our functioning? Machines don't have purpose other than the ones we give them. Creating a purpose for ourselves is outside of the boundaries of science. And the purpose and nature of mankind that it has from an evolutionary standpoint could just very well be confused and irrational, or purely reproductive, depending upon the way a person views evolution. If it is confused and irrational, then attempting to rationalize it could very well be pointless, or self-destructive, but to order human realities around science would demand that these human realities ultimately be rational, rather than just the absurdities of an evolved hodgepodge of a mind, wherein there is no real connection to external truths, only maintained delusions that might be necessary for functioning.

Now, you might reject this conjecture, but I think my viewpoint might very well fit into your worldview if you take this conjecture seriously. Where mental constructs can refer to nothing, rather than being rationalistic as laws are, where reason can destroy sociological constructions, and where all things really fit into the pre-rational. You can dismiss this, but I think it makes more sense of the world than your own viewpoint.

What is the point of arguing with religious people here? They are probably just a bunch of registered NT's that belive in god that are going on an internet conversion spree and tries to argue logically and use words "rationally" but doesn't understand the meaning of such words. The reason for this is that i cannot understand how anyone with AS could believe in religion or take creationism seriously. I am 100% sure that these posters have some sort of mental disorder, but it is not autism.

I see such people get banned at least once a week on another "alternative" forum, and new alts pop up and post the indoctrinated statements over and over.

Would you be kind enough to show me this doctrine that you have found in this thread? I would greatly appreciate it, for I haven't found but trace elements of it.

The only openly religious person I see posting on this thread is Shadowgirl.

Most of the counter-arguing is done by me. I have a diagnosis. I have been on this forum longer than most of the other people here. I have not even put forward a single apologetic, so it is not as if I am likely trying to convert anyone. In fact, my position is perfectly consistent with atheism, and even a relatively materialist form of atheism, it just is distrustful of the clear lines, and idealism of secular humanism.

As for the use of "rationally", I find that most people don't know the meaning of this word. It often means "what I personally believe". In any case, I would say that I am personally very good with logic and reason. You might disagree, but I would disagree with your claims to your own ability, as you seem more the sort who has a thought, and believes that because it is your thought, it must be true and disagreement must be irrational, despite the fact that long-standing disagreement between great thinkers seems less like the exception and more like the norm.

As for religion and creationism, well... we have had a few posters here that seem to be religious and creationist. One I am almost certain is autistic and intelligent. In any case, I don't see why any mental condition would necessarily prevent a certain belief from forming unless it prevented exposure to the basic experiential foundations of that belief, and in any case, we have had a number of people here who have had some religious belief. I personally think that creationism is absurd, but I obviously cannot say it is impossible, only that it is well supported as untrue.

In any case, I have not been posting "indoctrinated statements", if anything, I would ascribe this to my opponents, as I think that their usage of terms is against the original meaning and understanding of these terms, and I think that their worldview is designed to prevent critical analysis of it's own foundations, as can be seen with their outright rejection of philosophy as a source of knowledge. (Note: Philosophy is a field based upon the use of reason, so rejecting it seems to reflect a much more anti-intellectual position than accepting it.)

I've found that strangely true as well, the idea seems to be floating around a lot that anything at all that came before science or exists outside of science is a prehistoric and failed logic attempting to be science but not quite good enough yet. The trouble is - outside of a handful of theories science is raw data, sure it makes a visible framework of the world as we see it but we still really have no sense just how deep reality goes or whether we really aren't just seeing the tip of some megalythic iceburg of complexity.

Well... yeah, but that's just stupid. I mean, there are a lot of things that are not science. Math often isn't considered the same thing as science, and certainly functions in a somewhat different manner(no experiments, not based in falsification), but math is generally considered to be knowledge.

As for the nature of science, I wouldn't take the question so mystically, but yes. Science isn't philosophy, and there are such things as metaphysical problems, epistemic problems, and existential problems that science literally is incapable of solving from the get go, as none of these problems deals with anything physical, but all of these problems involve something that is important for human realities. The scientistic people, basically want to outright dismiss a massive part of the reality that most people experience. The issue is that this conclusion in no way emerges from their premises, and they are basically trying to solve a philosophical question while openly denying the value of philosophy, and it just..... I don't think good things when I see positions that I think are this incoherent. I mean, I don't think most scientists really think that science is literally everything, and there are some pretty intelligent atheist, science-loving philosophers(Bertrand Russell and Daniel Dennett) out there whose position must be outright dismissed in this kind of a blind crusade.

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.

The way I see it, Secular Humanism is just the new politically correct term for Atheism. I often refer to myself as Secular Humanist when I'm around Christians so I don't have to deal with the usual "What, you're an Atheist? You do know you're going to hell, right?".

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.