posted
Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that freedom of religion is kept in America, but that 'Humanism' as outlined below is adopted as the guiding philosophy of America. ("One nation under Prometheus."?)
I admit that I am a philosophical and religious ignoramus. That's why I am saying very little in this post, other than to ask the question.
The sort of answer you will get to that question depends on what sort of humanist you ask!
The word "humanism" has a number of meanings, and because authors and speakers often don't clarify which meaning they intend, those trying to explain humanism can easily become a source of confusion. Fortunately, each meaning of the word constitutes a different type of humanism — the different types being easily separated and defined by the use of appropriate adjectives. So, let me summarize the different varieties of humanism in this way.
Literary Humanism is a devotion to the humanities or literary culture.
Resaissance Humanism is the spirit of learning that developed at the end of the middle ages with the revival of classical letters and a renewed confidence in the ability of human beings to determine for themselves truth and falsehood.
Cultural Humanism is the rational and empirical tradition that originated largely in ancient Greece and Rome, evolved throughout European history, and now constitutes a basic part of the Western approach to science, political theory, ethics, and law.
Philosophical Humanism is any outlook or way of life centered on human need and interest. Sub-categories of this type include Christian Humanism and Modern Humanism.
Christian Humanism is defined by Webster's Third New International Dictionary as "a philosophy advocating the self-fulfillment of man within the framework of Christian principles." This more human-oriented faith is largely a product of the Renaissance and is a part of what made up Renaissance humanism.
Modern Humanism, also called Naturalistic Humanism, Scientific Humanism, Ethical Humanism and Democratic Humanism is defined by one of its leading proponents, Corliss Lamont, as "a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion." Modern Humanism has a dual origin, both secular and religious, and these constitute its sub-categories.
Secular Humanism is an outgrowth of 18th century enlightenment rationalism and 19th century freethought. Many secular groups, such as the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism and the American Rationalist Federation, and many otherwise unaffiliated academic philosophers and scientists, advocate this philosophy.
Religious Humanism emerged out of Ethical Culture, Unitarianism, and Universalism. Today, many Unitarian- Universalist congregations and all Ethical Culture societies describe themselves as humanist in the modern sense.
The most critical irony in dealing with Modern Humanism is the inability of its advocates to agree on whether or not this worldview is religious. Those who see it as philosophy are the Secular Humanists while those who see it as religion are Religious Humanists. This dispute has been going on since the early years of this century when the secular and religious traditions converged and brought Modern Humanism into existence.
Secular and Religious Humanists both share the same worldview and the same basic principles. This is made evident by the fact that both Secular and Religious Humanists were among the signers of Humanist Manifesto I in 1933 and Humanist Manifesto II in 1973. From the standpoint of philosophy alone, there is no difference between the two. It is only in the definition of religion and in the practice of the philosophy that Religious and Secular Humanists effectively disagree.
The definition of religion used by Religious Humanists is a functional one. Religion is that which serves the personal and social needs of a group of people sharing the same philosophical world view.
To serve personal needs, Religious Humanism offers a basis for moral values, an inspiring set of ideals, methods for dealing with life's harsher realities, a rationale for living life joyously, and an overall sense of purpose.
To serve social needs, Humanist religious communities (such as Ethical Culture societies and many Unitarian-Universalist churches) offer a sense of belonging, an institutional setting for the moral education of children, special holidays shared with like-minded people, a unique ceremonial life, the performance of ideologically consistent rites of passage (weddings, child welcomings, coming-of-age celebrations, funerals, and so forth), an opportunity for affirmation of one's philosophy of life, and a historical context for one's ideas.
Religious Humanists maintain that most human beings have personal and social needs that can only be met by religion (taken in the functional sense I just detailed). They do not feel that one should have to make a choice between meeting these needs in a traditional faith context versus not meeting them at all. Individuals who cannot feel at home in traditional religion should be able to find a home in non-traditional religion.
I was once asked by a reporter if this functional definition of religion didn't amount to taking away the substance and leaving only the superficial trappings. My answer was that the true substance of religion is the role it plays in the lives of individuals and the life of the community. Doctrines may differ from denomination to denomination, and new doctrines may replace old ones, but the purpose religion serves for PEOPLE remains the same. If we define the substance of a thing as that which is most lasting and universal, then the function of religion is the core of it.
Religious Humanists, in realizing this, make sure that doctrine is never allowed to subvert the higher purpose of meeting human needs in the here and now. This is why Humanist child welcoming ceremonies are geared to the community and Humanist wedding services are tailored to the specialized needs of the wedding couple. This is why Humanist memorial services focus, not on saving the soul of the dear departed, but on serving the survivors by giving them a memorable experience related to how the deceased was in life. This is why Humanists don't proselytize people on their death beds. They find it better to allow them to die as they have lived, undisturbed by the agendas of others.
Finally, Religious Humanism is "faith in action." In his essay "The Faith of a Humanist," UU Minister Kenneth Phifer declares —
Humanism teaches us that it is immoral to wait for God to act for us. We must act to stop the wars and the crimes and the brutality of this and future ages. We have powers of a remarkable kind. We have a high degree of freedom in choosing what we will do. Humanism tells us that whatever our philosophy of the universe may be, ultimately the responsibility for the kind of world in which we live rests with us. Now, while Secular Humanists may agree with much of what religious Humanists do, they deny that this activity is properly called "religious." This isn't a mere semantic debate. Secular Humanists maintain that there is so much in religion deserving of criticism that the good name of Humanism should not be tainted by connection with it.
Secular Humanists often refer to Unitarian Universalists as "Humanists not yet out of the church habit." But Unitarian- Universalists sometimes counter that a secular Humanist is simply an "unchurched Unitarian."
Probably the most popular exemplar of the Secular Humanist world view in recent years was the controversial author Salman Rushdie. Here is what he said on ABC's "Nightline" on February 13, 1989, in regard to his novel The Satanic Verses.
[My book says] that there is an old, old conflict between the secular view of the world and the religious view of the world, and particularly between texts which claim to be divinely inspired and texts which are imaginatively inspired. . . . I distrust people who claim to know the whole truth and who seek to orchestrate the world in line with that one true truth. I think that's a very dangerous position in the world. It needs to be challenged. It needs to be challenged constantly in all sorts of ways, and that's what I tried to do. In the March 2, 1989, edition of the New York Review, he explained that, in The Satanic Verses he —
. . . tried to give a secular, humanist vision of the birth of a great world religion. For this, apparently, I should be A tried. . . . "Battle lines are being drawn today," one of my characters remarks. "Secular versus religious, the light verses the dark. Better you choose which side you are on." The Secular Humanist tradition is a tradition of defiance, a tradition that dates back to ancient Greece. One can see, even in Greek mythology, Humanist themes that are rarely, if ever, manifested in the mythologies of other cultures. And they certainly have not been repeated by modern religions. The best example here is the character Prometheus.
