The Modern Religion: Secular Humanism.

In the thread entitled "Service to Humanity vs Service to God", it was asked what the guiding principle that tells the Secular Humanist what the "right thing" is, to which audible replied:

I replied:

It is, in fact, my contention that Secular Humanism is a truly modern religion. Many of you will, I'm sure, disagree (and probably with great vehemence and derision), but I am very interested in knowing your responses to my assertion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Secular Humanism=religion you are joking

religion
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
only in the second reason could possibly call it religion, and thats tentative to say the least, religion is a belief/beliefs you aquire from your indoctrination, sadly in some case from want.

however :
Secular humanism

promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines.

the doctrine emphasizing a person's capacity for self-realization through reason; rejects religion and the supernatural

1. An outlook or philosophy that advocates human rather than religious values.
2. Secularism.

Secular humanism is born from the natural, it is not forced on you, your not indoctrinated with it, it is your natural state.
religion is a set of beliefs, whereas Secular humanism is the natural way: it is what you are before you are forced or sadly choose.
it is a million miles from ever being a religion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Secular Humanism isn't a religion? Let's use your own (the dictionary's) definition of religion, shall we? And then compare them to your own (the dictionary's) definition of Secular Humanism.

See those parts in bold? As I said, it's a fully modern religion, which means that it rejects certain traditional religious ideas, such as the supernatural, but at it's core it is the same type of value system as any religion, which is why it comes into conflict with them.

The point is, it's a set of ideals that contributes to a specific worldview, in much the same way as any religion, in fact that is what I believe a religion is, at it's most fundamental level. Ritual, and mythology, those things are there to add to the experience of religion, not the defining characteristic of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

shall we play idiot ping pong or shall we try to understand the difference, one is a belief forced onto us from an early age, the other is what we are naturally, at the very core, (what it is to be human). it cannot be deemed a specific worldview, it is not something you learn, therefore it cannot be a religion, that would mean humanity itself was religion, humanity is real, religion is just a set of inane beliefs

 

How do you know this?

 

How do you conclude that SH is a religion by selectively bolding some parts of the definition of religion? By your logic any "value" system that people hold is a religion. Which is, of course, absurd. I think this really is a game of idiot ping-pong. The defining characteristic of a religion is belief in a fundamentally supernatural entity, force, or "essence", limited dictionary def's not withstanding.

My value system regarding my collection of beer mugs is not a religion. Unless I claim they magically fill themselves on the 12th of October every year. Sweet!

 

How many thousands of years of zero evidence, completely conflicting theisims, and pure human misery does it take to convince one that religion is no more than a set of inane beliefs?

 

That's not the premise I was calling into question. Mustafhakofi posited that the belief system called secular humanism is innate in all humans from birth. This is far from the (still quite bold, and in my mind unjustified) proclamation that theistic religion is worthless.

 

Actually, I didn't conclude that it was a religion by selectively bolding some parts of a definition of religion. It was a retort to a post made to silence my position by using the "authority" of a dictionary.

Look, I am actually interested in reconciling our respective views (a goal which I do not believe you share), and in order to further this goal I would ask you to give a definition of religion (not a dicitonary definition), and since you have said explicitly that the concept of the supernatural is fundamental to religion, a definition of that as well. Thank you.

 

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

 

People who actually study world religions tend not to have this view - of course if one studies, or makes the pretense of studying world religions, in a mood of animosity they will tend to make superficial claims

 

do come on, if we were born with religion we would not need it taught.
we are human with human core values.

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. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence. are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.

HUMANISM

Humanism is a natural philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, it's our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
Guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience, it encourages us to live life well and fully.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing these things, from things, we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanism core value is 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 consistent with responsibility.

Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and our lives are animated with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality where mutually dependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

A Barnet

 

That goes with any belief system, including Secular Humanism. The point I was trying to make was that religiosity is something a person is born with. It's a matter of behavior, not philosophical ideals. Secular Humanists act with the same kind of religiosity that traditional Religionists act with, and I'm not talking about "mass murder and superstition", as you would probably point out, I'm talking about the zeal with which ideals are pursued. That kind of behavior is an inherent human quality.

Yes, we are human, with human core values. Those core values are enshrined in religion, whatever that may be. That's what religion is for, primarily.

And nothing about what you just said contradicts my point about Secular Humanism being a religion. When you hear the word "religion", you automatically associate it with "blind faith", "superstition", "stupid", "ignorant", "delusional", etc... This is an unfair list of attributes to assign to the religious, as most religious people who understand their own religion, and what it teaches, do not fit the description.

Like I said before, this sounds like a fully modern religion. It rejects traditional religion, but it occupies the same place in a person's mind as the very beliefs it seeks to supplant.

Stop treating religion as a dirty word.

 

This implies both that all humans are born with a set of core values and that this set of core values is the same as secular humanism. The supportability of either implication is far from obvious; quite the opposite, in fact. Any innate, i.e. instinctual, "values" we may possess are animal in nature. However, you describe secular humanism as follows.

All these activities which you describe as the basis of secular humanism are products of will and reason, not instinct. Given a man's freedom to choose not to arrive at any particular philosophy through the process of reason, how do you reconcile this basis with the belief that secular humanism is innate?

 

What is the thing people have with definitions?

