Humanism and religion

[GrowingSmaller]

Can humanism either embrace or at least tolerate religion, if not wholesale at least in part?

I suppose there are religious humanists, so it is possible.

But lets assume firstly that the essence of man, and also the universe, is entirely 'secular'. No soul, no Gods, no intervention, no angels, heaven or hell.

IMO even if this is true it is wrong to be vehemently opposed to all religion in case it serves a social function, for instance historically it has helped schoarship and learning in abbeys. I have been to mosques and at least people are sober, have a free warm place to socialise with toilets and drinking water, and there books to read if not libraries.

And religion may also formally representative of "sophisticalted theoretical thinking" which, even if the God hypotheses are flawed, is a step forwards from being a squirrel who only thinks about nuts. Poeple often love the Greeks like Thales even though they got it wrong. Should there be more equality or is the segregation and sterotyping of faith traditions warranted?

Finally, I might meet someone and they seem like a smashing character. If I should find out they are buddhist, muslim or whatever is it really imperative to attack and replace his or her core beliefs in order that I might 'advance their personality' towards a more complete humanity, like yours truly?

 

[jayem]

I think you're arguing against a stereotype. It's a tiny minority of non-believers who are stridently confrontational towards religious people and their beliefs. And they are likely reactionary, and are acting out of perceived or real adverse experiences with religious folks. It's just common sense that if you want to treated with respect, you should do the same to others.

With some rare exceptions, I'm fine with individual religious belief. I know that religion provides strength, hope, peace of mind, and comfort in stressful situations to many people. I fully respect that. So I separate personal faith from the behavior of organized religion--which, as I see it, is responsible for most all of the negatives. I may not "embrace"religion (and certainly not power-seeking churches) but I'm happy to coexist with well-intentioned persons of faith.

 

[quatona]

Can humanism either embrace or at least tolerate religion, if not wholesale at least in part?

I suppose there are religious humanists, so it is possible.

But lets assume firstly that the essence of man, and also the universe, is entirely 'secular'. No soul, no Gods, no intervention, no angels, heaven or hell.

IMO even if this is true it is wrong to be vehemently opposed to all religion in case it serves a social function, for instance historically it has helped schoarship and learning in abbeys. I have been to mosques and at least people are sober, have a free warm place to socialise with toilets and drinking water, and there books to read if not libraries.

And religion may also formally representative of "sophisticalted theoretical thinking" which, even if the God hypotheses are flawed, is a step forwards from being a squirrel who only thinks about nuts. Poeple often love the Greeks like Thales even though they got it wrong. Should there be more equality or is the segregation and sterotyping of faith traditions warranted?

Finally, I might meet someone and they seem like a smashing character. If I should find out they are buddhist, muslim or whatever is it really imperative to attack and replace his or her core beliefs in order that I might 'advance their personality' towards a more complete humanity, like yours truly?

Religion has been and is used for a lot of different purposes and to different ends - some of which I can embrace, others not so much.

 

[acropolis]

Any given belief system is good insofar as it does good. Similarly, any person is good insofar as they do good. It's my opinion that people will do what they're going to do basically regardless of what they believe. Good people will do good, and if they're religious they'll say it's because their god(s) told them to, and if they aren't they'll make up some other story to go with it. Bad people will do bad and also use whatever narrative they subscribe to to justify it. This forum is full of Christians that love people the Bible tells them not to and who hate those the Bible tells them not to, and it's the same with any other belief system. Unfortunately taken as a whole religions tend to do more harm than good. What we generally consider to be moral advancements in civilized humanity were mostly a result of scientific and advancement, with established religions only changing when they had to, sometimes literally because they government passed laws to compel to do so.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Can humanism either embrace or at least tolerate religion, if not wholesale at least in part?

It's possible. It's certainly possible politically.

IMO even if this is true it is wrong to be vehemently opposed to all religion in case it serves a social function

I don't think that it is wrong to be against things that prove themselves harmful "just in case" they might serve a social function. (Yes, that includes violent media.)

Tell me, is it wrong to be opposed to the pop culture you dislike "in case it serves a social function"?

for instance historically it has helped schoarship and learning in abbeys.

That's not an argument for today's world.

I have been to mosques and at least people are sober, have a free warm place to socialise with toilets and drinking water, and there books to read if not libraries.

That doesn't necessarily mean that mosques are desirable or even tolerable in the big picture.

