James R said:
SouthStar:
Not just hope. Also past experience. If you treat other people well, they will treat you well in return. From your own experience, I'm sure you already know that. So, how should you act in future? The best outcome for you will most likely occur if you treat other people well. Right? There's good data which supports that proposition.
That's a very good point; scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. But it's not a guarantee. But humanism, of course, starts on a rational foot and this is where I find the problem.
Say you had no such experience of reciprocation (eg. every kind action of yours is met with ingratitude). Do you think it would be rational for you to be a humanist? Now imagine that you could maximally benefit yourself by taking advantage of people (as opposed to marginally benefitting yourself by being a humanist). Do you then think it would be rational for you to be a humanist?
Like I said to Pete, I'm not sure what humanists mean by loaded terms like "rational" so, if you consider yourself one, do tell me what such words mean in a humanistic context (eg. whether it has a utilitarian meaning and whatnot).
In the example given, one argument is that by providing shelter and care, you may be diminishing crime. I'm sure you can think of others.
Well here's the conditional "may be" again - hence my earlier label of romanticism. By providing those amenities, you also "may be" providing incentive for those people to start taking advantage of you. Maybe. As far as reason is concerned, your hope that charitability diminishes crime is no more 'rational' than suspecting that thievery will rise from the availability of goods. The gamut of possibilities is wide enough to bring into question the feasibility of such an assumption. I'm also sure you can think of instances in various ghettos (and perhaps even Iraq) where this rationalization was shown to be unfeasible.
There is also the selfless aspect of humanism, which your example does not cover. What if the people you are helping out live on a different continent (so that whatever 'crime' goes on is inconsequential to you), or what if they are an isolated tribe in a remote place? Can reason justify selflessness in such instances?
It is ok to say reason is a tool for humanists, but more problematic to call it
the tool for finding "human solutions to human issues". For this reason, a strong atheist who is also a humanist begs the question of why theism is irrational while humanism is not. This is a question many must answer since most atheists you will talk to are strong atheists. Weak atheism implies an ignorance (or rather lack of opinion) on the subject of gods.
I don't mind this definition. It says that humanists should look for human solutions to human problems. It doesn't tell them what to believe about the existence of gods - just not to rely on gods to help mend the troubles of the world.
They are not related by necessity. I'm sure you'd agree that an atheist need not be a humanist. I say that, in addition, a humanist need not be an atheist.
I agree that there is probably a correlation between atheists and humanists, but correlation doesn't mean one implies or causes the other.
It sounds like you are telling me that the definition allows humanists the freedom to believe in God
in theory - as long as they don't do so in practice. It's difficult to conceive of such a view, unless you are a deist; but that begs the question of how deism is at all
rational (but like I said to Pete, many things can be rationalized). And if you say a humanist need not be an atheist, then that further begs the question of how anyone can pretend to be rational in some aspects of life while being irrational elsewhere. I would hope instead that humanists strive for consistency, lest they appear hypocritical. In the same way, if there is no rational basis for humanism, then what sense does it make for humanism to use reason as a vehicle? That too seems inconsistent.
