Re: Humanism in 2006


Scott wrote:

> Here's the thing and at risk of repeating myself: YOU CAN'T PROVE ANYTHING IS EVIL <period>.

Concepts like "evil" are religious and are not used in modern
secularized countries, only in very religious countries.

In a modern view actions can be good or bad, depending on what you
think about them. I just saw a scene from an american tv-series, where
a twelve year old boy is in prison, and is chained to a table to
receive a visit from his father.
The father is ordered "No physical contact".

In Europe we would call that bad, but not evil. It is not a good idea
to treat children like that, but in USA it is normal, and probably seen
as good by a lot of people.
Religious countries have more brutal laws and punishments, to make the
created love more powerful and speeded. The more religious the country
is the more primitive and brutal punishments are used.

You use the word "prove". That is also a religious way to see things.
You can't "prove" anything in the social field.
You can't treat people and their actions with some kind of logic rules.

Logic became authoritative during medieval times, and the religious
tried for hundreds of years to "prove" logically that God exists.
Nowadays science is the trusted frame of reference, so the religious
are trying to use science to prove that God exists. Intelligent design
and all that crap.
The church simply tries to use the way people think in a certain era to
convince them.

During the middle ages logic was relied on, so they tried to use logic,
today science is relied on so they try to use a scientific way of
reasoning.

> such behavior (moral subjectivism). If evil doesn't lend itself to
> empiricism (to rationalism), Naturalism holds that it ain't real. If evil
> isn't real what's the point in humanism? It has no demons to concur.

The point of humanism is that we have to think clearly, and critically,
and try to use science and our best judgement to solve problems. We
cannot rely on a certain person and his judgement, or rely on a
scripture written thousands of years ago by stone age people who wrote
down the creation myths they had told around the camp fires before we
invented writing.

> That's a loaded phrase. What is a reasonable range of behavior? (At one time
> homosexuality was thought unreasonable by the American Psychiatric Society
> then they took a vote and declared it reasonable. I know a professional
> sociologist who finds that funny and uses it to deride psychiatry.)

What is reasonable is dependent on what kind of culture we live in, and
it changes as we develop.

> I can prove civil rights exist because CRs are based upon cultural codes of
> conduct. Morality cannot be thought of - rationally - without references to
> a given culture/society. What is moral in one culture can be immoral in
> another. That is to say - rationally - morality *must* be dependent upon,
> and relative to, cultural mores. Humanism, like religions, OTOH, rejects
> this inherent cultural dependency and believes human rights are independent

Yes.

> of mores. In fact, like religious laws, humanism holds that cultures are
> subordinate to its <cough> proclaimed Rights.

No. Rights are part of religion, humanism is to think critically.
If we get along better without "rights" given to us by God we trow away
those rights.

We can invent rules and laws and rights ourselves, but those rights are
not God given eternal rights, they are what we think is reasonable.
In a modern constitution there is no need to use the word "rights", but
many countries had to compromise with the religious who wanted rights
in the laws.

You can say that all people have the right to not getting killed by
other people.
We could just as well say that it is illegal to kill other people. (no
"rights" involved)
The practical result is the same, but the first way of saying it refers
to an imagined God.

> Humanism is a stripped down
> religion, stripped of everything metaphysical but moral realism (truth IOW).

No, you think now about a humanism tainted by old religious ideas.
Remove the religious ideas completely and you will see a real humanism
which is free from religion.

If you live in a religious country you probably have met people who
call themselves humanists but still have some religious ideas. Maybe
that is why you got the impression that humanism is somewhat of a
religion.

Humanism is based on the needs and views of humans, in contrast to the
earlier paradigm which was based on God and his wishes.


--
Roger J.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT- Take My Son
    ... So you don't believe in the basis of our country as explained in our Declaration of Independence? ... You have those rights BECAUSE you live in this country. ... Because people like you tried to eliminate religion and the values they had. ... I denigrate the KKK. ...
    (rec.outdoors.rv-travel)
  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... Naturalism and Humanism to connect the dots. ... You have no *real* right to life. ... inalienable human rights. ... Humanism is a stripped down religion that has ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: trey can go fvuck his mother
    ... so climb capital hill in good ole Washington DC to further Treys main ... because he has already had his rights fought for and won. ... own born into freedom, choice of religion, pursuit of happiness those ... are the inailiable rights that a freedom fighter possess. ...
    (rec.music.phish)
  • Re: OT - Oh, so OT.
    ... If you said, "I believe God exists", the ... they can opt-out of any prayer. ... of the government to support any religion. ... my rights are completely left out ...
    (comp.lang.php)
  • Re: Contact Info for Prop. 8 Lawyer
    ... our civil rights might have been perverted. ... you don`t agree with any religion because it ... for almost all laws, deffinally the basis for the laws founding the US. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
Quantcast