Finally, I might meet someone and they seem like a smashing character. If I should find out they are buddhist, muslim or whatever is it really imperative to attack and replace his or her core beliefs in order that I might 'advance their personality' towards a more complete humanity, like yours truly?

Is it wrong when Christians do that?

I don't know how I could possibly replace anyone else's core beliefs. If they find something I say persuasive, then I must have helped them to a realization that they found more rational. I'm not going to keep silent about my views just because I might accidentally persuade someone and help them to realize their humanity.

And I have no idea what you mean by "attack". What is an attack and how could it change someone's core views?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think you're arguing against a stereotype. It's a tiny minority of non-believers who are stridently confrontational towards religious people and their beliefs. And they are likely reactionary, and are acting out of perceived or real adverse experiences with religious folks. It's just common sense that if you want to treated with respect, you should do the same to others.

With some rare exceptions, I'm fine with individual religious belief. I know that religion provides strength, hope, peace of mind, and comfort in stressful situations to many people. I fully respect that. So I separate personal faith from the behavior of organized religion--which, as I see it, is responsible for most all of the negatives. I may not "embrace"religion (and certainly not power-seeking churches) but I'm happy to coexist with well-intentioned persons of faith.

Thanks, nice to know you.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Any given belief system is good insofar as it does good. Similarly, any person is good insofar as they do good. It's my opinion that people will do what they're going to do basically regardless of what they believe. Good people will do good, and if they're religious they'll say it's because their god(s) told them to, and if they aren't they'll make up some other story to go with it. Bad people will do bad and also use whatever narrative they subscribe to to justify it.

I am not denying that but I believe that religion can positively (as well as negatively) influence peoples behavior and reshape it.

This forum is full of Christians that love people the Bible tells them not to and who hate those the Bible tells them not to, and it's the same with any other belief system. Unfortunately taken as a whole religions tend to do more harm than good.

How is that assertion testable, on what is the claculation based? Religions people are often regarded as "unscientific" which may be true, but isn't that another such belief?

What we generally consider to be moral advancements in civilized humanity were mostly a result of scientific and advancement, with established religions only changing when they had to, sometimes literally because they government passed laws to compel to do so.

Can you give examples please? Because science is only a couple of hundred years old, whilst religions have been around for millenia, you would seem to be claiming that there have been very few moral advances until science was developed, or that there has been a massive surge in the last couple of hundred years. I am not a histoian of morals, but I find that hard to believe without further reason to.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don't think that it is wrong to be against things that prove themselves harmful "just in case" they might serve a social function. (Yes, that includes violent media.)

I agree but I think that the social function of faith groupr can be demonstrated. This does not justify homophobia, but I think I heard that the Catholic Church is the second biggest aid institution in the world after the UN. To deny that is functional would seem potentially disingenuous.

Tell me, is it wrong to be opposed to the pop culture you dislike "in case it serves a social function"?

No, but because some pop culture may be conterproductive that does not mean all is. The same goes for religion.

That's not an argument for today's world.

"Knowledge is kept in stores, the keys of which is questioning. Ask as much as possible, Allah is compassionate towards you. The reward of asking is recorded for four: the asker, the speaker, the listener, and the favorer." source


"Philosophy is the stray camel of the Faithful, take hold of it wherever ye come across it. "


"An hour's contemplation is better than a year's adoration. "

"Go in quest of knowledge even unto China."

"Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave" source with more sayings available

That doesn't necessarily mean that mosques are desirable or even tolerable in the big picture.

I beg to differ, depending on what the "big picture" actually is. I live near a great big mosque and the local culture is great. It is not at all like one might expect having access only to the predominantly negative images mediated by the press.

Is it wrong when Christians do that?

As a general rule i would say yes, althought I imagine both of us might imagine a context where a stronger attack on someones beliefs could be justified (e.g. if they promote racist murder or something).

I don't know how I could possibly replace anyone else's core beliefs. If they find something I say persuasive, then I must have helped them to a realization that they found more rational. I'm not going to keep silent about my views just because I might accidentally persuade someone and help them to realize their humanity.

And I have no idea what you mean by "attack". What is an attack and how could it change someone's core views?

I have heard you mention anti-theism. Am am not opposed to it altogether, but I think that sometimes people can lack sensitivity especially on the internet where debates are abstracted from the influence or ordinary social and psychological regulators which sensitize people to one anothers situation and mood. I think some feminists might agree, if I am right in saying they consider the embedded person in a social and emotional world rather than just the "masculine" intellect in disembodied form.

