Secular Humanism

[The Happy Humanist]

I had posted a definition of secular humanism in the Definitions category. Apparently this is a controversial topic, so I have been told to carry it over here to the Debate category. Personally, I don't see the controversy, but Harvey1 feels that, without divine authority, no one has the right to tell anyone else how to live their life; I think he means that no lifestyle is better than any other, absent edicts from a higher power. I told him that common sense says otherwise; and there we stand. So...

[Overcomer]

I have taken the liberty of posting your definition here so that people can use it as a reference in this discussion. Here it is:

Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion.

Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility.

It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice.

Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values--be they religious, ethical, social, or political--have their source in human experience and culture.

Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.

Who determines what the rules are in humanism and how do they determine them?

How do you know what is or what is not a human right or what is socially just or unjust?

What are the goals of humanism and who decides what represents a human need or interest worth upholding?

What if the science that inspires humanism is wrong?

What if one person's liberty infringes on another person's liberty? How do you decide which person's liberty is more important?

Can you tell that I find a lot of flaws in humanism?

As a Christian, I have the absolute truth of the perfect and ominpotent, omniscient, omnipresent God to use as a yardstick by which all things can be measured. I have heard non-Christians try to argue that there is no such thing as absolute truth. And yet, those non-Christians treat the sentence "There is no such thing as absolute truth" as if it itself is an absolute truth!!! If the statement that there is no such thing as absolute truth is not absolutely true, then it means that it is possible that absolute truth exists -- and it does! And if the statement is absolutely true -- well, that leaves the non-Christian with quite a conundrum and an absolutely meaningless argument that doesn't hold water at all.

It's enough to make a person's head spin!

And if you think it's wrong to formulate beliefs based on something you feel is abstract, such as theology, why is it all right to base your belief in humanism on philosophy which is as abstract as anything can be? And please don't tell me it's because the humanist's philosophy is based on science because science has proven itself time and time again to be untrustworthy. It's only as good as the scientist behind the science and all scientists are flawed and get a lot of things wrong.

Remember that I'm not basing what I believe on something abstract. I'm basing it on the PERSON of Jesus Christ who is real and tangible and who I know intimately as do millions of others.

[The Happy Humanist]

I have taken the liberty of posting your definition here so that people can use it as a reference in this discussion. Here it is:

Thank you for that, and for this opportunity.

Who determines what the rules are in humanism and how do they determine them?

The "rules" are determined for us by human experience. We have learned from both personal and cultural experience that pleasure is good and pain is bad. So we promulgate laws and mores that minimize the latter and maximize the former.

What are the goals of humanism and who decides what represents a human need or interest worth upholding?

The goal of humanism is to maximize the pleasure of the human experience and minimize the concomitant pain for as many individuals as possible. Pain and pleasure are self-evident in almost all cases, therefore "human interests worth upholding" are somewhat defined for us.

I have much more to say on the goal of humanity, but my musings are somewhat off-topic. Suffice to say that I have in mind a goal for humanity, from which many humanistic principles and ethics can be derived. But I'll put that in another topic.

How do you know what is or what is not a human right or what is socially just or unjust?

We decide these things gradually through concensus. The slavery issue is a good example. Gradually, through centuries of discussion, debate, dissension, and finally, war, we came to the conviction (quite apart from the Bible, I might add) that slavery was wrong. This was a humanistic process, and a humanistically-derived concensus. The "guide book" failed us on that one, so we had to decide for ourselves. Note, too, that this decision upheld the rights of a minority, so any arguments that humanism resembles social darwinism or will always favor the majority are rendered invalid.

Note also that I did say "gradually." The human experience is one of learning as we go. That process is ongoing, and there are things that we hold as socially acceptable today that a century from now we will be slapping our foreheads, saying, "What were we thinking??"

What if the science that inspires humanism is wrong?

Then the science - and the humanistic priniciples it inspires - will be amended.

What if one person's liberty infringes on another person's liberty? How do you decide which person's liberty is more important?

Through a gradual process of concensus, which will lead to laws and judicial interpretations of those laws...just like we have now - cf. Schiavo, Terri.

Can you tell that I find a lot of flaws in humanism?

Can you tell that so far, I don't find any of them egregious, let alone insurmountable?

As a Christian, I have the absolute truth of the perfect and ominpotent, omniscient, omnipresent God to use as a yardstick by which all things can be measured.

How nice for you. Where was your yardstick when we were confronting the slavery issue? How is your yardstick perfect and absolute, when God can commit genocide at will?

I have heard non-Christians try to argue that there is no such thing as absolute truth.

I have to assume you mean moral truth? Very few secular humanists are not objectivist in their view of reality. There is absolute truth, but we will absolutely never learn it in its totality.

Assuming you mean you've heard non-Christians say there is no absolute good nor absolute evil, I have to agree with this. Morality is always relative to the human experience, until we find out for certain there is more to reality than what we experience. To claim otherwise would be perverse. Within that limited sphere, some things are almost universally bad, like serial killings, lynchings, rape, etc. Are these things bad in some cosmic, absolute way? Doesn't matter. They're wrong as far as WE are concerned, and that's all that we need to say about it.