Prometheus stands out because he was idolized by ancient Greeks as the one who defied Zeus. He stole the fire of the gods and brought it down to earth. For this he was punished. And yet he continued his defiance amid his tortures. This is the root of the Humanist challenge to authority.
The next time we see a truly heroic Promethean character in mythology it is Lucifer in John Milton's Paradise Lost. But now he is the Devil. He is evil. Whoever would defy God must be wickedness personified. That seems to be a given of traditional religion. But the ancient Greeks didn't agree. To them, Zeus, for all his power, could still be mistaken.
Imagine how shocked a friend of mine was when I told her my view of "God's moral standards." I said, "If there were such a god, and these were indeed his ideal moral principles, I would be tolerant. After all, God is entitled to his own opinions!"
Only a Humanist is inclined to speak this way. Only a Humanist can suggest that, even if there be a god, it is OK to disagree with him, her, or it. In Plato's Euthyphro, Socrates shows that God is not necessarily the source of good, or even good himself. Socrates asks if something is good because God ordains it, or if God ordains it because it is already good. Yet, since the time of the ancient Greeks, no mainstream religion has permitted such questioning of God's will or made a hero out of a disobedient character. It is Humanists who claim this tradition.
After all, much of Human progress has been in defiance of religion or of the apparent natural order. When we deflect lightening or evacuate a town before a tornado strikes, we lessen the effects of so called "acts of God." When we land on the Moon we defy the Earth's gravitational pull. When we seek a solution to the AIDS crisis, we, according to Jerry Falwell, thwart "God's punishment of homosexuals."
Politically, the defiance of religious and secular authority has led to democracy, human rights, and even the protection of the environment. Humanists make no apologies for this. Humanists twist no biblical doctrine to justify such actions. They recognize the Promethean defiance of their response and take pride in it. For this is part of the tradition.
Another aspect of the Secular Humanist tradition is skepticism. Skepticism's historical exemplar is Socrates. Why Socrates? Because, after all this time, he still stands out alone among all the famous saints and sages from antiquity to the present. Every religion has its sage. Judaism has Moses, Zoroastrianism has Zarathustra, Buddhism has the Buddha, Christianity has Jesus, Islam has Mohammad, Mormonism has Joseph Smith, and Bahai has Baha-u-lah. Every one of these individuals claimed to know the absolute truth. It is Socrates, alone among famous sages, who claimed to know NOTHING. Each devised a set of rules or laws, save Socrates. Instead, Socrates gave us a method —a method of questioning the rules of others, of cross- examination. And Socrates didn't die for truth, he died for rights and the rule of law. For these reasons, Socrates is the quintessential skeptical Humanist. He stands as a symbol, both of Greek rationalism and the Humanist tradition that grew out of it. And no equally recognized saint or sage has joined his company since his death.
Because of the strong Secular Humanist identity with the images of Prometheus and Socrates, and equally strong rejection of traditional religion, the Secular Humanist actually agrees with Tertullian—who said:
"What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?" That is, Secular Humanists identify more closely with the rational heritage symbolized by ancient Athens than with the faith heritage epitomized by ancient Jerusalem.
But don't assume from this that Secular Humanism is only negative. The positive side is liberation, best expressed in these words of Robert G. Ingersoll:
When I became convinced that the universe is natural, that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space. I was free—free to think, to express my thoughts—free to live my own ideal, free to live for myself and those I loved, free to use all my faculties, all my senses, free to spread imagination's wings, free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope, free to judge and determine for myself . . . I was free! I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds. Enough to make a Secular Humanist shout "hallelujah!"
The fact that Humanism can at once be both religious and secular presents a paradox of course, but not the only such paradox. Another is that both Religious and Secular Humanism place reason above faith, usually to the point of eschewing faith altogether. The dichotomy between reason and faith is often given emphasis in Humanism, with Humanists taking their stand on the side of reason. Because of this, Religious Humanism should not be seen as an alternative faith, but rather as an alternative way of being religious.
These paradoxical features not only require a unique treatment of Religious Humanism in the study of world religions, but also help explain the continuing controversy, both inside and outside the Humanist movement, over whether Humanism is a religion at all.
The paradoxes don't end here. Religious Humanism is usually without a god, without a belief in the supernatural, without a belief in an afterlife, and without a belief in a "higher" source of moral values. Some adherents would even go so far as to suggest that it is a religion without "belief" of any kind— knowledge based on evidence being considered preferable. Furthermore, the common notion of "religious knowledge" as know- ledge gathered through nonscientific means is not generally accepted in Religious Humanist epistemology.
Because both Religious and Secular Humanism are identified so closely with cultural humanism, they readily embrace modern science, democratic principles, human rights, and free inquiry. Humanism's rejection of the notions of sin and guilt, especially in relation to sexual ethics, puts it in harmony with contemporary sexology and sex education as well as aspects of humanistic psychology. And Humanism's historic advocacy of the secular state makes it another voice in the defense of church/state separation.
All these features have led to the current charge of teach- ing "the religion of secular humanism" in the public schools.
The most obvious point to clarify in this context is that some religions hold to doctrines that place their adherents at odds with certain features of the modern world which other religions do not. For example, many biblical fundamentalists, especially those filling the ranks of the "Religious Right," reject the theory of evolution. Therefore, they see the teaching of evolution in a science course as an affront to their religious sensibilities. In defending their beliefs from exposure to ideas inconsistent with them, such fundamentalists label evolution as "humanism" and maintain that exclusive teaching of it in the science classroom constitutes a breech in the Jeffersonian wall of separation between church and state.
It is indeed true that Religious Humanists, in embracing modern science, embrace evolution in the bargain. But indi- viduals within mainline Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism also embrace modern science—and hence evolution. Evolution happens to be the state of the art in science today and is appropriately taught in science courses. That evolution has come to be identified with Religious Humanism but not with mainline Christianity or Judaism is a curious quirk of politics in North America. But this is a typical feature of the whole controversy over humanism in the schools.
