The Modern Religion: Secular Humanism.

[Jaster Mereel]

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.

I'd have to disagree on this point, in that religion does provide rules that are necessary for the survival of whatever culture that particular religion developed within. The rules may seem arbitrary now, to peoples who have little or no direct connection or relation to the original practitioners of that religion, but to believe that the rules set forth in religion are mostly arbitrary is to completely ignore the impact of these ideas and practices on humanity's development. Can you honestly imagine a world where there had never been any religion? You may think you can, and you may think it would be an altruistic, peaceful, cooperative world, but you'd probably be wrong. Religion has helped man survive the stresses of his environment for his entire existence. There has never been a society in the past that lacked religion, and to me this speaks volumes about religion's necessity to human survival.

Instead of writing off religious practices as arbitrary, a more useful approach would be to actually try to figure out why that particular practice developed. I can almost guarantee to you, that if you remove those rituals that are designed specifically to propogate mythology, then all of the other rules, practices, and customs of whatever religion you are studying will be perfectly explainable in terms of environmental or social necessity, even if it takes a bit of thought.

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.

Look, the difference between the natural and the supernatural really is semantic. There are religions which do not recognize any concept of the supernatural at all, saying instead that all of the things which they believe in, although some are very mysterious and possibly unknowable in a rational manner, are nevertheless perfectly natural. Hinduism is a great example of this, as are many animistic, tribal religions. I'm afraid that all of you are stuck assuming that all religion follows the Abrahamic style, and this serverely limits any kind of analysis of religious ideas.

That's not my point anyway, though. What I'm trying to say is that religion, or religiosity, has little to do with belief and everything to do with behavior. People seem to require some kind of outlet for religious behavior, even if the ideas don't necessarily match up to traditional religion. That's unimportant. One must not believe in a supernatural world in order to consider oneself religious. I call myself an atheist because I don't believe in supernatural entities, but I would still consider myself quite religious, as would a good number of people that I know. So, the standard which you are setting is entirely dependant on your preconceived notion of religion, and mostly because you grew up in a society who's dominant set of religious ideas were Abrahamic. Have you ever known someone who had once been a seriously religious Hindu, or Buddhist, who understood the teachings of their religion to great depth, who now denies any kind of cultural identification with their former religion? I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to find someone who fits that description.

 

[Shaitan]

The most needed clarification here is that humanism is not the same thing as being human.

is not the very core of being human where human interests, values, and dignity predominate?
if so what is humanism

 

[baumgarten]

is not the very core of being human where human interests, values, and dignity predominate?
if so what is humanism

Humanism is a philosophy that emphasizes the development of the so-called "human qualities," or beliefs and behaviors among those considered secular that are thought to have positive value. In the context of its classical origin, these human qualities are as implicitly opposed to "divine" qualities, or those most valued by the church.

As for human interests, values, and dignity, remember that the very core of being human, as you put it, is also where the opposites of all these lie. Hatred and jealousy are very human qualities, as much a part of the human experience as their polar opposites love and generosity; but they are not encouraged by humanism.

 

[Shaitan]

you posited that humanism was'nt the same as being human,

The most needed clarification here is that humanism is not the same thing as being human.

is not the very core of being human where human interests, values, and dignity predominate?

yet you agree with the above here

As for human interests, values, and dignity, remember that the very core of being human, as you put it, is also where the opposites of all these lie.

dictionary dot com
devines humanism thus : any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate.
so am I right in thinking that humanism is the same as being human, if not then why call it humanism.

 

[baumgarten]

you posited that humanism was'nt the same as being human, yet you agree with the above heredictionary dot com
devines humanism thus : any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate.
so am I right in thinking that humanism is the same as being human, if not then why call it humanism.

I don't follow. Where is the implication that humanism's draw on human qualities for its values equates it with the whole of human being? As I explained, it's called humanism because of the aforementioned emphasis on human qualities -- but, as I pointed out, not all of them by far. Rather, a tiny subset of the spectrum of human expression is selected and valued above the rest, just as in any other religion or world view. There is nothing inherently "blessed" about this particular selection that makes it more natural than other world views; the philosophers who established humanism made their conclusions on rational grounds, not instinct or other irrational sources of knowledge. One is therefore not born with humanistic values; they must be arrived at through reflection. Humanism's values, again as previously explained, are called "human" to differentiate them from the so-called "divine" values of the church. As a human, can you truly conceive of a value which is not literally human? The very fact that you hold the value makes it so.

Humanism constitutes a belief in the intrinsic value of certain human qualities. The exact same thing could be said about almost every existing belief system, save nihilism. If humanism is to be defined so vaguely, what is the point of having the term?

The specific values espoused by humanism are what make it humanism, not the obvious fact that they are human values.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

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?

