Secular humanism

[benjdm]

Often, I see opinions from religious conservatives that think very little of secular humanism. This surprises me. The existence of God is not a moral question. As an atheist, I still have to have an ethical system to guide my actions. If you are a person who thinks little of secular humanism, what secular ethical system do you propose in its place ? What would its foundational values be ?

 

[FadingWhispers3]

People who are against secular humanism do so with the skewed view that morality can only have basis from adherence to a set of absolute laws from a higher (presumably more knowledgeable and moral) being.

In other words, no secular ethical system would satisfy someone who takes issue with secular humanism.

 

[CSmrw]

Because they are depraved.

 

[Silent Bob]

Because they are depraved.

I tend to agree, people who don't go out and kill just because their deity has told them not to strike me as sociopaths who are only held back by fear.

I have been an Atheist and, except for the initiation ceremony to the EAC, I have never eaten a live baby.

 

[Mling]

In the context of a conversation with, or the writings of, a religious conservative decrying "secular humanism" you need to look carefully at what they are actually talking about. Many people who object to "secular humanism" have no idea what humanism actually is, and use that title to describe any idea they don't like.

 

[Arnold_Philips]

I have never eaten a live baby.

Then you have never lived.

 

[Silent Bob]

Then you have never lived.

Read between the commas.

 

[WilliamSC]

Often, I see opinions from religious conservatives that think very little of secular humanism.

Predominately, humanism, secular or otherwise, excludes all religious individuals from participating in humanist ideals.

“The Council for Secular Humanism is North America's leading organization for non-religious people.”

“Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism…” (American Humanist)

Humanism drew the line in the sand, excluding the possibility for religious tolerance. If humanism were to encompass humanity as a whole, then many religious individuals would surely support many of the humanist ideals. It is not a logical conclusion to blame the banned religious conservatives for the actions of humanism.

This surprises me. The existence of God is not a moral question.

Very much agreed. The belief or disbelief in God should not be the dividing line between who is allowed to adopt the ideals of humanism. Nevertheless, it is humanism itself that has drawn the dividing line, and the banned religious individuals are not to blame for the division: humanism is.

As an atheist, I still have to have an ethical system to guide my actions.

The rhetorical question arises: by what standard of behavior is it logical to ban a group of people from humanism and then blame the banned individuals for the division? Humanism has some serious difficulties with ethics, morals, and logic, and it is sensible for a healthy individual to spot humanism’s inconsistencies.

Upon investigating humanism it is found that the ideology basis its beliefs within a narrow view of anti-religion, anti-paranormal, anti-alternative medicine, and over all general ill manners. The ‘pro’ topics are claimed to be critical thinking and democracy, and yet the ‘critical’ appears to only be ‘negative unfair criticizing’, and democracy is proclaimed by a minority who desire majority say (no rational thought there).

Critical thinking is being inwardly self-critical of how a person thinks, not the mere criticizing of things external to the self. It is easy to criticize and deny all things, but it demands inner will, discipline, honesty, and logic to achieve useful critical thinking. Humanism, from what I have personally been able to observe, has not yet applied critical thinking to its own professed beliefs. Personally, it would not matter if I were a theist, atheist, or anything in-between, I still would not wish to join nor support humanism due to its too frequent contradictions in logic. Humanism appears to be primarily founded upon the dislike of religion, and for me personally I could never allow myself to support any ideology whose only basis for existence is to hate/dislike/disapprove of something else. If an ideology does not possess positive goals, then it can only exhibit negative behaviors.

Honesty and fairness are said to be good ethics, but neither of which have I personally found to exist in any of the numerous humanist writings, radio broadcasts, and videos. If humanism has a system of good ethics, it would be beneficial for humanism to state what they are and then behave accordingly.

If you are a person who thinks little of secular humanism, what secular ethical system do you propose in its place ? What would its foundational values be ?

I personally feel humanism’s general ideals would be immensely improved if humanism adopted for its primary foundation a demand for logic. Logic itself is the foundation and source for all ethics and morals, and without logic there can be no good ethics nor morals. Until humanism chooses logic, it will remain unproductive.

 

[benjdm]

Predominately, humanism, secular or otherwise, excludes all religious individuals from participating in humanist ideals.

Secular humanism does exclude religious individuals, because religious people usually adopt the ethical systems of their religion. Religious humanism does exist but is not very popular. Regardless, my question is not about an ethical system for religious people. Does the Christian ethical system include non-religious individuals ?

The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God "
They are corrupt, they have committed abominable deeds;
There is no one who does good.
- Psalms 14:1

No. It is a religious ethical system. I cannot use it to determine what principles guide my actions, as I am 'excluded' from using it because its very foundation is inapplicable to me. I need a different foundation for my ethical decision making.

It is not a logical conclusion to blame the banned religious conservatives for the actions of humanism.

Of course. I am not doing so. You are mixing up the actions of people with the actual ethical system. Should I judge the value of the ten commandments by tencommandments.org ? By Fred Phelps ? No. The ethical system stands on its own merits.

Upon investigating humanism it is found that the ideology basis its beliefs within a narrow view of anti-religion, anti-paranormal, anti-alternative medicine, and over all general ill manners. The ‘pro’ topics are claimed to be critical thinking and democracy, and yet the ‘critical’ appears to only be ‘negative unfair criticizing’, and democracy is proclaimed by a minority who desire majority say (no rational thought there).

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

- Humanist Minimum Statement

Which I would break down personally even further to: I base my ethics on a foundational value of human health and happiness. I try and make my decisions in the context of enhancing this foundational value.

Honesty and fairness are said to be good ethics, but neither of which have I personally found to exist in any of the numerous humanist writings, radio broadcasts, and videos. If humanism has a system of good ethics, it would be beneficial for humanism to state what they are and then behave accordingly.

Humanist ethics are not authoritarian. Actions are evaluated on the basis of their probable outcomes. Honest and fair actions are good because when practiced, they generally enhance human health and happiness. There. You're done.

Logic itself is the foundation and source for all ethics and morals, and without logic there can be no good ethics nor morals. Until humanism chooses logic, it will remain unproductive.

It is based on logic - or on a synonym of logic, reason.

"It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities."

Your impression of humanism is much different than mine.

 

[theeyesoftammyfaye]

so pardon my lack of knowledge, but i see the term "secular humanism" batted around a lot. i've been accused of being a "secular humanist" more times than i can count - though i don't really understand. is it a fancy, 2006 way of saying "liberal?" if so, hey, fine by me. but any explanation would be appreciated.

 

[Texas Lynn]

so pardon my lack of knowledge, but i see the term "secular humanism" batted around a lot. i've been accused of being a "secular humanist" more times than i can count - though i don't really understand. is it a fancy, 2006 way of saying "liberal?" if so, hey, fine by me. but any explanation would be appreciated.

You've made the smokescreen dissipate.

"Secular Humanism" emerged as a bogeyman at the 1977 National Conference on Women's Rights. The Cold War was winding down and political operatives needed another bogeyman to replace the hapless communists.

 

[benjdm]

so pardon my lack of knowledge, but i see the term "secular humanism" batted around a lot. i've been accused of being a "secular humanist" more times than i can count - though i don't really understand. is it a fancy, 2006 way of saying "liberal?" if so, hey, fine by me. but any explanation would be appreciated.

The wiki or the most recent Humanist Manifesto sum it up pretty well, I think.