Monotheism, Polytheism and Environmentalism

[Doreen]

Beg to differ. Few aspects of human comprehension are more worthy of being taken seriously - even if your only goal is minor behavioral prediction of individuals.

The latter is analysis, not support. Of course a secular humanist can look into these things.

Are you implying that the industrial corporation is a secular humanist creation? Or staffed and operated by secular humanists in particular?

No, but that in cases like the one I mentioned, secular humanists support, overwhelmingly - either directly or tacitly through indifference, the workings of these corporations. The scientists involved are probably mostly secular humanists.

The clockwork delusion is at least as characteristic of the Abrahamic religions as it is of any "secular humanism" - it's why they need miracles, their only means of escape.

To a certain extent I agree. And if I was a follower of the Abrahamic religions I might suddenly find myself tongue tied. But since I am not, I can be critical of both secular humanists and the monotheisms they grew out of.

So why would any secular humanist adopt any such nonsensical approach?

Because they think that if something technological can be done, it should be done, unless overwhelming evidence can be amassed that it should not be done. They have been talked out of their intutions, of course not entirely, but to a great degree. To a great extent secular humanism, for whatever reasons, has made people vulnerable to the assumptions of action by the technocrats - and the neo cons. Skirmishes are fought and details are quibbled with, but the overall battle is being won because they cannot see certain assumptions as assumptions. They have bought the notion that the scientific approach is neutral.

Of course many of the religious go along with authority for their own reasons - indifference to the natural world, misplaced patriotism which somehow has gotten inmeshed with capitalism in its present forms, denial of 'this world', etc. But their inability to see or give a shit about the problems with what the technocrats and neo-cons are doing does not take anything away from the secular humanists inablity to fully see the problem either.

I also note that you did not respond to my example. I think this is a perfect example of how potentially incredibly harmful technologies are already common and widespread and technologies that do in fact see things as being relatively simple tinkering with the clockworks. As if they remotely have a handle on the effects of what they are doing.

 

[iceaura]

No, but that in cases like the one I mentioned, secular humanists support, overwhelmingly - either directly or tacitly through indifference, the workings of these corporations. The scientists involved are probably mostly secular humanists.

The scientists involved are a very small minority of the supporting people - and far from the most powerful. You also might want to double check the "secular humanist" status of a lot of the chemical engineers, agricultural specialists, etc - academic scientists do tend to be overt "secular humanists", but the corporate world is different. Take Cargill, for example, in my locale: the more favored or powerful company scientists are often found at certain management-favored churches on Sunday, and not always cynically - birds of a feather.

So why would any secular humanist adopt any such nonsensical approach?
”
Because they think that if something technological can be done, it should be done, unless overwhelming evidence can be amassed that it should not be done. They have been talked out of their intutions, of course not entirely, but to a great degree. To a great extent secular humanism, for whatever reasons, has made people vulnerable to the assumptions of action by the technocrats - and the neo cons.

Why is that vulnerability laid to "secular humanism", rather than to the mechanistic and exploitative view of the material universe so firmly implanted by two thousand years of Abrahamic religious ideology? In your own experience, do you find a blind faith in the benefits of, say, GM foods more common among fundies or hippies?

Certainly the bulk of the participants, instigators, and major proponents of this technocratic vanity have been mainstream theists, often quite loud in their beliefs and Biblical justifications. So has the general political base from which these ideologues derive their power. Directly relevant to "natural world" concerns, for example, consider the federal policy toward the national parks in the US under Reagan, continued thereafter under others - a policy established by reducing the influence of "secular humanists" and installing fundies and evangelicals and other non-secular types in positions of power throughout the relevant federal and state agencies.

 

[Doreen]

The scientists involved are a very small minority of the supporting people - and far from the most powerful. You also might want to double check the "secular humanist" status of a lot of the chemical engineers, agricultural specialists, etc - academic scientists do tend to be overt "secular humanists", but the corporate world is different. Take Cargill, for example, in my locale: the more favored or powerful company scientists are often found at certain management-favored churches on Sunday, and not always cynically - birds of a feather.

Sounds like you have more direct experience than me, so I will admit my view may be skewed. I just see very little secular humanist outcry about the corporate world's realtionship with the earth. Of course there are vocal secular humanist critics, and good for them and I learn from them. But generally the secular humanists marginalize even their own if they actually notice systemic problems: Chomsky, for example. To me secular humanism fails to 'get it' in a fundamental way. This does not make them worse then fundamentalists, which seems to be the assertion you are generally fighting even though I did not make it.

