Another question for science.

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Again, how? Also - if all belief systems are man-made, what makes secular humanism any less prone to misuse than religion?

Secular Humanism does not require belief in a supernatural deity. It makes no supernatural claims. Promises no wish thinking regarding afterlifes. Casts no aspersions upon others who believe differently.

 

[Shemjaza]

At the present moment, no. In general, there is a stigma attached to the competence of the ancients as being sublimely inferior. And a completely linear path from man's beginning up to this point in terms of advancements. This is where the "education" factor comes in. And Darwinism exhales. I would contend though, that an ancient Egyptian adept in his respected field of "supernaturality", would wipe the floor with a modern day physician.

Tell that to Tutankhamun, he died of baddly healed broken leg. All the supernatural power of his father's "One True God" and all the knowedge of his successor's many gods and their priests turned out to be a lot less useful then one modern physician with a few bottles of antibiotics.

 

[AV1611VET]

Tell that to Tutankhamun, he died of baddly healed broken leg.

What does that prove? that advanced medicine would have saved him?

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Now -- if you could show me that every Egyptian who had a badly-healed broken leg died, that would be a different story.

 

[Ezio Auditore di Firenze]

But Egyptians were men, and men aren't bipedal! So they didn't have legs to break, right AV

 

[AV1611VET]

But Egyptians were men, and men aren't bipedal! So they didn't have legs to break, right AV

Right -- I didn't think of that!

 

[jayem]

Again, how? Also - if all belief systems are man-made, what makes secular humanism any less prone to misuse than religion?

Humanism makes no pretense to be divinely ordained or mandated. So no one can claim that persecuting, or oppressing anyone is justified by God's will.

As Pascal (an honest believer) said, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully, as when they do it from a religious conviction."

 

[AV1611VET]

Humanism makes no pretense to be divinely ordained or mandated.

Humanism allows for the ego to be one's deity.

So no one can claim that persecuting, or oppressing anyone is justified by God's will.

They wouldn't have to, if their egos were their god.

Their justification is concomitant with their desire.

Just desire it, and it's automatically justified.

As Pascal (an honest believer) said, "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully, as when they do it from a religious conviction."

At least he said 'religious', and not 'Christian'.

 

[MoonLancer]

Humanism allows for the ego to be one's deity.

They wouldn't have to, if their egos were their god.

Their justification is concomitant with their desire.

Just desire it, and it's automatically justified.

At least he said 'religious', and not 'Christian'.

Does that mean Christians have two deities then?

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Secular Humanism does not require belief in a supernatural deity. It makes no supernatural claims. Promises no wish thinking regarding afterlifes. Casts no aspersions upon others who believe differently.

Humanism makes no pretense to be divinely ordained or mandated. So no one can claim that persecuting, or oppressing anyone is justified by God's will.

That doesn't make it any less corruptible than theistic / religious beliefs. In the wrong hands it can be just as bad - if not worse. It encourages the idea than no matter how badly they act they will not be punished, that there is no higher power or higher cause than their own personal opinions; instead of killing in the name of 'God's Will' they kill in the name of their own will.

Thinking "If we remove God the world will be a more peaceful place" is very short-sighted. If indeed there is no God, then killing in the name of religion is no different than killing in the name of socialism or hedonism or indeed atheism. They are all human inventions considered important enough to justify murder.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

That doesn't make it any less corruptible than theistic / religious beliefs. In the wrong hands it can be just as bad - if not worse. It encourages the idea than no matter how badly they act they will not be punished, that there is no higher power or higher cause than their own personal opinions; instead of killing in the name of 'God's Will' they kill in the name of their own will.

Thinking "If we remove God the world will be a more peaceful place" is very short-sighted. If indeed there is no God, then killing in the name of religion is no different than killing in the name of socialism or hedonism or indeed atheism. They are all human inventions considered important enough to justify murder.

It's dangerous anytime one chooses superstition and religion over reason.

 

[lucaspa]

Can science explain the persistant worldwide belief in the supernatural by civilizations both modern and primitive, in spite of their best efforts of 'educating' these beliefs away?

Dawkins and some other evolutionary psychologists have proposed some hypotheses. I think they all have flaws.

One hypothesis, of course, is that the belief is there because people all over the world have had, and have, personal experience of deity.

 

[lucaspa]

Secular Humanism does not require belief in a supernatural deity. It makes no supernatural claims. Promises no wish thinking regarding afterlifes. Casts no aspersions upon others who believe differently.

That does not insulate it from misuse. Nor is it free from casting aspersions on others who disagree. For instance, let's look at the Humanist Manifesto III Humanist Manifesto III:

"Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility."

This has the possibility of misuse by subordinating human freedom and dignity to "concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond".

"Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. "

This gets very close to scientism and does indeed cast aspersion on other means of knowing.

"Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. "

Notice that "recognize", not "believe". That denies the validity of any viewpoint where nature requires God to exist.

"Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. "

This readily lends itself to misuse. Anyone remember Communism? If happiness is maximized by working to benefit society, what better than to increase everyone's happiness by requiring such work?

"Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. "

And what happens if humanity does not "progress"? Does humanism responsibility include forcing the "progress"? Again, you can see the possibility for abuse.

 

[lucaspa]

I would contend though, that an ancient Egyptian adept in his respected field of "supernaturality", would wipe the floor with a modern day physician.

Then why don't these adepts exist anymore? By your claims, they should have economically outcompeted physicians.