The Modern Religion: Secular Humanism.

[superluminal]

In fact, I maintain that they still cannot logically be one and the same; though I would be grateful if you could point out to me where the fallacy is in my defense of this.

I shall cogitate upon this and deliver my synopsis unto thine eyes bearing upon the nearest moment at hand.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

This discussion has veered off into the completely absurd. Did any of you bother to complete your homework and look up some definitions of the word "secular"? They're all consistent and here are several:

Not religious
Nonreligious
Lay
Other than religious
Not related to religion
Not having any connection with religion
Not regarded as religious

Could this be any clearer? Perhaps you can twist the word "humanism" to embrace some kind of weird neopagan or universalist religion. But if you put the word "secular" in front of it you have limited it to only those types of humanism that are not religious.

I decided to check up on you guys and look at the definitions of the word "religion" in the same generally acknowledged authorities. In each one of them, the first and primary definition includes a reference to a deity or something else supernatural.

Secondary definitions don't have it, but secondary definitions are clearly veering off into the metaphorical.

"She brushes her teeth religiously."
"Quality assurance is a religion in this company."
"Environmentalism is the new religion."
"Music is the only true religion. It says it will make you happy and it does."

That last one is a quote from Frank Zappa.

So come on guys, put this to rest. You've got it wrong. "Secular" and "religious" are opposites.

You can say that people treat secular humanism as if it were a religion, they defend it with religious zeal, it has a place among the world's religions, it competes with religion, or even that in some people's lives it serves the purpose of a religion. But secular humanism cannot be a religion because that would be an oxymoron.

English is a consensus language rather than an academy language and people can say whatever they want and if enough people say it some dictionary somewhere is going to print it. I'm sure one of you is going to display one of them in your next post. The fact that you found it on the internet doesn't mean it's not stupid!

But let's try not to degrade the language by making our words self-contradictory, okay?

 

[baumgarten]

I shall cogitate upon this and deliver my synopsis unto thine eyes bearing upon the nearest moment at hand.

Many thanks. I apologize for all the editing I did, but I hope it offers a useful clarification to my position.

Sir Fraggle,

I believe Mr. Jaster's central idea is not that secular humanism is literally a religion, but, as you suggested, that as a belief system or way of life it serves many functions traditionally fulfilled by actual religion. 'Tis a metaphor. Or I'm wrong.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

So are quality assurance, dental hygiene, environmentalism, and music. The use of the word as a metaphor is too vague. Without an element of the supernatural I don't understand how we're going to agree on a definition that will make for a sensible discussion.

 

[baumgarten]

Perhaps an umbrella term that embraces the religions, secular humanism, and other philosophies/communities upon which people base their lives can be devised. In On the Nature of the Psyche, Carl Jung calls it an "ism." Three letters. Distinctive. Fun to look at and say. I for one like it.

 

[lightgigantic]

What is the thing people have with definitions?

Religion: A set of beliefs not reliant on fact or evidence and revolving around a core supernatural entity. force, or essence.

Supernatural: Beyond nature in the sense that there is zero evidence or correllated effect of the "supernatural" element.

Even the american constitution is transcendental because it states that all men are equal - on what basis? Is it height?

 

[audible]

This implies both that all humans are born with a set of core values and that this set of core values is the same as secular humanism. The supportability of either implication is far from obvious; quite the opposite, in fact. Any innate, i.e. instinctual, "values" we may possess are animal in nature.

no, "it does what it says on the tin", we dont get taught to be human, we are human with human values, is that to hard to grasp.

All these activities which you describe as the basis of secular humanism are products of will and reason, not instinct. Given a man's freedom to choose not to arrive at any particular philosophy through the process of reason, how do you reconcile this basis with the belief that secular humanism is innate?

remember humans have core human values,which human interests, values, and dignity predominate, they can be nought else.
it is the basis for humanity, observation, experimentation, and rational analysis, aid this.
however if you wish to belief the imaginary, that is your prerogative.

 

[audible]

That goes with any belief system, including Secular Humanism. The point I was trying to make was that religiosity is something a person is born with.

you've got it so wrong, there is nothing religious about being human.

Yes, we are human, with human core values. Those core values are enshrined in religion,

rubbish, religion first has to be indoctrinated/taught.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Perhaps an umbrella term that embraces the religions, secular humanism, and other philosophies/communities upon which people base their lives can be devised. In On the Nature of the Psyche, Carl Jung calls it an "ism." Three letters. Distinctive. Fun to look at and say. I for one like it.

I believe in German (who are more imaginative with language) there is the term "Weltanschauung" meaning "Worldview". I think Jung also used the term?

Perhaps that would describe both religion and secular philosophies like Marxism and Humanism....

An Atheist loves himself and his fellow man instead of a god. An Atheist accepts that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth – for all men together to enjoy.
An Atheist accepts that he can get no help through prayer, but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it and to enjoy it.
An Atheist accepts that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment." mary murray-o'hare

I think audible's secular humanism sounds a great set of values to aspire to - it is the best of religion without the mystical (as Jaster said).

