Re: Humanism in 2006


Joseph H wrote:

> Nice little cosy chat going on down here, guyz! Hate to be the big bad
> wolf and blow down your tidy little houses.....

Hold on to your brain, so we don't rip it out of your head, rebuild it
totally and shove it back in again. and you will have to live in my
world for the rest of your life :-)

Magicians can only cause a week of headache, knowledge can change your
life forever.

> Where do I start?

> Question: Why will humanism always be the preserve of a certain kind of
> button-down, corduroy-wearing, jazz-loving, muesli-munching desperately
> intelligent and earnest male?

Makes me wonder what kind of "humanists" you have met.
There are very few people in the world that really knows what is going
on, and have humanist goals, so you have probably never met any of them
in person.
There are only 8000 organised humanists in the world, that should give
you an idea how many real humanists there are.


> Next Question: Why will humanism never really impact upon that same
> stupid public world?

Humanism moves slowly ahead, we see a lot of humanist progress over the
last 500 years.

> Answer: Because even though it demolishes the myths and tales that
> provide a passing sustenance to that public world it fails to offer a
> replacement attuned to its manner and demands.

There is a debate about this among humanists. Some say we should offer
humanistic replacements for creationist formalities like marriages,
community, christening of babies. Most humanists don't think there is a
need for that.

Do you need a religious theory of relativity, or are you satisfied with
Einstein's version.? Do you need a community of real friends who know
your weaknesses and help you overcome them? I would answer No and Yes
to the last two questions, but that's just me, you might have other
needs.

> Next Question: Is not the truth - that we ought to take on board that
> we are the arbiters of our own future - enough?
> Answer: No. It is too limited. It fails to satisfy our deep need for a
> story. It excludes all our past. It fails to move our hearts. It is not
> comprehensive enough to face down the allurements of religion.

We have a history, we know what stages mankind has gone through, we are
happy to be the last of one paradigm and the first of a new paradigm.

> Final Question: So...we should spin a yarn, make up a new colourful
> myth for the future, add to our existing great stock of lies?

Absolutely not, our already existing history and our science are
stories enough for us.
Those of us who still suffer from created concussions may need special
help, but that is just for this generation.

> Final Answer: Absolutely not. On no account should we do such a
> terrible thing. We should, however, strive to see - and understand -
> our past; we should seek to understand its dynamics. We should seek to
> see what particular gifts we brought out of evolution. We should seek
> to visualise how these gifts might be utilized in the future, in which
> direction they might ultimately push us. We should seek to understand
> how our most recent knowledge - the knowledge gained during the last
> two centuries (which is almost all the knowledge we possess) - impacts
> upon our view of ourselves. We should seek to understand why religion
> has had such a powerful influence on the human psyche

Wow, you wrote ten lines of text I agree on. All of it.
That is the first time that happens, and we have both been here for
years.

> and we should -
> finally - wonder if humanism can perform adequately that same function.

If we abolish the creationist system there is no need for a replacement
of that system.
There is no real need for a belief in gods or whatever. Only very
excited brains, full of the holy spirit, need something to believe in,
something to cling to.


--
Roger J.

.

Quantcast