Why humanism will always beat out religion in moral philosophy

[jpgray]

It's simple, really: humanism can draw from everyone, and need exclude no one. Jesus, Buddha and Krishna can hang with Hume, John Stuart Mill and Spinoza. The humanist may take inspiration from the first three without taking dogma, and may draw from the latter three without drawing condemnation for heresy or unbelief. The ideas of religious philosophy are not only open for inculcation to the humanist, they are also open to doubt, engagement, modification, questioning and improvement. There is no compulsion for the humanist to burn a book, to wind a rack, to scorn science--there is no compulsion inherent in humanism to enforce ignorance on oneself, and no compulsion to extract compliance from others.

To follow a Christian church religiously is to look around at one's leaders and neighbors to decide how far to go in following Christ. To be a humanist is to decide for oneself, and to know that no supernatural forces were necessary for the best religious philosophy. There is no bar to emulation of history's moral giants once one realizes the spirits of the best among us need not be holy--the human spirit alone is sufficient.

[SidDithers]

1. I like it...

:thumbsup:

Good post.

Sid

[BrklynLiberal]

2. Wonderful post...

[postulater]

3. Thanks. And Happy Solstice Season to you.

:fistbump:

[AnArmyVeteran]

4. 'Faith' by Craig Fergeson

Faith by Craig Fergeson

Faith as described by Craig Fergeson on 10 12 2009:

"If you know about God, that he exists and you know what he wants and you KNEW all of this stuff, you don't need faith. Because faith is only for people who experience 'doubt', because if you have no doubt you have certainty, or in other words, 'pathology'. So in order for you to experience faith you must have doubt."

[jpgray]

7. And doubt is why so much of the best moral philosophy has religious origins

It's a big sea of doubt! :) There is no getting from what is to what should be on pure reason alone. Though reason can defend the conclusions and assumptions of a moral system, it cannot create them a priori.

[blondeatlast]

10. Very true. nt

[old mark]

5. Religion has more to do with being right than with being moral - the "good" people

of various religions have killed millions of different-believers over the centuries...not too much morality that I can see.

mark

[AnArmyVeteran]

6. I forgot, great post... Recd

[blondeatlast]

8. I've been looking into Humanism. My only problem is that I will swear I've had

spiritual experiences (including a profound one while very, very seriously ill). Plus, I actually enjoy spiritual rites regardless of the faith.

I think there is "something" out there that we all share somehow and I can't reject that completely. Is there room for me in this philosophy?

[jpgray]

9. Sure! Humanism shouldn't sentence anyone to life as an automaton

Nor is there some litmus test that I'm aware of for membership. Even if there were, religious piety of almost any kind would not be grounds for exclusion. What defines humanism for me, more than anything else, is a belief that the concerns, actions and ideas of humans are of value even absent any higher power to justify or inspire them. This doesn't preclude a belief in a higher power, and doesn't entail condemnation of religion, though certain humanists might argue differently.

[Zanzobar]

11. Can a humanist draw from Hitler?

Just wondering.

[jpgray]

12. Belief in the superiority of a race is racist, not humanist

All major tenets of Hitler's philosophy would be disqualified from humanism on that basis, no? There would also be difficulty in reconciling humanism with nationalism, or sexism, or homophobia, or any exclusive argument for the inherent superiority of a particular group by chance of birth alone.

[Zanzobar]

13. The definitions don't seem to be mutually exclusive.

I was just wondering how a secular humanist filters other people's truths.

How about Ayn Rand? She is what I would consider a secular humanist.

[jpgray]

14. Ayn Rand values people only insofar as they are ambitious and wealthy

She sees no value in aiding the wretched and desperate who lack the means (by whatever definition) to help themselves. This, in my opinion, is in complete conflict with valuing humanity for its own sake.

Which definitions do you see as not being mutually exclusive, by the way? Nazism and humanism?

[Zanzobar]

15. Does secular humanism require philanthropy?

Not that I've read. Admittedly, I'm not an authority on humanism, but from what I've read it doesn't appear to have a stringent requirement that people help each other. It seems to have pretty arbitrary guidelines with differing sects, apostles, and adherents, like any other religion. Dogma, even.