I think he's saying that Humanism wouldn't exist without Christianity as a root from which it grew. I tend to agree, since the ideals sound quite Christian (without, of course, the mythology behind it). There is no such thing as an entirely new belief system.

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.

Well, actually, I would agree with you in a way. I think that everyone here is kind of misinterpreting the word "secular", to be honest. Nothing about it implies atheism, just a focus on worldly concerns. Countries who have a tendency to concern themselves more with practical, worldly, tangible things, rather than spiritual ideals, or philosophy, often do much better than countries that concern themselves with spirituality, or philosophy. So, in a sense, I would say that secularism is a good thing, because it allows a people to focus on things which are directly at hand.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Again, though, nothing about the word "secular" implies atheism.

Whoa whoa whoa. We've gone around on this already, right here in this thread. I posted the definitions of "secular" from a bunch of respected dictionaries and they all agree.

Non-religious. Irreligious. Other than religious. Lay.

These are typical, there is no disagreement among any of them.

And they all define "religion" as having a supernatural component. Therefore:

"Secular" by definition means not religious, which means having no supernatural component, which means having no god since gods are supernatural, which means being atheistic.

Secular humanism, by the basic definition of the words, is atheistic.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Whoa whoa whoa. We've gone around on this already, right here in this thread. I posted the definitions of "secular" from a bunch of respected dictionaries and they all agree.

Non-religious. Irreligious. Other than religious. Lay.

These are typical, there is no disagreement among any of them.

And they all define "religion" as having a supernatural component. Therefore:

"Secular" by definition means not religious, which means having no supernatural component, which means having no god since gods are supernatural, which means being atheistic.

Secular humanism, by the basic definition of the words, is atheistic.

Look, there are plenty of people who, say, believe in God but are thoroughly secular. Hence, the words are not synonymous.

Also, I don't care if dictionaries all say that religion has a supernatural component. Peoples from a variety of non-western religions (Who understand the concept of "supernatural", by the way. I have a Hindu friend who is a religion major and also a member of the Brahmin caste.) who explicitly deny that their particular religion has any concept of supernaturalism. Stop using the dictionary as an authority, Mr. Fraggle.

Isn't it clear that I am using this philosophical discussion to redefine the words "religion", and "secular"? In fact, all philosophical discussions are about either redefining, or inventing, words. Stop throwing the dictionary at me.

 

[Shaitan]

Look, there are plenty of people who, say, believe in God but are thoroughly secular. Hence, the words are not synonymous.

Also, I don't care if dictionaries all say that religion has a supernatural component. Peoples from a variety of non-western religions (Who understand the concept of "supernatural", by the way. I have a Hindu friend who is a religion major and also a member of the Brahmin caste.) who explicitly deny that their particular religion has any concept of supernaturalism.

are you serious!

Hindus believe, that they fundamentally understand the workings of the universe and could, through that understanding, manipulate the material and spiritual worlds through magic. In this sense, magic to them is a form of technology, that is, it is primarily efficient: it begins with an understanding of the mechanisms of the universe and exploits those mechanisms to make things happen (efficient=making something happen). The Hindu turns to prayer, spells, incantations, rituals, and sacrifices to bring about changes in the world, particularly the physical world. They named the power inherent in spells, prayers, and rituals "brahma" or "brahman."

Brahman, the one god of the universe, Brahma, the creator god, and brahmin, "priest." Since the priests were the keepers of the rituals and the incantations, it was the priests who had brahma.

? are you serious! lol

 

[Jaster Mereel]

are you serious!

Hindus believe, that they fundamentally understand the workings of the universe and could, through that understanding, manipulate the material and spiritual worlds through magic. In this sense, magic to them is a form of technology, that is, it is primarily efficient: it begins with an understanding of the mechanisms of the universe and exploits those mechanisms to make things happen (efficient=making something happen). The Hindu turns to prayer, spells, incantations, rituals, and sacrifices to bring about changes in the world, particularly the physical world. They named the power inherent in spells, prayers, and rituals "brahma" or "brahman."

Brahman, the one god of the universe, Brahma, the creator god, and brahmin, "priest." Since the priests were the keepers of the rituals and the incantations, it was the priests who had brahma.

? are you serious! lol

Actually, I am serious. Hindus don't consider any of the things you just listed to be "supernatural", but totally natural. You said it yourself:

magic to them is a form of technology, that is, it is primarily efficient: it begins with an understanding of the mechanisms of the universe and exploits those mechanisms to make things happen

 

[SycknesS]

SECULAR HUMANISM, steals all that is good about religion, and cuts alot of the bad... but in their haste.. they cut out GOD, Jesus, Krishna, Moses, Mohammed, and probubly by their standards... Buddha as well.

its sad.