And if you think it's wrong to formulate beliefs based on something you feel is abstract, such as theology, why is it all right to base your belief in humanism on philosophy which is as abstract as anything can be? And please don't tell me it's because the humanist's philosophy is based on science because science has proven itself time and time again to be untrustworthy. It's only as good as the scientist behind the science and all scientists are flawed and get a lot of things wrong.

No, humanist philosophy is based on reality. As you say, there is absolute truth, and the best window we have on that truth is to take a look at the way things really are. Science is one tool we have for looking at that reality. And I daresay that scientists are no more flawed than evangelists.

Sorry, I've had to write this message in a hurry. There is much more I could say, but I'll await your questions.

Thanks again.

[AlAyeti]

"Assuming you mean you've heard non-Christians say there is no absolute good nor absolute evil, I have to agree with this. Morality is always relative to the human experience, until we find out for certain there is more to reality than what we experience. To claim otherwise would be perverse. Within that limited sphere, some things are almost universally bad, like serial killings, lynchings, rape, etc. Are these things bad in some cosmic, absolute way? Doesn't matter. They're wrong as far as WE are concerned, and that's all that we need to say about it."

Reality is in opposition to humanism.

Humanism is oxymoron personified.

Humanism is a religion in absolute terms as it goes against observable facts to present its beliefs as valid.

If sicence is to be the guide to the living experience which it is in humanism, then humanism fails its own testing, by its own rules.

Humanism is closer to Wicca then science: "Do what thou wilt and do harm to none." Well, humanism fails here too as abortion is the slaughter of human life. Scientifically speaking that is, we now can see what a fetus "is."

The acceptance of abortion, the redefining of "family" and rationalizing inter-gender sexual intercourse (which is verifiably impossible) being scientifically acceptable, flies in the face of emipirical proofs. Yet, it is within humanism that the loudest support for the equality of anti-nature is proliferated.

You cannot have science and anti-science dwelling within the same utterance. You then ebnter the realm of belief systems. Which of course is the only place humanistic beliefs finds respite.

"We believe what we want." Should be the ethos of humanism but it is woefully missing in the declaration.

Humanism is by far and away purely a religion.

Based squarely on the personal beliefs of its proponents and adherants.

[AlAyeti]

The Happy Humanist stated that "we" decided the slavery issue?

In what history book?

Abolition was a 100% Christian movement. Christians forced the issue into the political realm and what transpired was utterly incredible.

Lincoln's Second Inaugural speech removes any doubt from a rational mind that slavery was not defeated by one Christian view versus another.

My how history is still whitewashed by the humanist agenda of kidnapping morality, redefinig it, and using it as they see fit.

[AlAyeti]

"No, humanist philosophy is based on reality. As you say, there is absolute truth, and the best window we have on that truth is to take a look at the way things really are. Science is one tool we have for looking at that reality. And I daresay that scientists are no more flawed than evangelists."

Scientists, especially atheist scientists, are responsible for more deaths historically than any religion or religious figures the world has ever known. The numbers are milloins and millions are killed by atheists with weapons of mass desruction provided by scientists. . . and thousands and thousands have been killed by religious adherants. And of course Muslim's are making the numbers gp up for the religious. But no longer are Christians adding to the counts. Let the scale of history wiegh in on worth of ideology.

Who invented the nuclear weapon? Who invented smart bombs? Who invented chemical and biological weapons? Scientist, scientist, and scientists. Liars who use Evangelism to fleece the ignorant, leave their victims poor but alive. Humanist, atheist scientists leave only crippled and dying victims "lucky" enough to survive the fruits of their lethal endeavors.

Cures for disease by famous humanist scientists? The same scientists that promote euthanasia, abortion for convenience and can justify the digestive tract to receive reproductive actions? Spare me the convoluted logic. . . Science and morality are one way streets. Hasn't anyone caught the absurd irony of the "Nobel" Prize?

How is humanism based on reality? Especially scientific reality? A humanist should be the equal of any missionary willing to go to the ends of the earth for the good news of peace. And, when they veer from their own teachings be willing to here criticism from the leaders above them for the hypocrisy as does the Christian faith and its adherants.

Instead, humanism retreats into the "do as you will" excuse instead of seing the truth in its own failings.

Reality stands in opposition to humanism. When will it take a look at how things really are? Even in an ultra sound picture can the truth be seen, yet, humanism takes the road of ignorance whenever the religion of convenience - which is its roots - is threatened.

In humanism somehow eating a hotdog through your eye is rational yet looking at the natural facts that the body is designed in only one way is bigotry!

Clearly "faith" dominates humanism.

[LillSnopp]

Apparently this is a controversial topic, so I have been told to carry it over here to the Debate category. Personally, I don't see the controversy, but Harvey1 feels that, without divine authority, no one has the right to tell anyone else how to live their life; I think he means that no lifestyle is better than any other, absent edicts from a higher power.

ok, excuse my ignorance here, but what does he mean by that?