Religion: A set of beliefs not reliant on fact or evidence and revolving around a core supernatural entity. force, or essence.

Supernatural: Beyond nature in the sense that there is zero evidence or correllated effect of the "supernatural" element.

 

So, in effect, what you're saying is that supernatural things by definition don't exist, or at least can't be known. Not only is this circular logic (as this is the same as your premise), it also disagrees with those who use the word 'supernatural' in a positive sense. For example, the phenomena of consciousness and perception are often described as supernatural since, by their qualitative nature, they escape the reach of scientific inquiry; they certainly cannot be described in the same terms as other natural phenomena (hence "supernatural"). Note here the distinction between the electrochemical processes which cause the phenomena, and the phenomena themselves.

It may be time to rethink your connotation of the word. In your current usage of the word, I find myself inevitably sympathetic to your position, but that is because any reasonable human being would agree that something does not exist, in fact does not exist. It is a true statement, but it is meaningless. Why even bother making it?

 

Correct. As any theist will attest.

Not my premise. It's direct from religious dogma.

Ok.

No they don't. They are current cutting-edge topics in the sciences of neurobiology and human cognition.

No. No distinction. You are just unaware of the illusion because you are the illusion.

No reconsidering necessary. Theists are not reasonable and have a dichotomous split in their cognitive facilities. The word(s) apply perfectly to the typical theist.

 

This is news to me. I have been under the impression from childhood that religions taught that not only did the supernatural exist, it very much could be known. This is in fact the premise of all forms of mysticism and by association religion.

If the self is to be defined as an illusion, then illusion too loses its meaning; what, if not myself, the only thing whose existence I cannot deny, is real?

It is logically necessary to distinguish between the mental process of consciousness and the experience of it. There is a clear semantic distinction between process and experience, the former being quite objective and quantitative, the latter the complete opposite. Do not cast away this postulate just because it is convenient. Try to fight it. Of exactly how much are you aware currently? Can you come up with a unit to quantify your whole perception? Is it possible to escape your own consciousness and look upon it as any other object? You can physically describe the processes even in your own brain that cause consciousness, but your consciousness itself is inescapable; you cannot impartially observe it. With every observation you make of it, you influence it. The totality of that of which you are aware changes to include itself even as you inspect it. You are thusly surrounded by a "shell" of subjectivity which separates you from the objective world, indeed even the brain which causes you, and it is impossible to circumvent. The presence of this shell is not to be found within the electrochemical processes of the brain (as it is of the same quality as the theorems of math and logic, not contained within any single mind, and true regardless of one's awareness of it), making it a valid and undeniable mark of distinction between process and experience.

Oh? Are theists also not reasonable by definition?

 

You have been misled.

Very pretty.

No, it's not.

Ok.

I completely disagree. When I examine another person, no matter what the level of detail, I will find only processes. All the way down to the atomic level. Your experience of things is completely nonexistent to me just as mine are to you. The only way for you to experience what I do would be for you to be me. Thus the illusion you describe as "experience" is inseperable from, and indeed is one with, the process of "experience". Your confusion about the identity of the process and the "experience" being one and the same is understandable. Your most egalitarian ruminations are nothing more than the spinning of gears taken to high levels of complexity. You cannot bottle experience because experience is the spinning of the gears. Don't be suprised when one day, any state of consciousness can be synthesized and simulated in the mind by technological means. We can measure the simple properties of the spinning gear such as angular momentum. Your thoughts are that spin propertiy multiplied by tens of billions. Yet qualitatively the same. Physical properties.

We are the epitome of reason. The paragon of rationality by which all others shall be measured.

 

No, really, I haven't. The supernatural is supposedly both real and visible. Quick demonstration:
Ghosts are supernatural entities. Many people claim to have seen ghosts. Therefore, many people believe supernatural entities to be visible.

So, in popular 'supernaturalist' opinion, the supernatural must be at least partially tangible.

You're mostly right, but the dependence of experience on process does not imply that they are one and the same; and dependence is all that your description necessitates. I do not argue against the fact that I cannot leave my brain and exist only as some abstract "standalone consciousness." Of course there is a strong connection between the processes in the brain and the perceptions they generate. One causes the other. However, were I to try to treat my experiences as processes under the premise that they are one and the same, I would quickly find myself proven wrong.

Let's say that I was somehow able to become aware of the totality of my consciousness; that I was completely self-aware, conscious of every process in my waking brain; or in experiential terms, I am conscious of my entire consciousness. However, in order to be conscious of my entire consciousness, I must also be conscious that I am conscious of my entire consciousness; and then I must in addition be conscious that I am conscious that I am conscious of my entire consciousness, and so forth ad infinitum. It is a feedback loop of new knowledge that goes on forever. I have acquired infinite knowledge before the loop terminates.

It is impossible, however, to have infinite knowledge, therefore it is impossible for me to be fully aware of everything going on in my own mind, and therefore, whereas I may be able to fully and completely know what you know, your current processes, it is impossible for me to exhaustively examine every current process in my own brain. As any natural process can be fully examined, my experience must necessarily not be a process. Of course, you could still fully examine me; to you, my experience is nothing more than processes. So it is only subjectively true that experience != process. Nonetheless, with respect to the self, they cannot be the same.

As always, I would be grateful if you could point out to me where the fallacy is in my defense of this.

Likewise pretty.