-MT

Well cutting out the rubbish is never a bad thing, also it "steals" more than just what is good about religion. Secular humanism has a greater moral code than any religion, don't make me bust some bible quotes .

 

[SycknesS]

Actually, I am serious. Hindus don't consider any of the things you just listed to be "supernatural", but totally natural. You said it yourself:

It doesn't matter if they consider it supernatural or not...

 

[Jaster Mereel]

It doesn't matter if they consider it supernatural or not...

Actually, since it's their religion, what they think of it matters more than what you think of it. If they understand what the concept of supernatural means, and they say that their religion contains nothing supernatural, then it doesn't.

Your arrogance is astounding. It's like I'm telling you my favorite color is green, and you're telling me it doesn't matter that I say my favorite color is green, because it's actually yellow.

 

[geeser]

Actually, since it's their religion, what they think of it matters more than what you think of it. If they understand what the concept of supernatural means, and they say that their religion contains nothing supernatural, then it doesn't.

so the hindus have redefined the meaning of supernatural, it's only supernatural if it's in any other religion, but thiers. even though it looks the same, acts the same, and smells the same, etc etc, it totally different.(I see)

Your arrogance is astounding. It's like I'm telling you my favorite color is green, and you're telling me it doesn't matter that I say my favorite color is green, because it's actually yellow.

but are'nt you telling us that supernatural does'nt mean the same the world over.
so whats your favourite colour geel or vert.

 

[lightgigantic]

are you serious!

Hindus believe, that they fundamentally understand the workings of the universe and could, through that understanding, manipulate the material and spiritual worlds through magic. In this sense, magic to them is a form of technology, that is, it is primarily efficient: it begins with an understanding of the mechanisms of the universe and exploits those mechanisms to make things happen (efficient=making something happen). The Hindu turns to prayer, spells, incantations, rituals, and sacrifices to bring about changes in the world, particularly the physical world. They named the power inherent in spells, prayers, and rituals "brahma" or "brahman."

Brahman, the one god of the universe, Brahma, the creator god, and brahmin, "priest." Since the priests were the keepers of the rituals and the incantations, it was the priests who had brahma.

? are you serious! lol

Even though there are nearly a billion people in INdia and most of them are hindus - I can't say that I have met all of them - but I have never heard of such fanciful descriptions of hinduism before - I have to ask what is your source for such descriptions

 

[Jaster Mereel]

so the hindus have redefined the meaning of supernatural, it's only supernatural if it's in any other religion, but thiers. even though it looks the same, acts the same, and smells the same, etc etc, it totally different.(I see)

Well, since Hindu's ultimately believe that these things are capable of being understood fully, then they obviously do not regard it in the same fashion as Jews would regard God, which they consider unknowable in any true sense. It's not that Hindu's regard it as supernatural only if it's in some other religion, it's that they don't believe that there is any kind of supernatural existence, i.e. they believe that all of existence can be understood in a full sense. You see, the difference is that you use the term "supernatural" in a negative way. Not everyone does. Some people just don't believe in it, and consider things that some would think to be supernatural to be perfectly natural.

but are'nt you telling us that supernatural does mean the same the world over.

When have I made this claim? In fact, my position throughout has been that the words have no absolute meaning, and that to different people words like "religion", "supernatural", and "secular" have different connotations.

 

[Jaster Mereel]

Even though there are nearly a billion people in INdia and most of them are hindus - I can't say that I have met all of them - but I have never heard of such fanciful descriptions of hinduism before - I have to ask what is your source for such descriptions

Well, although his description is crude and lacking in any kind of real understanding of Hinduism, roughly speaking, what he says is loosely correct. On a few points, however, his anti-religious bias shows through.

 

[geeser]

Even though there are nearly a billion people in India and most of them are hindus - I can't say that I have met all of them - but I have never heard of such fanciful descriptions of hinduism before - I have to ask what is your source for such descriptions

I dont think his wrong take a look here http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1987/06/1987-06-03.shtml

 

[Jaster Mereel]

I dont think his wrong take a look here http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1987/06/1987-06-03.shtml

No, he is not wrong. However, the interpretation of Hindu beliefs as containing an element of supernaturalism is a western interpretation. As I have said before, I am personally very close to a devout Hindu, who is also of the Brahmin caste. I'd actually trust his interpretation over that web site, after only a cursory examination.

 

[lightgigantic]

I dont think his wrong take a look here http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1987/06/1987-06-03.shtml

This is actually a sub branch of the vedas - like for instance you will never find a vedic quote that establishes how astrology will save one at the point of death - its part of para vidya (knowledge for how to get by in the material world) as opposed to apara vidya (transcendental knowledge).

Its not like god requires crystals to work through, and it s not like a sincere worshipper of god requires crystals to get favours from god