Other courses of study have come to be identified with Humanism as well, including sex education, values education, global education, and even creative writing. Today's Christian fundamentalists would have us believe that "situation ethics" was invented by 1974 Humanist of the Year Joseph Fletcher. But situational considerations have been an element of Western jurisprudence for at least 2,000 years! Again, Secular and Religious Humanists, being in harmony with current trends, are quite comfortable with all of this, as are adherents of most major religions. There is no justification for seeing these ideas as the exclusive legacy of Humanism. Furthermore, there are independent secular reasons why schools offer the curriculum that they do. A bias in favor of "the religion of secular humanism" has never been a factor in their development and implementation.
The charge of Humanist infiltration into the public schools seems to be the product of a confusion of cultural humanism and Religious Humanism. Though Religious Humanism embraces cultural humanism, this is no justification for separating out cultural humanism, labeling it as the exclusive legacy of a nontheistic and naturalistic religion called Religious Humanism, and thus declaring it alien. To do so would be to turn one's back on a significant part of one's culture and enthrone the standards of biblical fundamentalism as the arbiter of what is and is not religious. A deeper understanding of Western culture would go a long way in clarifying the issues surrounding the controversy over humanism in the public schools.
Once we leave the areas of confusion, it is possible to explain, in straightforward terms, exactly what the modern Humanist philosophy is about. It is easy to summarize the basic ideas held in common by both Religious and Secular Humanists. These ideas are as follows:
Humanism is one of those philosophies for people who think for themselves. There is no area of thought that a Humanist is afraid to challenge and explore. Humanism is a philosophy focused upon human means for comprehending reality. Humanists make no claims to possess or have access to supposed transcendent knowledge. Humanism is a philosophy of reason and science in the pursuit of knowledge. Therefore, when it comes to the question of the most valid means for acquiring knowledge of the world, Humanists reject arbitrary faith, authority, revelation, and altered states of consciousness. Humanism is a philosophy of imagination. Humanists recognize that intuitive feelings, hunches, speculation, flashes of inspiration, emotion, altered states of consciousness, and even religious experience, while not valid means to acquire knowledge, remain useful sources of ideas that can lead us to new ways of looking at the world. These ideas, after they have been assessed rationally for their usefulness, can then be put to work, often as alternate approaches for solving problems. Humanism is a philosophy for the here and now. Humanists regard human values as making sense only in the context of human life rather than in the promise of a supposed life after death.
Humanism is a philosophy of compassion. Humanist ethics is solely concerned with meeting human needs and answering human problems—for both the individual and society—and devotes no attention to the satisfaction of the desires of supposed theological entities. Humanism is a realistic philosophy. Humanists recognize the existence of moral dilemmas and the need for careful consideration of immediate and future consequences in moral decision making. Humanism is in tune with the science of today. Humanists therefore recognize that we live in a natural universe of great size and age, that we evolved on this planet over a long period of time, that there is no compelling evidence for a separable "soul," and that human beings have certain built-in needs that effectively form the basis for any human-oriented value system. Humanism is in tune with today's enlightened social thought. Humanists are committed to civil liberties, human rights, church-state separation, the extension of participatory democracy not only in government but in the workplace and education, an expansion of global consciousness and exchange of products and ideas internationally, and an open-ended approach to solving social problems, an approach that allows for the testing of new alternatives. Humanism is in tune with new technological developments. Humanists are willing to take part in emerging scientific and technological discoveries in order to exercise their moral influence on these revolutions as they come about, especially in the interest of protecting the environment. Humanism is, in sum, a philosophy for those in love with life. Humanists take responsibility for their own lives and relish the adventure of being part of new discoveries, seeking new knowledge, exploring new options. Instead of finding solace in prefabricated answers to the great questions of life, Humanists enjoy the open-endedness of a quest and the freedom of discovery that this entails. Though there are some who would suggest that this philosophy has always had a limited and eccentric following, the facts of history show otherwise. Among the modern adherents of Humanism have been Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood and 1957 Humanist of the Year of the American Humanist Association; humanistic psychology pioneers Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, also Humanists of the Year; Albert Einstein, who joined the American Humanist Association in the 1950s; Bertrand Russell, who joined in the 1960s; civil rights pioneer A. Philip Randoph who was the 1970 Humanist of the Year, and futurist R. Buckminister Fuller, Humanist of the Year in 1969.
The United Nations is a specific example of Humanism at work. The first Director General of UNESCO, the UN organization promoting education, science, and culture, was the 1962 Humanist of the Year Julian Huxley, who practically drafted UNESCO'S charter by himself. The first Director-General of the World Health Organization was the 1959 Humanist of the Year Brock Chisholm. One of this organization's greatest accomplishments has been the wiping of smallpox from the face of the earth. And the first Director-General of the Food and Agricultural Organization was British Humanist John Boyd Orr.
Meanwhile, Humanists, like 1980 Humanist of the Year Andrei Sakharov, have stood up for human rights wherever such rights are suppressed. Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem fight for women's rights, Mathilde Krim battles the AIDS epidemic, and Margaret Atwood is one of the world's most outspoken advocates of literary freedom—Humanists all.
The list of scientists is legion: Stephen Jay Gould, Donald Johanson, Richard Leakey, E.O. Wilson, Francis Crick, Jonas Salk, and many others—all members of the American Humanist Association, whose president in the 1980s was the late scientist and author Isaac Asimov.
The membership lists of Humanist organizations, both religious and secular, read like Who's Who. Through these people, and many more of less reknown, the Humanist philosophy has an impact on our world far out of proportion to the number of its adherents. That, I think, tells us something about the power of ideas that work.
This may have been what led George Santayana to declare Humanism to be "an accomplishment, not a doctrine."
So, with modern Humanism one finds a philosophy or religion that is in tune with modern knowledge; is inspiring, socially conscious, and personally meaningful. It is not only the thinking person's outlook, but that of the feeling person as well, for it has inspired the arts as much as it has the sciences, philanthropy as much as critique. And even in critique it is tolerant, defending the rights of all people to choose other ways, to speak and to write freely, to live their lives according to their own lights.
So, the choice is yours. Are you a Humanist?
You needn't answer "yes" or "no." For it's not an either-or proposition. Humanism is yours—to adopt or simply to draw from. You may take a little or a lot, sip from the cup or drink it to the dregs.
The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.
There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.
Today man's larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation. We therefore affirm the following:
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man's religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.
FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.
SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of "new thought".
SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation — all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.
EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion.
NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.
TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.
ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.
TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.
THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.
FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.
FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.
So stand the theses of religious humanism. Though we consider the religious forms and ideas of our fathers no longer adequate, the quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind. Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams, that he has within himself the power for its achievement. He must set intelligence and will to the task.
posted
Alright, I first have to admit I didn't read the entire manifesto, but got some of the points. Second, did I miss your question Saxon, or was it concealed? While Edwards speaks the truth about the definition of humanism varying with each person (and not just humanist) you ask.