Why is that vulnerability laid to "secular humanism", rather than to the mechanistic and exploitative view of the material universe so firmly implanted by two thousand years of Abrahamic religious ideology?

I definitely do have problems with Abrahamic religious ideology, but I see secular humanism still extricating itself from some of the assumptions of this ideology. Look how long it took to decide that animals in fact has consciousness. I am certainly not saying that secular humanism is worse than Abrahamic beliefs, on these issues, but rather that it seems to also leave its believers defenseless against a number of practices and ideas, including those I mentioned before. I cannot be classed as either Abrahamic or secular humanist, so if I criticise one it should not be mistaken as a defense or preference for the other. In fact this kind of binary thinking is something I see both groups get muddled up with quite regularly. USSR bad, therefore US good - or the reverse. Fascistic State Communism bad, therefore 'Free market' Capitalism good. Abrahamic religion bad, atheism therefore good.

In your own experience, do you find a blind faith in the benefits of, say, GM foods more common among fundies or hippies?

Fundies, but most of the hippies I know are some form of pagan, hippie, Mother Earth worshipper, Wiccan, etc. Precisely my point. And I see a general condemnation of hippies by both the fundies and the bulk of secular humanists, though much more gently done by the latter.

Certainly the bulk of the participants, instigators, and major proponents of this technocratic vanity have been mainstream theists,

The bulk of every group has been this.

often quite loud in their beliefs and Biblical justifications. So has the general political base from which these ideologues derive their power. Directly relevant to "natural world" concerns, for example, consider the federal policy toward the national parks in the US under Reagan, continued thereafter under others - a policy established by reducing the influence of "secular humanists" and installing fundies and evangelicals and other non-secular types in positions of power throughout the relevant federal and state agencies.

The neo cons deftly use the fundamentalists and front figures like Reagen so that the commons is destroyed and they can buy everything and make us pay to use it. I don't remember a strong outcry by the scientific community, which is primarily SH, against the economic policies of any of the Reagan Bush presidents. The bulk seems to support GM and join in the poo pooing of 'irrational fears' of those opposed. I see no strong secular humanist awareness that the Neo cons keep doign what they are doing regardless of the party of the president or who has majority in the house or senate. Clinton Gore were not at all good for the environment. Public lands slid into private ownership or use. They did mroe showcase stuff. And they continued the patter slower than their supposed rivals, but this is part of the game. The game is too keep people thinking there are two parties. Watch Obama and see if there is some decentralization of the oligarchy in the US. See if nature actually is protected or if in fact even more of the commons slides into private control. ''

Again, my point is not that secular humanism is worse than fundamentalism. My point is that it seems as defenseless on the core issues of power and control than the monotheisms in general.

To me it is the child of the Abrahamic religions, kemosabe. It has left the nest, but it moved in just down the block. I am not impressed. It has another parent in the Greeks, but the problem there is that the Greeks were just as enamoured of transcendance as the monotheists, and this love of transcendance is coupled to a radical distrust of the individual's ownership of intuition and a disconnection from the earth.

 

[iceaura]

I just see very little secular humanist outcry about the corporate world's realtionship with the earth

How much outcry do you see from anyone else, about that?

There are the occasional Wendell Berry's, but they are not honored much among their own.

Fundies, but most of the hippies I know are some form of pagan, hippie, Mother Earth worshipper, Wiccan, etc. Precisely my point.

And mine: the influence of the kind of thinking we call secular humanism is visible in the proliferation of these types, within the larger culture of Abrahamic religion.

I don't remember a strong outcry by the scientific community, which is primarily SH, against the economic policies of any of the Reagan Bush presidents.

I remember a strong outcry against the scientific and environmental policies. The secular humanists have been leading the efforts to resist those policies, in and out of the scientific establishment.

I see no strong secular humanist awareness that the Neo cons keep doign what they are doing regardless of the party of the president or who has majority in the house or senate.

?!
That is where I see the strongest awareness of that, the original awareness of that, the most protesting noise being made for a generation now - with ringleaders like Chomsky, whatever their alleged blind spots toward ecological concerns (which may be more of a commendable modesty in the presence of self-recognized ignorance), of great prominence and recognized influence.

but I see secular humanism still extricating itself from some of the assumptions of this ideology.
- - - -
To me it is the child of the Abrahamic religions, kemosabe.

So credit, not blame, is due to the child's independent efforts.

And recognition of the major source of these problems - not in the secularity, or the humanism, but in the too reductionist and crudely materialistic approach to the natural world it inherited from its Abrahamic roots.

