Re: Humanism in 2006


"Roger Johansson" <roger4911@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1137004209.433174.155340@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 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.

It's not a good idea? Why?

If morality is individually relative (moral subjectivism) then everyone is
morally right....from there own point of view. If morality is culturally
subjective (moral relativism) then every culture is morally correct from
their point of view........EVEN if those points of views are 180 degrees STS
from someone else or from another culture.


> 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.

Prove is a rule in logic and math. Also used loosely as a preponderance of
the evidence in courts of law. Moral realism is not a social field. Moral
realism is objective independent of social. Humanism's precepts states or
implies moral realism.

Now on the question of prove I don't care which use of "prove" is attempted.
It doesn't matter to me. All I need from atheists who believe in both
Naturalism and Humanism to connect the dots.

Naturalism: the belief that nature is all of reality and where nature is
amoral. You have no *real* right to life. There is no room (it appears) for
moral realism. Nature is rationally understandable.

So rational-atheistic humanists some how need to rationally demonstrate
(using evidence or logic) going from Naturalism to........dot, dot,
dot....humanism - the belief that everyone is somehow entitled/endowed with
inalienable human rights. And that such a belief isn't make-believe, a
fairytale, a myth(ology).

If a RATIONAL link cannot be made from (methodological) naturalism
to....dot, dot, dot.... humanism then going from one to the other is a
metaphysical leap of faith. Making that leap is in fact a rejection of
Naturalism, whether the person realizes he is doing so or not.

Without a rational connection, Humanism is a stripped down religion that has
deleted everything metaphysical but moral truth/realism.



>
> Logic became authoritative during medieval times, and the religious
> tried for hundreds of years to "prove" logically that God exists.

Can't be done. If it were possible Faith would have no point.. If a person
proved evil exist they paradoxically prove a 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.

>From logic there is philosophically no proofs in science. Every theory is
open to skepticism. Theorems OTOH are mathematical proofs expressing a
theory.


> 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 made no sense at all to the question of human rights purported by
humanism. On the question of science and religion much of what has been
written is politically correctness BS.




>> 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're contridicting yourself. "Humanism, like religion,...." answer: Yes"
then "No."

Rights are either a quality of being human (human rights) or they are a
product of culture (civil rights). What's a right in one culture isn't so in
another. Yet you disagree with that with your "Yes" above.

You are telling me you don't grasp the distinction.

>
> 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.

The second is termed negative right. You don't have the right to kill other
people. Could be civil or human.


>> 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.

I think not. http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/moral-meaning.html You can
ignore the Chistian/Christology and the argument still holds.

"In response, I shall merely highlight key issues as well as symptoms of
Martin's flawed methodology. Martin's chief problem in defending
naturalistic moral realism is that it is long on epistemology and short on
ontology . While devoting much space to recognizing objective moral values
(e.g., IOT, WRE) or life's meaningfulness, Martin fails to present an
adequate metaphysical basis for thinking a naturalistic context of
non-conscious, valueless, impersonal, materialistic processes could produce
conscious, valuable/moral, personal, rights-bearing beings (value from
valuelessness). Martin believes that the finite, finely-tuned,
life-producing, consciousness-producing, and value-producing universe
ultimately came from nothing."

"Contra Martin's "empirical" claims that belief in God makes no moral
difference in society, agnostic political scientist Guenther Lewy of U-Mass
(Amherst) offers more extensive, nuanced empirical evidence supportive of
theistic belief's positive social and moral impact. In Why America Needs
Religion , Lewy observes:
adherents of [a naturalistic] ethic are not likely to produce a Dorothy Day
or a Mother Teresa. Many of these people love humanity but not individual
human beings with all their failings and shortcomings. They will be found
participating in demonstrations for causes such as nuclear disarmament but
not sitting at the bedside of a dying person. An ethic of moral autonomy and
individual rights, so important to secular liberals, is incapable of
sustaining and nourishing values such as altruism and self-sacrifice.

(A brief glance at some of the titles and topics at the naturalist-oriented
Prometheus Books' website illustrates Lewy's point.) "

>
> 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.

I know a religion when I see it.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html

<quote>
Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific
achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a
situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of
religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing
adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people
as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to
the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion
that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be
shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major
necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this
generation. We therefore affirm the following:
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not
created.
SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has
emerged as a result of a continuous process.

THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the
traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.

FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization,
as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a
gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and
with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is
largely molded by that culture.

FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern
science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human
values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet
undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and
value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the
assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its
hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.

SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism,
modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".

SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences
which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It
includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation - all
that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living.
The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be
maintained.

EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human
personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and
fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's
social passion.

NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer
the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of
personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and
attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.

ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his
knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly
attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume
that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage
sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.

TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living,
religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage
achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.

THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and
institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent
evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and
institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and
program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic
forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted
as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the
modern world.

FOURTEENTH: 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.

FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather
than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from
them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life
for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention
humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the
techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

So stand the theses of religious humanism. Though we consider the religious
forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good
life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware
that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams,
that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set
intelligence and will to the task.

<end quote>

Now that is a mythology in the making. And to quote: "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" simply translates to: "WE have the Truth, the
Moral Truth and it is our evangelical mission to bring this truth to and
convert the rest of the world.



Scott


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... >>> So it is not two kinds of humanism, it is the same humanism in ... > to make life better for humans. ... Can we visualise how some future ideal human society ... > religion based society. ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: Why Dont Josh and Moshe Like Obama?
    ... holder of rights". ... But it's not always life vs life. ... choices of some members of society onto the rest of society. ... not to mandate their religion on others, ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Humanism in 2006
    ... >> So it is not two kinds of humanism, it is the same humanism in ... to make life better for humans. ... religion based society. ... Humanism _is_ secularism. ...
    (talk.philosophy.humanism)
  • Re: ...who is sucking up to what authority? Re: How it is supposed to go down.....
    ... As for the God given Rights...in my life experience, ... Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, ... politics of religion aren't spoz'ta enter into the situation. ... But once again, words fall short here. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)
  • Re: Evangelicals Role in non sinful Slavery
    ... possible to think up, humanism does not. ... Human nature provides the spark, religion, racism, tribalism, ... "Humanism clearly rejects deference to supernatural beliefs in resolving ... Agnosticism or atheism on their own do not necessarily entail ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
Quantcast