 

[Resha Caner]

Can humanism either embrace or at least tolerate religion, if not wholesale at least in part?

Basically, no. But there are qualifications to that no.

This whole "tolerate" thing has, IMO, been twisted into one of two things. First, it's a way to try to avoid conflict. Many people stick their head in the sand and pretend there is no difference between religions - or even between religion and humanism (maybe one could argue that humanism is a religion, but that's another topic - I think I get the intent of the OP). So, there is an effort to emphasize common ground and ignore differences to an extreme that does more harm than good.

Second, it's a way to force people to leave you alone. "Tolerate" means, "Let me live my life as I please without interference." Again, when one lives in a community, that's a naive - and actually somewhat offensive - position. In it's crass form it says, "I can take from you the products of your effort, but you can require nothing of me."

There is a milder version of this where people basically don't care what others believe and are happy to live in that ignorance.

But, in the end, if you accept the principle of non-contradiction, once you become aware of a contradiction you must either 1) reject one side or the other, or 2) try to determine if the contradiction is only apparent due to a lack of understanding.

With all that said, one can certainly treat those with whom one disagrees with respect. That is the aspect of "tolerance" I can agree with.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

But, in the end, if you accept the principle of non-contradiction, once you become aware of a contradiction you must either 1) reject one side or the other, or 2) try to determine if the contradiction is only apparent due to a lack of understanding.

You remind me of a prionciple I read about in doxastic logic (logic of belief): do not hold contradictory beliefs. I never thought that applies to communitied rather than individuals, but I suppopse if its good for one then it may be good for the other?

 

[Resha Caner]

You remind me of a prionciple I read about in doxastic logic (logic of belief): do not hold contradictory beliefs. I never thought that applies to communitied rather than individuals, but I suppopse if its good for one then it may be good for the other?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. As a principle? Yes, I think it applies. Accepting contradiction is just odd. I only have a passing acquaintance with Zen, but it sometimes seems the koans take contradiction to an absurd extreme.

At the same time, there is something within those koans (or Hegel's idea of synthesis) that shouldn't be completely ignored. It's a subtle difference I'm trying to make.

First, you can't prevent people from holding different views. Any attempt to do so just leads to tyranny. So, the one aspect of a koan I can accept is: In life you're going to run into contradictions. How are you going to deal with them?

Second, you can't let yourself become so arrogant that you think you've got it all figured out. You need to remain open to challenges. So, the one aspect of synthesis I can accept is: Listen to people. You might realize you were wrong about something and incorporate a little bit of their idea.

But speaking from a purely logical perspective, yeah, contradiction points to an error. It's not something that can continue to exist in a sane mind.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

But speaking from a purely logical perspective, yeah, contradiction points to an error. It's not something that can continue to exist in a sane mind.

Or a sane society? So pluralism may be out of the question?

BTW I think that there may be people who confess a creed which ultimately entails things they do not actually believe in. For instnce you might get a catholic who advocates gay marriage or something, or a muslim who believes its ok to drink. These are not indications of clinical insanity if thats what you mean.

 

[acropolis]

I am not denying that but I believe that religion can positively (as well as negatively) influence peoples behavior and reshape it.

Certainly some religions contain good things, good commands and so on, and if people would decide to pick and choose those parts instead of the hateful, pointless stuff they often prefer it would be better for society. What would be even more preferable is to cut out the divine narrative completely and instead of imagining a god which then commands a person to do good, just do good for the sake of doing good. Cut out the middle-man.

All moral thought has an axiomatic floor to it, that is, there is a point where you can no longer justify what you believe and must simply declare it. In this sense all moral thought requires some amount of faith. It's my opinion that it's best to have faith in the merit of good actions directly rather than bothering with any religious texts or specific prophets or anything like that.

 

[Resha Caner]

Or a sane society? So pluralism may be out of the question?

Pluralism is a myth. I once got into an argument with a lady whose statement was, "Christians should not be allowed to hold political office because they try to dictate people's lives."

Uh. Does anyone else see the problem with that statement? But, that's what pluralism leads to.

BTW I think that there may be people who confess a creed which ultimately entails things they do not actually believe in. For instnce you might get a catholic who advocates gay marriage or something, or a muslim who believes its ok to drink. These are not indications of clinical insanity if thats what you mean.