I've recently run into a definition of Humanism that I am particularly fond of (based on the Roman orator Cicero). It most certainly isn't the most specific, and far from the broadest even of those just mentioned above.
quote: Humanitstas (Humanism), as Cicero understood it, was closely associated with the Roman virtue of clementia... It was the study of art and literature rather than of philosophy which was supposed to result in 'humanity'.
David Mayernik
In terms of attempting to apply the Fifteen humanist points below, I wouldn't be in favor of attempting to influence the course of US politics or cultures along it. First off, we are having a hard enough time keeping to the Bill of Rights. More points, while specific, is not always better. Second, my personal thoughts on Humanism is that its origins would not be found solely in religious intents, which wouldn't seem to agree with the posted essay. In my opinion, it is entirely possible to separate Humanism from organized religions without resulting in the negative secular images illustrated above.
All in all, I think my definition of Humanism is probably too different in scope to compare here, but it has been on my mind lately, so I figured I might as well post.
posted
There is much in those explanations of humanism- in the detailed explanations of modern humanism at least- which your average Christian would find very distasteful. The opponents of religion tend to paint with a broad brush, and the humanists interviewed in this article are no exception. It is all well and good to celebrate defiance of authority, but to do so in order to paint all religionists as mindless sheep while only humanists have the guts to fight for freedom is very ingenuous.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Human gets enough attention on this board, which is annoying enough. The last thing I want is for that sort of thing to seep into the rest of my existence.
So, umm, I guess that's my answer to your question.
I am not sure I understood your question, but I will post what bothered me about the manisfesto. Every worthy manifesto, in my opinion, must have both "philosophy" and "implementation." What do we believe? and How will we go about achieving said belief.
I found the fourteenth point disturbing:
"The humanists are FIRMLY convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a RADICAL CHANGE in METHODS, CONTROLS, and MOTIVES MUST BE INSTITUTED. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world."
**caps added by me***
What type of radical controls are going to be instituted and will that only happen vountarily as suggested at the end of the point?
It seems, according to the humanist manifesto, that a socialized society is necessary--now we are moving beyond philosophy and religion and into the realm of politics.
If humanism has it's way, will this be forced upon unenlightened individuals? Are there any evidences that socialism is more productive to human rights then capitalism?
I believe in humanism, but I must admit, after reading the manifesto, I got the jeebies. I see agenda in that manifesto that is a little scarey.
Alexa
One last point: Altho we live in a physical world, there are many truths that can only be understood via metaphor and art. Religion is very beautiful (I include organized religion) as a systematic means to expose membership to to metaphorical truths and stories--while still leaving room for faith in God.
Science is a continual process of redefining what is no longer true, NOT what IS true--that is only done through testing, and since God can not be tested in the scientific realm, science can not take a position on God, in my opinion. To do so, at any rate, will never satisfy the questions of awareness, agency, morality, and spirit for all people.
Posts: 1034 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting thoughts, and a vital question.
I find a ot of philosophical overlap in my study of art history and my study of France, and most of it has to do with humanistic issues.
The problem I see with the humanist viewpoint is that so many divergent doctrines can be extrapolated from it:
quote:Humanism is a philosophy of compassion. Humanist ethics is solely concerned with meeting human needs and answering human problems—for both the individual and society—and devotes no attention to the satisfaction of the desires of supposed theological entities.
Here is where I see the dichotomy and the breakdown. Throughout history, humanist philosophy has indeed led to several doctrines of social responsibility. We see outgrowths of it in the American and French Revolutions, marxist philosophy, the socialist movement, and democracy itself. However, the absence of a higher power or moral authority leaves us with a very limited inclination to provide for the good of other individuals, and this leads to the breakdown of many systems. These include: the Terror under Robespierre, industrial-era workplace atrocities in America a la Upton Sinclair, the metamorphosis of communal societies into totalitarian regimes under the likes of Stalin, and even contemporary free-market style human rights violations. Early humanist utopian thinkers provided for this loss of central moral authority by emphasizing man's innate regulation by "Virtue." But where was Virtue to govern the will of the people when the guillotine started falling? How can one stress compassion and tolerance while at the same time negating the existence of any "right way' of doing things? The Unitarian Universalist association espouses the doctrine:
quote: We believe that personal experience, conscience and reason should be the final authorities in religion, and that in the end religious authority lies not in a book or person or institution, but in ourselves. (from www.uua.org)
But it provides no solution for when human wills oppose one another. Tolerating different world views is fine, but there has to exist an authority somewhere, or we'll have to tolerate the conscience and reason of those who suppoort genocide.
The other outgrowths of humanist philosophy aren't as philanthropic as democracy and social responsibility. The freudian mentality that so pervades modern thought is based on the exploration and justification of the self and turns most often into a lifestlye of wallowing in victimhood. Existentialist philosophy of the mid-20th century is the ultimate expression of humanist thought - man is at the center of the universe to such an extent that nothing outside the self exists and everything is vain and futile. Where does social responsibility fit into a world view that is so centered on personal awareness?
The idea of self vs. society is at the core of all of these problems. Without a religious authority or a "higher purpose," we must have some universal governing principle to make any argument on right and wrong valid.
Montesquieu tackled this in his Persian Letters by postulating a fictional people called the Troglodytes. Rousseau addressed it in On Social Contract. But all of these authors made it evident that Virtue was the governing force in a humanist society.
How do we account for Virtue in a contemporary humanist worldview?
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it's just my chauvanism coming out, but I think that the conspicuous abscence of any mention of the Humanistic school of psychology (save a passing mention to two of it's founders) does a disservice to one of the major sources of Humanism.
It seems to me that the material presented is specifically geared to make it look like one of the primary concerns of Humanism is opposition to tradition religion. While this is certainly true from a historical and philosophical sense (and thank God that it was), it glosses over the types of humanism in which opposition of religion is mainly tangential, such as in psychology or many systems of non-Marxian socialism (including Christian Socialism). Much like Galileo's advocacy of the Copernican model or Darwin's theory of evolution, these forms of humanism seek no direct quarrel with tradional religion, but rather have independently arrived at conclusions that violate core concepts of current definitions of religion. Thus, the hostility largely springs from the religious towards the humanist, rather than the shared mix that characterizes the types of humanism that were described.