 

[swarm]

Has to be primitive man's religions, the more primitive the better. Barely any adverse effect on the environment. Worshipped all the elements of it.

This has proven to be a misnomer, like most romanitize notions of "primative" peoples.

 

[swarm]

A week in the wilderness without utilities and indoor plumbing, where your food does not come in sterlie packaging that conceals the evidence of sentient life that went into it, will be an eye opener for any "nature lover" of the modern age.

Been there done that. "Roughing it" isn't that bad if you know what you are doing. Even the bimbos on "survivor" manage some how. We've had billions of years of living in the wild and only a few milenia of civilization.

In particular its pretty easy to get back into hunter mode. I've lain in wait in the immemorial ambush while my friends drove the prey my way, reached out, grabbed it, snapped its neck and then we skinned gutted and cooked it over a fire. Very tasty.

 

[S.A.M.]

And then you left this paradise? Why?

 

[swarm]

secular humanism would consider it simply our current home, one that can be replaced.

No secular humanist with a lick of sense thinks it can be replaced. That is a theist conceit.

Any feelings of connection are merely feelings.

So? "Merely" feelings is sufficient. There is no reason invent deities to pretend your mere feels are some how more than that.

This planet is it. There is no where else that is fit for long term habitation by humans in this solar system. Eventually we will have to address this because in about .5 to 1 billion years the planet will become uninhabitable as the sun begins to burn out. But in the mean time if we muck this up we go down with it.

 

[swarm]

And then you left this paradise? Why?

Why not?

 

[S.A.M.]

Its more environmentally viable?

 

[swarm]

Yeah, how many days in a year? They give birth in the wild too?

Some people live there their whole lives. When the baby is ready, you give birth.

 

[S.A.M.]

Some people live there their whole lives. When the baby is ready, you give birth.

yeah I've met the adivasis, for them, living in the wild is not a vacation.

 

[swarm]

Its more environmentally viable?

Not in the least. Wood for cooking and heating is horribly polluting, way worse than even coal if you use modern coal technologies; plus, it devastates the forests and watersheds. This is one of the main culprits in the famines and droughts in Africa.

Having more than a trivial number of people living in the wild would devastate the ecology. We sustain populations far in excess of what natural habitats can sustain because farming and herding is far, far more efficient at producing food.

The desertification of the fertile cresent is a good example of what you are suggesting.

 

[S.A.M.]

That explains why the Aborigines did so badly for 40,000 years and the Adivasis for at least 5000

hint: it wasn't wilderness living that destroyed the fertile crescent. It was "civilisation"

 

[swarm]

yeah I've met the adivasis, for them, living in the wild is not a vacation.

Its not a vacation for any one who choses to live that way full time. What of it?

You seem to be suffering from a bad case of them vs us. People are people.

It can be challenging to live in an environment you aren't used to, but it can be done. It doesn't matter if you are "civilized" going back to "nature" or a "hill person" going into the city.

 

[S.A.M.]

Yeah, it can also be challenging to the environment, which is what the topic is about.

One of the things I wondered in the US was the amount of garbage people turn out in a day. With six people and six+ cats we come up with a small pail of mostly organic garbage. Its not hard to carry a tote and purchase from markets where, in lieu of boxes, cartons and plastic bags, there are recycled paper bags [which can be reused at home]. I note that progress has introduced the plastic casing to local goods here and food malls where packaging replaces the quality of food, which we usually buy from farmers who sit in the markets with their own fresh goods, seasonally.

 

[swarm]

That explains why the Aborigines did so badly for 40,000 years and the Adivasis for at least 5000

It depends on what you mean by "badly." Their populations are closely tied to their environmental impact and if it gets out of hand, they die back. Also if the local conditions change they either move or die back. Its possible to look back over time and see the effect of these boom and crash cycles and how it has pushed migrations of people about.

Personally I prefer the average life span in the 70's instead of the 40's, but everything has its trade offs. I also like knowing how to adapt to other environments if I need to. I would make a rather poor aborigine, but I could get by most places if I had too. I can even knap flint.

 

[swarm]

Especially once you see the results of lack of religion.

Sanity?

 

[swarm]

From the "Affirmations of Humanism" the Council for Secular Humanism:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=affirmations&section=main

"We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species."

The rest are well worth reading since I've noticed the more a theist says "secular humanist" the less they actually know about secular humanism...well actually that's just being polite. I can't remember the last theist who knew squat about secular humanism.

====

The Affirmations of Humanism:

A Statement of Principles

We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.

We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.

We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.

We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.

We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.

We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.

===

So do you really find that so objectionable?

 

[S.A.M.]

What have they done so far?