No, I didn't mean clinical insanity. I realize such people exist. I call them "culturally" religious. They are Catholic (or Muslim or whatever) because of social pressures to conform in one way or another. Most of them, given the freedom to choose, would not be Catholic (or Muslim) ... at least as those faiths are properly defined. There are also those who (cough acropolis cough) think they can redefine religion by picking and choosing. Picking and choosing according to what standard?

 

[drjean]

Unfortunately, any form of humanism is against God and His principles. How can we declare that anything is good when done by man, when God says there is none good?

It is our moral imperative from God to share God's love with them. Toleration, as defined today, is against God's principles for living. It used to be more along the lines of allowing people, once informed of a difference, to make their own choice and live with it. It included things that weren't against God, but perhaps were in the grey areas in which some Christians have problems. Tolerate today includes accepting and condoning other's ideas, actions, and beliefs as acceptable (before God.)

God Himself tells us to shake the very dust off our shoes should we encounter those who refuse God. Does that fit today's idea of tolerate? I daresay no.

Anyway, humanism has always been wrong. Painting it with other colors, invoking shame upon believers in God, doesn't mean it's no longer wrong before God.

 

[Daniel25]

easily the gayest euphemism for atheism ever devised.

 

[Eudaimonist]

easily the gayest euphemism for atheism ever devised.

Are you talking about the word "humanism"?

"Humanism" not a "euphemism" for atheism, since:

1) Humanism doesn't mean atheism, so...
2) one can be an atheist and not a humanist. Humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3) one can be religious and a humanist. Religious humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4) one can be a Christian Humanist. Christian humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In any case, it's an appropriate word for how it is used today, since it places the focus of ethical concern on human beings, not on deities, naturally enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Pluralism is a myth. I once got into an argument with a lady whose statement was, "Christians should not be allowed to hold political office because they try to dictate people's lives."

Uh. Does anyone else see the problem with that statement?

Yes, she's overreacting. She should say instead that the government should not be used to enforce a monoculture, so she would never vote for candidates who have that aspiration. And she merely assumes that Christians are always social conservatives looking to enforce a traditional religious culture, which isn't the case.

BTW, a pluralist isn't required to tolerate just any politics, nor is a pluralist required to approve of all cultures. They very well may want some universal acceptance of principles of freedom and tolerance, and so they may be intolerant of the intolerant without contradiction.

I get the impression that you are confusing pluralism with some crazy notion of cultural or moral relativism. A pluralist can be opposed to such views.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[acropolis]

easily the gayest euphemism for atheism ever devised.

Here's where I would put a joke about the catholic church and little boys if there was actually any humor to be had from that whole mess.

edit: Those who live in a glass house should not throw stones.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Certainly some religions contain good things, good commands and so on, and if people would decide to pick and choose those parts instead of the hateful, pointless stuff they often prefer it would be better for society. What would be even more preferable is to cut out the divine narrative completely and instead of imagining a god which then commands a person to do good, just do good for the sake of doing good. Cut out the middle-man.

All moral thought has an axiomatic floor to it, that is, there is a point where you can no longer justify what you believe and must simply declare it. In this sense all moral thought requires some amount of faith. It's my opinion that it's best to have faith in the merit of good actions directly rather than bothering with any religious texts or specific prophets or anything like that.

So for instance I practice Buddhist meditation. What secular ethos would that be replaced with, that might produce similar states of mind but in a non-religious sense? Where are the secular meditaiton experts that can help elevate my mind to a similar degree? I think that the main secular moralities are utilitarianism, kantianism and virtue ethics, but they are theories of morals or generalised guides for conduct rather than processes for altering states of mind. So I think if I gave up meditation in the name of the secular ethos I would be at a loss. I think that the same might be said of church going Christians. Perhaps in theory they might be better of being secular, because it would be more congruent with their metaphysical nature, but the culture of inspiration or fellowship or whatever they find beneficial in the church cannot be replaced simply by reading Jeremy Bentham. I cant remember ever seeing someone like this (below) as a Richard Dawkins seminar. However inapt it might be from one perspective, I think that such states seem to be at least making the most of the human capacity for positive mental states, or "spirituality". And yes I know there are night clubs, but I think they tend to be linked to criminality (drugs, violence) more that churches.