I know we are evil and abominations, but hey, comeone..... Tell me, is this applied to physical laws to? As, lets say, you are not allowed to steal? (Is it not applied to him, as its not the word of God?)

[LillSnopp]

Hasn't anyone caught the absurd irony of the "Nobel" Prize?

AlAyeti, How come you quoted Nobel ?


(Alfred Nobel was a Swedish chemist whom created the dynamite (concentrated nitrate sensitized with nitroglycerin), and using his fortune (demanded by him) also created the Nobel prize)

[harvey1]

Apparently this is a controversial topic, so I have been told to carry it over here to the Debate category. Personally, I don't see the controversy, but Harvey1 feels that, without divine authority, no one has the right to tell anyone else how to live their life; I think he means that no lifestyle is better than any other, absent edicts from a higher power.

ok, excuse my ignorance here, but what does he mean by that? I know we are evil and abominations, but hey, comeone..... Tell me, is this applied to physical laws to? As, lets say, you are not allowed to steal? (Is it not applied to him, as its not the word of God?)

The issue is whether a secular humanist has any grounds to tell someone else how they ought to live. If so, then based on what authority? The Happy Humanist said that "common sense says otherwise," however who's view of common sense?

In my view, I think a society based on a belief in God can base their idea of goodness on that belief, and based on that belief, they can argue that they have divine authority invested in human civilization to argue for human rights, moral codes, etc.. Without that authority, the only argument left is an appeal to the majority or an appeal to some aspect of atheistic philosophy. In the case of the former, the majority is not a sufficient means to appeal to truth. In case of the latter, appealing to any aspect of atheistic philosophy is an appeal to randomness of some sort, hence randomness in the universe gives no such authority for right moral action. Nature doesn't care what we do.

Therefore, secular humanists have no reason to ask that the Sudan abide by their standards of human rule other than that's what they would prefer that they do. The Sudan prefers not to, so where does that leave the secular humanist in terms of a reply?

[The Happy Humanist]

"Assuming you mean you've heard non-Christians say there is no absolute good nor absolute evil, I have to agree with this. Morality is always relative to the human experience, until we find out for certain there is more to reality than what we experience. To claim otherwise would be perverse. Within that limited sphere, some things are almost universally bad, like serial killings, lynchings, rape, etc. Are these things bad in some cosmic, absolute way? Doesn't matter. They're wrong as far as WE are concerned, and that's all that we need to say about it."

Reality is in opposition to humanism.

Humanism is oxymoron personified.

Humanism is a religion in absolute terms as it goes against observable facts to present its beliefs as valid.

If sicence is to be the guide to the living experience which it is in humanism, then humanism fails its own testing, by its own rules.

Humanism is closer to Wicca then science: "Do what thou wilt and do harm to none." Well, humanism fails here too as abortion is the slaughter of human life. Scientifically speaking that is, we now can see what a fetus "is."

The acceptance of abortion, the redefining of "family" and rationalizing inter-gender sexual intercourse (which is verifiably impossible) being scientifically acceptable, flies in the face of emipirical proofs. Yet, it is within humanism that the loudest support for the equality of anti-nature is proliferated.

You cannot have science and anti-science dwelling within the same utterance. You then ebnter the realm of belief systems. Which of course is the only place humanistic beliefs finds respite.

"We believe what we want." Should be the ethos of humanism but it is woefully missing in the declaration.

Humanism is by far and away purely a religion.

Based squarely on the personal beliefs of its proponents and adherants.

Wow...a veritable minefield of misapprehensions, untruths, ad hoc re-definitions...where to begin?

I think the only way to avoid getting into a shouting match is for me to simply ask you to re-read the definition of humanism I posted at the start of this topic, and ask you where you think it says that practicioners of humanism "believe what [they] want", how humanism can be boiled down to anything close to "Do what thou wilt and harm none," where it goes against observable facts, and where it necessarily accepts abortion?

Let's take the abortion issue as an example. Humanism does not say, "There's no God, therefore there's nothing wrong with abortion." The function of humanism is to effectively take God out of the equation we use to decide moral issues. Does the lack of a deity automatically make abortion OK or proper? Not at all. It merely forces us to examine the issue more intently, and come up with the best solution to unwanted or dangerous pregnancies based on the needs of the individual and society as a whole. Put it this way: If you found out for certain tomorrow that there was no God, would you then think nothing of aborting fetuses? Of course not, you would still find it morally repugnant. And trust me, you would not be alone among secular humanists in that regard. Many humanists are still against abortion on humanist grounds, in that it snuffs out a human life. Most, admittedly, favor keeping it legal, based on their sincere desire to see the quality of human life in general improved. That is the guiding principle of humanism: improving the quality of life for as many humans as possible as far into the future as possible. What, pray tell, is wrong with that?

AlAyeti, you have gotten your definition of humanism from an unreliable source. You need to bone up on your reading in this regard - I'm really not fond of debating non-issues or defending against straw men.

==JJS==