For example, while the Enlightenment was marked by a strong feeling of anti-clericism, a large fraction of this came from people who were calling for a return to "primative Christianity". That is, they wanted people to actually structure their lives on the messages from the Bible rather than on the dictates of the religious authorities. These Christian humanists called for a socialism or really more like a communism derived from Jesus' anti-property teachings and as described in the Pauline letters and by Josephus's letters on the early Christian communities. They advocated love of your neighbor and pacifism and were sickened by the hatred and militarism of their co-religionists. Many of them rejected the idea of original sin, prefering to believe that man had goodness as part of his nature instead of only evil. They all rejected to authoritarianism that was the prime character of Christianity of their day as being contrary to the true nature of Christianity.
These people based their humanist philosophy of their reading of the Bible and understanding of what it meant to be a Christian. After forming these impressions, they matched them against the aspects of the world they lived in and found most of them, including Christianity, to be severly lacking. (Yes, I'm aware of how simplistic I'm making this and that divorcing anything, especially a conception of Christianity from the prevailing attitudes of Christianity was impossible.) Thus, while they earned the emnity of the representatives of traditional religion, they were not aiming at this as a goal.
Humanistic psychologists largely have the same sort of orientation, although they generally base their world views on observation human behavior than on the Bible. Nonetheless, I think that it's fair to say that many - but by no means all - of them disagree with traditional conceptions of religion because it violated their psychological concepts and not out of a direct hostility towards the religion. We study core concepts of "human nature" and compare dogmas and social norms as to how they fit our findings. In many cases, this leads to a conflict with traditional religion (e.g. one of the central concepts of Maslow's psychology is that neurosis is the result of a failure of personal growth, rather than of man's intrinsic evil nature disagrees both with religion and with previous non-humanistic psychologies such as Freud's), but this is a peripheral aspect of the research phase, even if it takes on a more central role in implementation.
However, just like all socialism is now viewed as sharing Marx's extremely negative view of religion, humanistic psychology is generaly characterized as founded on a hostility towards established religion. The ironic thing for those of us who understand the field is that, of the three schools of psychology, humanism is the only one that acutally holds positive views of religion. The contemptuous psychologist who views religion as only self-delusion and psychological weaknesses fits in much better with the Freudian school and strict adherents to the Behvaioral school deny the reality of any human cognition, let alone religious strivings. In fact, many humanistic psychologists have approached the primative Christianity thinkers from pretty much the other side, in that they are concerned about redeeming religion rather than destroying it. They have acknowledged that while there are serious problems with current conceptions of religion, there are also many very beneficial parts of it.
For an example, as I've mentioned before, Gordon Allport accounted for the statistical being religious -> bigotry correlation by showing that, while this was true for a large majority of religious people, a significant minority showed the opposite correlation and that this minority shared some characteristics that the bigoted majority didn't. From this, he developed his conception of intrinsic versus extrinsic religion and added support to the humanist idea that intrinsic motivations are "better" and less easily twisted into serving psychological weaknesses.
I think it does a great disservice to humanism, religion, and society in general to view humanism as neccessarily being constituted with an animosity to traditional religion. It's that kind of thinking that leads people to believe that you can either be religious or humanist but not both and not neither. At one point, I think it was on Hatrack, someone characterized Saddam Hussein as a "secular humanist", which would have been funny if it wasn't a view that I'm afraid many people share.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squicky - I'm a totally amateur in psychological philosophies, but you sound like you know a lot about the prevalent schools of thought. I really like the works of Viktor Frankl - what school would he be associated with?
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annie, In The Brothers Karamazov, Dostoyevski has one of the athiest characters say, "Without God, all things are permitted." and the ramifications of this setiment pervades the rest of the book. I really like that statement, as it sums up the anarchical view of morality pretty well. Without some outside regulator to reward or punish actions, human behavior is characterized completely by freedom.
As I mentioned above, intrinsic, organic motivations form a large part of my brand of humanism and they are directly applicable here. Many people, upon reading that statement, immediately assume that the speaker is advocating performed the basest of actions without restraint or conscience. They seem to believe that without an external force preventing them, people will behave in the most hedonic, depraved manner possible. I think that this reflects more on their own state of maturity than on the state of human nature as a whole and illustrates one of the traditional humanistic criticisms of religion.
One of the central tenants of humanism, no matter what it's stripe, is that people have the capacity for goodness. In all but a very few strains, this capacity for goodness is seen as being an innate part of human nature. When people ask, seemingly mystified, "Where does your desire to do good come?" the answer is simple. It doesn't come from anywhere; it's a part of being human. Believing this is what it means to be a humanist.
Thus, without restraint, it is still possible for people to do the right thing. In fact, as the reaction I described above illustrates, relying on restraint often actually makes people less likely to do the right thing. They do the right thing because they have themselves chosen to do thing, not because of a reward/punishment structure. This type of motive is much more durable and pervasive as well as being more flexible. If you regard morality as the skeleton of behavior, the extrinsic style acts on the outside of a person, contraining their choices, flexiblity, and growth, while the intrinsic type serves as a support giving frame from which, again, all things are possible.
An anarchic humanist rejects unconditional authority and external restraint, not as a license of immorality, but rather as an assumption of responsibility. They look to outside sources for inspiration and clarification, but not to make their decisions for them. The responsibility for that and for the consequences thereof, they take on themselves.
I've noticed a different conception of responsiblity that I think it at least partially divided on these lines. On one hand, you've got the traditional definition, where responsibility is pretty much conflated with guilt. When you talk about responsibility under this definition, what you're doing is trying to assign a fixed amount of blame on people. On the other hand, there is a definition of responsibility that claims that a person is responsible for the sum consequences of his actions and inactions. If you act a certain way and things develop from this, that is your responsibilty. If you could have acted differently and had different results, that is also your responsibility.
I think this thing fits exactly into your question of social responsibility. For example, lets regard affirmative action. For many people, affirmative action is a issue of guilt or blame. Because of slavery, racism, etc. Blacks are owed something, or, conversly, because I didn't do those things, because I bear no responsibility for them, I have no responsibiltiy towards counteracting their effects. From the second type of view, issues of blame or deservingness are irrelevant. The question becomes, "A problem exists. What can I do to make it better?" While many people of this orientation (myself included) reject the implementation of Affirmative Action, this doesn't mean that we don't consider ourselves responsible for dealing with the problems that it tries to address. Any problem is our responsibilty, because we can do something about it. That, and not whether or not we are to blame, defines the scope of our responsibilty.
