Humanism

[WonderBeat]

I can also conclude that way.


eudaimonia,

Mark

::

 

[Danyc]

Leap, at one point in this discussion I was actually genuinely interested in your line of thinking. You seemed reasonably intelligent and cogent, and you seemed like you had thought this through. At the very least you spoke 'clearly' enough.

But once again I'm let down at the end- as with every other religious conversation I've ever been in- the reason is always a fluffed and dressed up version of:

"Because".

 

[juvenissun]

Since I'm not an epistemological skeptic who doubts the ability of rational processes of thought to generate human knowledge, I ask myself how I know what I know, and if it someone else's claim, how they know what they know.

For example: when it comes to the search for the Higgs-Boson, I wonder how the scientists at CERN are conducting their research (they use a state of the art particle accelerator), and how many sigmas of certainty they have generated so far. I'm not a professional in the field, but it is possible for me to at least have a layman's understanding of the basic concept behind their search process. I have some idea of how they know what they claim to know, and it makes sense to me.

Likewise, if someone claims to have verified the existence of the Higgs-Boson, but claims that they have done so through tea leaf readings, I hope that you can understand easily enough why I would be significantly more doubtful. Unless someone can explain in a convincing way how tea leaf readings are going to answer this question, I'm unlikely to find that particular claim of discovery credible.

eudaimonia,

Mark

What you said is a normal process most people will do.

The problem is that some can do better than others, and some will do differently than others. So they could reach to different conclusions. As a consequence, the same function of "doubt" could produce different understandings and thus reactions. In science, there is still a way to refine the result. But in non-science, such as art, literature, social concern or history, then we do expect a very diverse or even chaotic situation.

All these happened simply because this doubting function has no guidance on any of its parameters. The consequence is obvious: The secular humanism has existed for thousands of years. But the human society is not any better (or different) than that thousands of years ago. The purpose or the goal of secular humanism was totally broken long time ago.

 

[Eudaimonist]

::

If you can conclude your way, I can conclude mine. If you can yawn at my conclusion, I can yawn at yours. Next time, try presenting an argument.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

the same function of "doubt" could produce different understandings and thus reactions. In science, there is still a way to refine the result. But in non-science, such as art, literature, social concern or history, then we do expect a very diverse or even chaotic situation.

No, even in the humanities it isn't true that "anything goes". There are standards to which one can appeal. Perhaps art suffers in this way, but I hardly see the problem.

All these happened simply because this doubting function has no guidance on any of its parameters.

Of course it does. Logic and critical thinking skills provide guidance. Sure, people can disagree, but it's not like "anything goes". If people drop the guidance that is available, they are functioning more like epistemological skeptics than humanist skeptics.

The consequence is obvious: The secular humanism has existed for thousands of years.

Secular humanism has existed for a very short time in human history.

But the human society is not any better (or different) than that thousands of years ago.

It is better. We have mostly eliminated slavery, for example. We have better technology. We have higher standards of living. We have greater literacy and education.

The purpose or the goal of secular humanism was totally broken long time ago.

I have no idea what "secular humanism" you are talking about here, or whose purposes or goals you mean.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[OneWithTime]

Religious humanism? Worshiping oneself as god? I gotta sign up for this so I can pray in front of a mirror.
But Humanism in all honesty is rather dumb. You are putting faith in the most unstable, irrational and destructive of creatures on this earth which is man.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Religious humanism? Worshiping oneself as god? I gotta sign up for this so I can pray in front of a mirror.
But Humanism in all honesty is rather dumb. You are putting faith in the most unstable, irrational and destructive of creatures on this earth which is man.

As compared to putting faith in...?

 

[OneWithTime]

As compared to putting faith in...?

A deity who is presumed to be perfect and flawless in design. It isn't the question of existence but the manner of that existence. Human's existence is plagued by imperfections while god has none or else who still wouldn't be worshiped and revered to this day.

 

[OneWithTime]

::

That is a cute picture of Radha you have in your signature! Are you a Sanatana Dharmist at heart by any chance? Or a Radha-Bhakti?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

A deity who is presumed to be perfect and flawless in design. It isn't the question of existence but the manner of that existence. Human's existence is plagued by imperfections while god has none or else who still wouldn't be worshiped and revered to this day.

Presumed is the key word.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Religious humanism? Worshiping oneself as god?

That's not what religious humanism means. It was an effort to promote reason and ethics without gods. It was not about worshipping human beings. If anything, it was ideals such as reason or altruism that were worshipped.

A deity who is presumed to be perfect and flawless in design.

The idea of which is created by those flawed human beings.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

No, even in the humanities it isn't true that "anything goes". There are standards to which one can appeal. Perhaps art suffers in this way, but I hardly see the problem.



Of course it does. Logic and critical thinking skills provide guidance. Sure, people can disagree, but it's not like "anything goes". If people drop the guidance that is available, they are functioning more like epistemological skeptics than humanist skeptics.



Secular humanism has existed for a very short time in human history.



It is better. We have mostly eliminated slavery, for example. We have better technology. We have higher standards of living. We have greater literacy and education.



I have no idea what "secular humanism" you are talking about here, or whose purposes or goals you mean.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I think there is no hope to argue with a humanist. Because he can say anything to justify whatever he likes.

Tell me one thing which is viewed differently by secular humanism and religion humanism. If you can say it, then I can tell you why are they the same.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think there is no hope to argue with a humanist. Because he can say anything to justify whatever he likes.

And that doesn't apply to religious believers?

 

[KCfromNC]

..Which shows just how ignorant you are....

What is this, kindergarten?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I think there is no hope to argue with a humanist. Because he can say anything to justify whatever he likes.

I don't see how you get this out of what I had written. Just because I disagree with your understanding of humanism, that doesn't mean that I can -- or try to -- justify whatever I like. I have a consistent view of humanism.

Tell me one thing which is viewed differently by secular humanism and religion humanism. If you can say it, then I can tell you why are they the same.

How did we get on the subject of religious humanism?

It is not my view that secular humanism and religion humanism are very different philosophically. The main difference seems to be whether the trappings of religion are involved or not. The religious humanists would, for instance, build temples to reason, in which rituals upholding and reinforcing their values would be performed. Secular humanism dispenses with religious rituals.

Are you perhaps asking about Christian humanism?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[brightlights]

Humanism is living in a fantasy world.

 

[Skavau]

Humanism is living in a fantasy world.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Eudaimonist]

What is it with these one sentence observations? If you have something to say, explain what leads you to conclude as you do. Anything else is kindergarten.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[brightlights]

Care to elaborate?

If you believe that you're good you are deluded.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you believe that you're good you are deluded.

What does that have to do with humanism?


eudaimonia,

Mark