Re: Humanism in 2006


Roger Johansson wrote:
> 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 :-)

So it's true what they always said: scratch a humanist and you get a
raving psychopath
:-) nervously.
>
> 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.

Hmmmm
>
>
> > 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.

That's kinda slow, isn't it. In the meantime the world has moved on.
Your solutions aren't keeping up with the time.
>
> > 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.

No into that myself either. Anyway it's happening by default - civil
marriages etc.
>
> 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.

I would wonder where these last two questions come from. Why do people
insist on linking me with religion?
>
> > 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.

But, really, Roger, our "history" hardly impacts on humanism. It's an
ism without a past, a creature without a tale, one might almost say.
>
> > 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.

Created concussions?
>
> > 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.

That's my New Year's Res, Rog, to be entirely agreeable to EVERYONE!
You can see the results already.
>
> > 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.

b
But you believe in something, Rog, don't you? It's not a question of
clinging on; it's a question of drawing support and sustenance from.

Joseph H
>
>
> --
> Roger J.

.

Quantcast