---
Your examples of Robspierre and Freud, while examples of a secular rebellion against religious orientations, don't actually speak to humanism. One can be non-religious and still not be humanist.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, the absence of a higher power or moral authority leaves us with a very limited inclination to provide for the good of other individuals, and this leads to the breakdown of many systems. These include: the Terror under Robespierre, industrial-era workplace atrocities in America a la Upton Sinclair, the metamorphosis of communal societies into totalitarian regimes under the likes of Stalin, and even contemporary free-market style human rights violations. Early humanist utopian thinkers provided for this loss of central moral authority by emphasizing man's innate regulation by "Virtue." But where was Virtue to govern the will of the people when the guillotine started falling? How can one stress compassion and tolerance while at the same time negating the existence of any "right way' of doing things? The Unitarian Universalist association espouses the doctrine . . . But it provides no solution for when human wills oppose one another. Tolerating different world views is fine, but there has to exist an authority somewhere, or we'll have to tolerate the conscience and reason of those who suppoort genocide
Annie, you've managed to highlight one of the most frustrating parts of humanism/atheism.
I'm not sure I completely fall in line with the "humanism" as spelled out by this manifesto, but in a lot of ways I align with secular humanistic ideology. Time and again I have heard people say that in the absence of a central moral authority, i.e. God, society breaks down. As though without the existence of a deity, we are doomed to become either ruthless savages or ineffectual relativists.
First, morality need not be derived from a deific source. I do not believe in any deities. But I think everyone who knows me would agree that I am a moral person. That is, I have a moral and ethical code that I understand and I adhere to it. You only need one counterexample to disprove a statement, so the fact that I have morals leads me to believe that religion is not the only possible source of morality.
Given that morality can exist in the absence of a deity, it's not hard to believe that a central moral authority can exist in the absence of a deity. A code of ethics and morals provides the same reference against which actions and intentions can be measured regardless of its source. Given a code of ethics, an authority can exist to interpret and enforce it. This can be as complex as an elected official (and in many ways law does serve as a structured way of enforcing and measuring morals) or as simple as a person's, or group of people's, own conscience.
Saying that humanism leads to the atrocities of Robespierre, Stalin or Mao is, in my opinion, just as bad and just as offensive as saying that religion leads to the atrocities of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
I was just in an automotive accident. It was my fault. No one was hurt, but it totaled my car and my brain, as in the ability to think coherently, and is probably going to cost me a lot of money. I am going to go to sleep for about an hour or a million.
My basic thought about both any creed or god that someone attempts to follow, whether it is religious or a so-called rationalist emprical theory, is that you are no better than the god, or ideals you follow.
posted
I would argue that Robespierre's ideologies were very humanist, almost marxist in scope. (example)
I definitely wouldn't say that all humanist philosophies lead to these kind of thoughts and justifications. I wouldn't say either that humanism and religion are mutually exclusive.
I definitely think LDS doctrine is among the more humanist Christian philosophies, holding as a central tenet the divine nature of man.
I would argue, though, that humanist philosophies without religion must establish some central frame of reference for moral decisions. Without any such authority, these systems degenerate into moral relativism.
And again, how are we to evaluate man in his state of nature? I like to believe in the innate goodness of humanity, but then I have a hard time reconciling that with atrocities commited in the name of the greater human good like nazi facism.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annie, There's three broad movements considered "schools" in psychology: Freudian (now called Psychoanalytic), Cognitive-behavioral, and Humanist. Theorists have widely different levels of adherence to a school and to the idea of schools in general. Also, each school really defines a fundamental way of looking at things. Within each, there can be differences between individual theories at least as wide as between them and ones in other schools.
That being said, Frankl was pretty much idenpendent of these distinctions, although I'd regard him a mainly a humanist because of his optimistic view of human nature. A big problem with this is that the actual Humanist school was founded by Rogers and Maslow after Frankl major writings. He's his own man. Oh, and I love his work too.
One of the big things that Frankl is know for is that he brought existentialism into his psychological conceptualizations. His idea of the primary importance of man's search for meaning was a big existentialist thing and has become very important in what is now called existential humanist psychology. If you wanted to see stuff that's been influenced by his thought, I'd recommend looking into some of their stuff (although I think that they get a little to much into Heidegger). I worked for a while building up a program with David Williams at UPenn that contains an explanation of this stuff. You can find it here, if you want.
quote:Humanism is yours?to adopt or simply to draw from. You may take a little or a lot, sip from the cup or drink it to the dregs.
Fine, but if it's that open to interpretation then I don't see it as a very strong or coherent philosophy. It's almost self-destructive--here Edwords is trying to build a structured definition of humanism and elaborate on what it accepts or rejects. Then he puts one of the tenets of humanism to practice: that you can accept as much of this as you want. Well, at what point can I call myself a humanist--if I accept at least 75% of the tenets? Can I have faith in God and still consider myself a humanist? Is anybody actually a legitimate humanist, or is it just the name given to all the guidelines set forth here?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Saying that humanism leads to the atrocities of Robespierre, Stalin or Mao is, in my opinion, just as bad and just as offensive as saying that religion leads to the atrocities of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.
I want to focus of this statement because it underlines the main explanation of bad behavior in humanistic psychology, especially in regards to religion. That is, the same factors that lead to atrocities in religious systems are the ones that lead to atrocities in non-religious systems. The principles are the things that matter, not the context in which they express themselves. Thus, when people bring up non-religious movements that committed atrocities that were similar to those of religious ones, they are strengthening my point.
Like I said, the work in psychology that has been extended to the bad things in religion generally didn't start out as referencing religion. Rather, we looked at human behavior in situations and then applied what we had learned to the religious context. One of the major spurs to research in this area was the vast rethinking of human nature engendered by World War II. However, the findings regarding prejudice, authoritarianism, in-group/out-group distinctions, depersonaliztion, etc. that came out of this research apply nicely to all forms of human organizations, including religious ones.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick, I think you are pretty much agreeing with me. My point is that bringing up examples such as Hitler, Stalin and Robespierre does not prove that secular philosophies are untenable. From a logical standpoint such an argument is weak and from an emotional standpoint it is as offensive as equating all religious people to Torquemada.
quote:I would argue, though, that humanist philosophies without religion must establish some central frame of reference for moral decisions. Without any such authority, these systems degenerate into moral relativism.
I don't disagree with this. As I said before, it is quite possible for secular and/or humanist philosophies to establish such a frame of reference.