However, the reason I am a theist is I am not able by use of reason to transform myself into this loving, generous, strong, perfectly fulfilled, altruistic person - I need a catalyst to make the transformation over time.

Even Clark Kent needed a phone-box!

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

you've got it so wrong, there is nothing religious about being human... rubbish, religion first has to be indoctrinated/taught.

Religion is very old. It seems to have come naturally to us as humans at a very early stage in our history. The concepts, beliefs and values of a religion need to be taught, but the drive is already there (at least in some people).

 

[KennyJC]

Religion is very old. It seems to have come naturally to us as humans at a very early stage in our history. The concepts, beliefs and values of a religion need to be taught, but the drive is already there (at least in some people).

Replace religion with superstition in your above post.

 

[audible]

I think audible's secular humanism sounds a great set of values to aspire to - it is the best of religion without the mystical (as Jaster said).

it is a great set of values, and it is the natural way, it's taken from a court case begun in 1959 by the Murray family which challenged prayer recitation in the public schools. That case – Murray v. Curlett – was a landmark in American jurisprudence on behalf of the First Amendment rights. It began:

"Your petitioners are Atheists, and they define their lifestyle as follows.
the rest you've read.
here: http://www.atheists.org/

However, the reason I am a theist is I am not able by use of reason to transform myself into this loving, generous, strong, perfectly fulfilled, altruistic person - I need a catalyst to make the transformation over time.

exactly, how sad is that.
have you ever thought that you might already be this reasoning, loving, generous, strong, perfectly fulfilled, altruistic person, it's just been suppressed, under the weight of religious indoctrination.

Religion is very old. It seems to have come naturally to us as humans at a very early stage in our history.

superstition causes this sort of reaction especially in a populous of un and undereducated people.( as they were then)

The concepts, beliefs and values of a religion need to be taught, but the drive is already there (at least in some people).

some humans do have a capacity to belief the inane and irrational, as I said if you wish to belief the imaginary, that is your prerogative.

 

[baumgarten]

no, "it does what it says on the tin", we dont get taught to be human, we are human with human values, is that to hard to grasp.


remember humans have core human values,which human interests, values, and dignity predominate, they can be nought else.
it is the basis for humanity, observation, experimentation, and rational analysis, aid this.
however if you wish to belief the imaginary, that is your prerogative.

You only reiterated your position in this post. I'd like you to make a more earnest attempt to convince me, if that isn't asking too much.

 

[lightgigantic]

There is the idea that the rituals and paraphernalia of (religious) worship automatically manifest in persons or communities of persons that perceive something greater than themselves - whether you be talking about the cargo cult or the unlimited number of totems and rituals that surround modern technology - the real question remains wat tings are actually more worshippable than others

 

[audible]

You only reiterated your position in this post. I'd like you to make a more earnest attempt to convince me, if that isn't asking too much.

are you not sure, your human, why do you need convincing of your humanity, or is it you believe the core human values are religion, are we to take it that you belief that we are born with religion, and not humanity. or is it we born with some other animal natural instincts, if so which one.
perhaps it's that your eyes are so blinkered and your will so suppressed, you dont realise your human, with human values.

this may clarify, why humanism is inherent.

humans are much better than the Abrahamists give us credit for. Our greatest challenge is of our own making. We have the instincts of Mesolithic people, to live cooperatively and peacefully among a few score pack or tribe mates with whom we are personally acquainted and almost all of whom are blood relatives. Basically an extended family. The Neolithic revolution launched by the invention of agriculture increased the size of our tribes to several hundred and required us to learn to live in peace and harmony with people whom we didn't instinctively regard as kin, and we managed to do that. Essentially by augmenting our instincts with learned behavior that was passed down by elders to succeeding generations. The Dawn of Civilization increased the size of our communities by another order of magnitude, and we were able to learn to live and work with complete strangers. As cities grew and assimilated diverse tribes, we learned to get along with people who didn't look like us, spoke funny, and had different customs.

And we did that all without Moses, Jesus or Mohammed.

The rate of growth of our cities has increased geometrically. Unfortunately our instincts are starting to lag behind. Most of us are at the point where we live in peace and harmony in cities of 20,000 people, but we have cities a thousand times larger.

We will catch up, but Moses, Jesus and Mohammed are not helping us.
---------
Once again, you're ignoring the role of biology in this. We have perfectly good instincts to follow here. As pack animals we're quite capable of getting along with one another without the help of a fairy tale creature. The problem we're up against at this moment in history is that our packs have merged and grown to the size of a herd, and as pack animals we don't have the instincts of herd animals to live peacefully and cooperatively among endless hordes of anonymous strangers. Nonetheless we've clearly found the path to that particular enlightenment since such a huge number of us are in fact able to live in peace in today's civilization. And roughly half of us have done it without the monotheistic model for guidance

with the greatest respect to fraggle rocker

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

exactly, how sad is that.
have you ever thought that you might already be this reasoning, loving, generous, strong, perfectly fulfilled, altruistic person, it's just been suppressed, under the weight of religious indoctrination.