[jpgray]

17. Why don't you name some of the humanist dogma you know.

I'm not aware of any, but I'd like to hear what you have, and learn where it came from. As far as I know, humanism doesn't require philanthropy, but it certainly does nothing whatsoever to discourage it.

[Zanzobar]

18. I don't really know any, per se.

I said it seems to employ dogma. I would have to dig deeper.

I guess we'll have to disagree about Rand. I don't know if she actually discourages philanthropy. It's been a while since I read any of her stuff, but ...



Door bell... gotta go. Be back later.

[Zanzobar]

21. So...continued

It's been a while since I read any of her stuff, but ... I don't recall Rand actually discouraging philanthropy, only that it should not be compelled. Maybe I am wrong.

[ljm2002]

29. In fairness you should also be asking...

...what role religion played in Nazism. The mantra about women, I forget what it is in German but in English it is "Children, Church and Kitchen" is but one small example showing that the Nazis knew how to exploit religious beliefs. So while dissecting humanism to see if it has any tenets that necessarily lead to a rejection of Nazism, one must also examine whether religious beliefs necessarily lead to a rejection of Nazism. And one might ask why, as a matter of historical record, religious beliefs did not seem to do so.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

19. You mean, just like those millions of German Christians did?

[Zanzobar]

20. You tell me. That was my question.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

22. I tell you that humanism doesn't make anybody more likely to espouse Nazi-like ideas.

And neither does skepticism, atheism, or agnosticism.

You disagree with that?

[Zanzobar]

23. What is humanism more likely to espouse?

In your opinion?

I haven't decided categorically. I'm confused.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

24. Less bigotry, for one thing.

[Arugula Latte]

16. I call myself a secular humanist, but really, I'm more of a secular felinist

Cat worship and sun worship are the only two "faiths" that ever made sense to me. And cats in the sun? Whoa -- that's nirvana.

:)

[HEyHEY]

25. Burn in hell, Pagan savage!

[MellowDem]

26. Humanism isn't a moral philosophy...

so it can't really beat out anything in terms of moral philosophy. It is just an approach to take to philosophy, but philosophies differ quite dramatically among humanists.

You say that it is a plus that there is no dogma. But there is no anything to humanism. Bad philosophies can and are held by humanists. And philosophy, or ideolgoies, have dogma and many are dogmatic.

Humanists can draw on anyone, whether it is Mao or Ghandi. Humanists could potentially be quite bad people. Everyone's moral philosophy is based on what they think is good and right, and that can be quite bad for a lot of the world. There is no reason that a humanist could not come up with horrible ideologies.

Basically, saying that humanism, or any ism or religion will "always" beat out another seems like a pretty ignorant statement, considering that they are hard to compare. And what would they beat the other out in terms of? Happiness? Peace on Earth? Humanism may lead people to accept ideologies that are "better" for the world. Or it may not. It is "amoral" if you will.

I don't forget that humans are animals, so that human's most basic "morality" is that of the jungle. And when push comes to shove and things get desperate due to lack of resources, like it used to be back in the day, that "morality" beats out any other ideology. Survival of the fittest. Might makes right. Etc. etc. Any help to others is only done to further the survival of that individual. Some Religion and secular philosophy turns such instincts on their head, but only seemingly when there is a good amount of stability and some level of civilization.

The morality of "do what you need to to survive" trumps all to me in the end.

[applegrove]

27. Yup. That is why liberalism won out in the world and will win again (against neocons and

libertarians). Cause it is based on the newest and the best information that we have about how things work well or not.

[PurityOfEssence]

28. Religion is a poor substitute for decency

Following rules out of fear is not the same as being an honorable sort.

Religions are shortcuts, and what they leap-frog over are the most important ethical points of life: WHY one should be productive, communal, honest and all that. With the dependency most of the major religions have on the pronouncement that man is a scurrilous creature that would kill and pillage willy-nilly without the fear of the witchy-man, they simultaneously release individuals from any real responsibility and vilify anyone who doesn't subscribe to the same fantasy.

They may claim beauteous impulses for the individual's faiths, but they rely on the mechanism of terror and dominance.

We are taught from an early age that religion is "good", and that those of the cloth are somehow automatically exempt from most of the scrutiny the rest of us mere mortals have to accept for our actions, and this is sheer poppycock and self-centered abuse.

Not a fan.