In my opinion, relativism is not a complete philosophy. In the absence of divine moral decrees, it seems like a necessity--that is, value judgments can only be made relative to a given frame of reference, none of which can be proven to be universal--but it does not provide a realistic measure that can be used to guide one's life. What it does do is allow for the possibility of growth, in that since no moral reference can be declared universal it allows people to incorporate new ideas into their moral framework. That is, it lets people say, "That guy might be right, so maybe I should examine his beliefs and see if they have merit." Yes, it's possible for this attitude to lead to the total destruction of civilization, but I find that idea unlikely because people are slow to change and the decision to incorporate changes into one's moral code is itself a moral decision and thus will be made relative to the existing moral reference.
quote:And again, how are we to evaluate man in his state of nature? I like to believe in the innate goodness of humanity, but then I have a hard time reconciling that with atrocities commited in the name of the greater human good like nazi facism.
Why is it important to evaluate man in his state of nature? Secular moral structures can be every bit as structured as religious ones. Besides, what does it even mean to evaluate man in his state of nature? What outside influences do we need to disregard? If God doesn't exist, then what we see now is man in his state of nature. And if He does exist, then doesn't the question become moot?
And why bring up nazi fascism? Is it any more valid than reconciling your desire to believe in the innate goodness of humanity with atrocities committed in the name of the greater human good like fanatical suicide bombers or the Spanish Inquisition?
Edit: Alternatively, why not try reconciling that desire with good people who happened to be humanists?
quote:Why is it important to evaluate man in his state of nature?
Simply, because if Squicky's remark here:
quote:One of the central tenants of humanism, no matter what it's stripe, is that people have the capacity for goodness. In all but a very few strains, this capacity for goodness is seen as being an innate part of human nature. When people ask, seemingly mystified, "Where does your desire to do good come?" the answer is simple. It doesn't come from anywhere; it's a part of being human. Believing this is what it means to be a humanist.
is to hold true, than we must have some sort of verification that man in a state of nature (or - those attributes of humanity which are common to all people when culture and society is stripped away) is indeed innately good. I don't see examples of cultures without a common moral code being inherently good.
I'm not arguing against humanism (and, like AFR said, can we really call it a coherent philosophy at all?), I think that humanistic influences are valuable when set in a context of a moral code. Original humanist thought came about during the Renaissance, and was more or less compatible with catholic doctrine. It works in societies where there is a right and wrong defined, and a socially responsible mentality present. Otherwise, glorifying man and celebrating his abilities devolves into prizing the biologically perfect specimen to the detriment of others, being materialistic on the grounds that what you earn you deserve, and making pursuits egocentric to the extent that your fellow human beings cease to exist in your world view. There is nothing in humanism alone that asks you to love your neighbor, and a society cannot be founded by individuals who are unwilling to sacrifice personal liberties for the general good.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
But there is nothing intrinsic about religion that causes people to do good, either, Annie. All the pitfalls that plague Humanism plague religion, as well.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Adherents to a religion do have an innate right and wrong defined and social obligation. All major world religions teach compassion for your neighbor and social and familial responsibility. Adherents to humanism (as practised secularly), in accepting that no one's ideals are wrong, also say that there is no absolute right. I said nothing about the detractors in a society governed by each philosophy.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:we must have some sort of verification that man in a state of nature (or - those attributes of humanity which are common to all people when culture and society is stripped away) is indeed innately good
I disagree. Being innately good and having the innate capacity for goodness are not the same thing at all. As I see it, being innately good means that on balance people are more likely to do good things than evil things. Having the capacity for good doesn't say anything about the relative frequencies of good and evil deeds, just that there is the possibility of a person on his own deciding to do something good.
And you are still misstating the relativistic principle, at least insofar as I understand it. It's not that no ideal is wrong, it's that no ideal can be proven universally right. And despite the fact that many of the major world religions are similar, they do not all teach the same thing in regards to what is wrong and what is right. While I can't think of any specific examples off the top of my head, it seems to me that there must be numerous examples of things that are taught to be wrong in, say, Islam, that are approved of or ignored by, say, Christianity. Likewise for Buddhism, Judaism, and Hinduism. The point of relativism is not to say "Nobody is right and nobody is wrong, therefore anyone can do whatever he wants."
My point is not to bash any particular religion, or religion in general. My point is simply that there does not exist any one standard that all people in the world apply to their own lives. Not even if you limit it to just religious people.
Additionally, given that several of the major points of the excerpts Storm posted focus on compassion and social responsibility, I have a hard time understanding how you can claim that humanism does not advance those ideals.
At this point I almost feel like you are trying not to understand what I'm saying. You continue to try to prove my beliefs and worldview wrong--or at least to say why you think they are wrong--and I find that horribly offensive. Maybe that's not how you intend it, but that's how I'm receiving it.
Am I offending you? This is a serious question. Does my stating my beliefs or arguing with you in order to clarify my beliefs offend you? Do you feel that I am challenging you, or that I feel that religion should be done away with, or that religion in general is wrong? I am trying very hard not to be offensive, but if I'm failing then I apologize.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You continue to try to prove my beliefs and worldview wrong--or at least to say why you think they are wrong--and I find that horribly offensive. Maybe that's not how you intend it, but that's how I'm receiving it.
If you have a problem with people telling you why they think you're wrong, then why the heck are you on a debate forum?!
Posts: 134 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, this is not a debate forum. Debates happen here, but that is not its purpose. This is much more of a community than just a place for people to argue.
Second, there's a giant difference between someone telling you that your political opinions are wrong than that your personal philosophy leads to savagery and/or is morally wrong.
Third, I don't see where you get off implying that I shouldn't be insulted when I think that someone I consider a friend is saying that I'm immoral.
Fourth, you might want to wait longer than one day after joining a community before you start telling other members how to behave, especially when they are not doing anything to you.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Though I may incur the wrath of OrneryMOd for saying this, I think you'll find that conducting yourself here as is the norm at Ornery will not fly with very many people. It's not about having or not having thick skin. This simply is not a debate forum for the vast majority of the membership.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
saxon, Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure Hatrack is a debate forum as well as a community one. If it isn't, I certainly don't belong here. For me, this is certainly a debate topic. I hope that the reason we don't want Hatrack to be like Ornery is because of the lack of respect and maturity there and not because they disagree with each other.
As such, I really think that your tone towards Annie was out of line. She's expressing an opinion about non-absolute moral systems that, while I believe to be mistaken, is far from uncommon. I think that Annie has been very respectful and is intereseted in learning here. I hope that Annie, and the rest of Hatrack, would continue to speak their minds even at the risk of hurting someone's feelings, so long as they remain respectful. I hate to use the term, but telling someone that they can't say something because it offends you is the worse part of politcal correctness.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annie, I agree that humanism does not explicitly command that people do good things and that people who don't work together can't form a society. However, that you think this is a problem with humanism, I think, indicates that you just don't understand it. I think you're failing to understand what humanism really means and are instead casting it in the mold that you're comfortable with. (I wonder, will that make you receptive or defensive? It's always hard for me to judge without face to face contact. I was going for receptive.)