Hmmmm, well I'd like to believe you but the evidence is against it... I don't think 'religious indoctrination' has much to do with it. Look around you - is the world being run by reasoning, loving, generous, strong, perfectly fulfilled, altruistic people?

It may be sad, but we need something more than good intentions!

superstition causes this sort of reaction especially in a populous of un and undereducated people.( as they were then)some humans do have a capacity to belief the inane and irrational, as I said if you wish to belief the imaginary, that is your prerogative.

I don't accept your analysis that it's all 'inane and irrational' superstition? The values you espouse for secular humanism, derive, and were developed as christianity. The Romans (for instance) had very different ideas on the value of human life!!

Religion satisfies people's deepest needs for love, peace, hope and fulfillment, and provides a reason to be altruistic (love of God = love of fellow man). That is why it remains so popular. Secular humanism misses the point, because it provides no reason to be loving, altruistic etc. Why not look after number 1 and say f*ck to the rest? Evolution does not reward altruism towards strangers!

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Religion is very old. It seems to have come naturally to us as humans at a very early stage in our history. The concepts, beliefs and values of a religion need to be taught, but the drive is already there (at least in some people).

Religion--or superstition, or belief in the supernatural--is an archetype, to use Jung's term. It occurs in all cultures and all eras. We have a hard-wired instinct to believe in something that can never be proven or disproven, in order to explain things that we don't understand or that bother us.

Like most instincts, it can be overridden by reason. Things our elders teach us or things that we experience on our way through life. But it can also be strengthened by those things.

Humanism can be seen as a codification of certain other, deeper instincts. Our instincts to improve productivity by working cooperatively and to improve health and safety by caring for each other increase the survivability of the species and motivated us to become a social species of pack animals. (As opposed to herd animals who gather in larger, anonymous, passively cooperative groups for peaceful grazing and defense against predation.) This occurred in our primate ancestors, several species differentiations back, and became much stronger as we evolved into the only predatory primates. (Other apes eat small animals casually caught but they subsist on vegetation, fruit, and bugs.)

Everything that humanism sets forth as reasonable rules for a harmonious civilization derive from our instinctive need to get along with each other so we can be healthy, productive, long-lived, and raise healthy, productive, long-lived offspring, while diverting as little energy, attention, and resources as possible to protecting ourselves from each other.

Religion claims to do this by relying on the supernatural and following often arbitrary rules whose relationship to reality is not obvious and often counterintuitive. As a result religions often veer away from the common-sense principles of peace, tolerance and cooperation.

The essence of humanism is that we are in touch with our nature, which leads us toward peace, tolerance and cooperation.

Humanism is natural, religion is supernatural. That is the fundamental difference. To call humanism a religion is to ascribe a supernatural element to it that it does not have, and must not have in order to work.

 

[KennyJC]

I don't accept your analysis that it's all 'inane and irrational' superstition? The values you espouse for secular humanism, derive, and were developed as christianity.

Are you saying that Christianity is the source of all positive aspects of human nature and that our current standards of civilisation would not be possible without Christianity (even though we had to kick it out of power to truely progress as a free and tolerant society)? Isn't it insteresting that even if that is the case, that the rest of Christianity remains superstition without the ethics, which would just as easily exist outside the confines of religious text?

Religion satisfies people's deepest needs for love, peace, hope and fulfillment, and provides a reason to be altruistic (love of God = love of fellow man). That is why it remains so popular.

Then why are the most densely religious regions on the planet not shining examples of the above? They are by far being out-done by their secular counterparts.

Secular humanism misses the point, because it provides no reason to be loving, altruistic etc. Why not look after number 1 and say f*ck to the rest? Evolution does not reward altruism towards strangers!

People do not have to be guided by way of superstitious practices to become decent. When people aren't forced into religion, they are no more or less likely to become better people. I for one could have done without faith schooling due to all the strife it created in my area due to Catholics versus Protestants.

Accepting evolution and rejecting religion, for me, shows that we are all the same. Segregation by religion has the opposite effect.

 

[Lord Insane]

About secularism read this (or just go to the "soul" thread ) ....

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57675&page=9&pp=20

The superiority of secularism is self evident !!!

 

[baumgarten]

are you not sure, your human, why do you need convincing of your humanity, or is it you believe the core human values are religion, are we to take it that you belief that we are born with religion, and not humanity. or is it we born with some other animal natural instincts, if so which one.
perhaps it's that your eyes are so blinkered and your will so suppressed, you dont realise your human, with human values.

The most needed clarification here is that humanism is not the same thing as being human. As Fraggle pointed out, humans have a built-in tendency to believe in and worship the supernatural, and so are apparently not humanist "by default" as you claim. Findings in the fields of psychology and anthropology point to this behavior; the developments of religion and spirituality simultaneously in different parts of the world, and the existence of Jungian archetypes in the unconscious, both suggest that "magical" thinking is a natural process of the human psyche. In fact, a popular argument against religion (often used by, of all folk, secular humanists) is the natural tendency of the human mind to hallucinate supernatural, dream-like images, and to draw causal connections where none are necessary. How, then, is secular humanism -- which is based, by your own claim, on reason and not these built-in irrational tendencies -- a more "natural" state?