For a humanist, there isn't necessarily a need for an external command to be good to other people. For a humanist, this desire is already a big part of a person's nature and will be naturally expressed by a mature person. That's kind of the point of humanism, that people don't have to be forced to do good, and instead will do it of their own violition if there aren't competing influences. It's only when you take a view, insupportable in my opinion, that people are incapable of doing good without external goading that saying that any system without this goading is doomed to failure makes sense.
Two points about this explicit command to love your neighbor being a part of religions. First, as you yourself admit, this is a near universal thing. Doesn't that point out that this is likely a part of human nature across all cultures? I think that it does.
Second, while religions have said this, how good, really, is their track record on living it? I think it's pretty friggin' awful. It's important to remember that a religion or any social system isn't made up of discrete statements, but rather of the whole of both dogma and structure, which often present competing or contradictory messages. As I stated above, religious humanists rightfully leveled pretty much the same criticisms of Christianity as secular ones did, that they had not lived up to the ideals of loving your neighbor. As I also pointed out, psychometric measures of such loving-your-neighbor-related things as prejudice and in-group/out-group bias in America have consistently shown that the overwhelming majority of Christians score worse on these things than the non-religious population.
Not only does not having this explicitly commanded to you seem not to cause people to not act in accordance with it, but also at least one system in which it is expressly commanded seems to result in worse behavior. From a humanistic standpoint, this is likely because traditional religious systems tend to alienate people's empathy and trust.
It's important to realize how much of morality is used, not a guide to good behavior, but instead as a justification for depersonalizing people that you want to do bad things to. Without this personalizing effect, it would be very difficult to carry out atrocities in the face of one's empathetic feelings. The first experiences the psychological community had with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder came about while studying soldiers who underwent extreme psychic stress when they lost the ability to depersonalize their people they were killing.
There have been some recent studies (I'll admit, I haven't actually read the studies, but only desciptions in magazines and through personal correspondance) that have shown that there is a biological basis for empathy as long as you identify with the other people. Cooperation with a group has been shown to be rewarding for it's own sake. Also, witnessing another's pain (in this case shocking) has lead to mental activity similar to that in response to being shocked oneself.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is nothing antagonistic in my words, Mike. I'm simply trying to defend my view of how humanism fits into our society. I'm not a debater, I'm a philosophical nitwit most of the time, and thus my arguments tend to be way too idealistic. Plus, I agree with about 80% of what you say. You've brought up some very good points. Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good points, Squicky. Unfortunately, I'm now running off to a midterm and will have to wait to respond. Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I'm out of line then I sincerely apologize. I'm not sure exactly why this would be such a hot-button topic for me, but I usually conduct myself with a bit more decorum. I'm sorry.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you may be having trouble understanding how a humanistic view of humans might work, so I'm going to try to leave off attacking your viewpoint and try to explain how I see such a system.
Central to my thinking is the idea of a mandalic relationship. This is a concept that I'm not sure people are familiar with, so I'll explain it a little bit. The mandala, although technically any circular figure, has largely come to be identified with the traditional picture of yin-yang looking like two joined black and white swirls. That's the sense that I'm using it here. The mandala is used to express the idea of a union of opposites, sort of.
Anyway, in this case, the sides of the mandala are what I consider two fundamental parts of human nature, empathy and selfishness. One side drives towards expansion and the other drives towards compression. They also, in a healthy system, feed into each other, so that an excess of empathy leads to selfishness and an excess of selfishness leads to empathy. The system is thus self-regulating, but more flexible than a one-poled homeostatic one, such as negative feedback temperature regulation. (I'm not sure if I'm being clear here. I understand this as a non-verbal concept so it's kind of hard for me to express clearly).
There is a common conception in American society to label someone as selfish if they display selfish behavior and to regard this as the end of the story. For example, everyone knows that children are selfish creatures. However, this simplistic conception ignores the immense fund of empathy that children also possess. Granted, a child's life, due to it's unsettling and threatening nature lends itself more often to them expressing selfishness than empathy, but a child in a stable, unthreatened position is remarkably empathetic. In the child, as in all of us, these opposites exist at the same time in a sort of union.
Consider your relaitonship to your siblings. No doubt you feel a great love for them, but at the same time, it's likely that few people can piss you off like they can. You love and hate them at the same time,
In times of extreme stress we expect even people we admire to act more selfishlessly. THeir normal empathetic nature is overshadowed (and not gone away) by their selfish side. The same is true for people of lesser maturity. It just takes a lower level of stress for their selfishness to be brought out. Many people live in a level of stress that there empathetic nature is almost never shown.
The key to morality, then, is in maturity, in people learning to cope with stress without retreating to defense mechanisms and thus building up their psychological strength and growing as a person. For growth is fostered in a stress, just like hurting your muscles through exercise makes them stronger.
Those positive parts of religion you named are of this stress tolerating nature. Loving your enemies is extremely stressful. Much easier to relieve your tension by striking out at them. Loving anyone, in the sense that I think Jesus used it, is a call to not only feel favorably towards them, but to actively try to understand them. Dealing with the necessary confusion this entails is again very stressful.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
saxon, I'm a little worried that you took what I said harshly. I know what it's like to react to hostility that isn't there. It seemed to me that that's what you were doing so I just wanted to point it out.
Also, since Hatrack is largely a community based forum, which I'm not particularly interested in, I tend to defend good intellectual discussions here as much as I can, as they are so rare.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
For some reason I didn't read this for a long time, but it's pretty interesting. Glad you bumped it, Mr. Squicky.
I would challenge the assertion that secular humanism is free from absolutism. To profer reason as the ultimate authority is still an authority. I can't say it's a worse authority than faith. But to say they hold no truth as absolute is disingenuous. I think the main problem with religion over the ages is that the leaders often conceal their true agenda. And I don't see where this manifesto is different.
But I do think there is much of humanism at the root of America's founding. We keep bringing up the reign of Terror, but was it not an attempt to improve on the American Revolution? In order to permit religious freedom, it was necessary to have an areligious government. I still believe that to be the case. But government is only supreme in its sphere. What that sphere should be is another debate.
I don't think a government can be truly humanistic any more than humanism can be religious. Lest humanism be tainted by the necessities of living.
Posts: 383 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I keep meaning to get back to this to deal with the difference between systems and values, but I never quite get around to it. I'm still not doing it now, but I want to keep this thread in play for a bit longer.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
