Responses to the The Affirmations of Humanism

[afungusamongus]

I was told to read this in one of the other threads and thought I would write a response here so as not to derail that thread. Mods here seem to be put a emphasis on people staying on topic. Here is the link

 

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=affirmations&section=main

 

 

 

We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

 

What makes people think that certain Christians do not do the same?

 

We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

 

Why is this deplorable? Are Christians not allowed to posit reason for why the think the universe began? Why are Secular Humanist afforded the opportunity to posit theories but the religious folk who do the same efforts are now deemed deplorable.

 

We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

 

It can do good off course, but it can do great evil as well. Philosophical understanding can also contribute to the betterment of human life. Almost every field can do this. Hard to hear for those who have science as their only saviour but it remains true.

 

The next few points I think Christians would think are admirable qualities and I think would be something a lot of Christians agree with.

• We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
• We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
• We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.

 

We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

 

The question remains how do we attain what is morally excellent in this plural society?

 

We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

 

So the right to die with dignity would be a veiled way to promote euthanasia. Giving the right to doctors to take human life as long as the doctor has permission or the patient is ill enough. How would this count for those who strive for "moral excellence"? Does the exercising of reproductive freedom also include abortion?

 

We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

 

Then murder would only be bad if you get caught and have some consequence to your murder? Sounds morally excellent to me.

 

We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

 

Why would you think religious people do not do the same?

 

We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

 

This is a gross characterization of what religion really is.

[JMJones0424]

We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

What makes people think that certain Christians do not do the same?

Nothing. This is a statement of values of one group. They make no claim to be the only group that holds that value.

 

We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

Why is this deplorable? Are Christians not allowed to posit reason for why the think the universe began? Why are Secular Humanist afforded the opportunity to posit theories but the religious folk who do the same efforts are now deemed deplorable.

I cannot answer for the publisher of this list, but I can give you my answer. The beauty of objective answers to questions regarding observed phenomenon is that they are testable and verifiable. Christians are certainly allowed to question the beginning of the universe, and many have done so, including the original proponent of the Big Bang. However, any proposal that seeks to explain the natural world via supernatural means cannot be verified or falsified, and therefore cannot be supported by any objective means. I find supernatural explanations of natural phenomenon deplorable because they are unsupported by observable facts and divert attention from an honest investigation. In some cases, supernatural explanations needlessly perpetuate suffering. In many cases, differences in supernatural explanations promote discord between societies because there is no rational basis by which to judge those explanations.

 

 

We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.

It can do good off course, but it can do great evil as well. Philosophical understanding can also contribute to the betterment of human life. Almost every field can do this. Hard to hear for those who have science as their only saviour but it remains true.

Note that the quoted statement of affirmation doesn't claim that great evil can't be done through science. Also note that religions do not hold a monopoly on philosophy, so I don't think either of your objections to this point are valid.

 

We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.

Then murder would only be bad if you get caught and have some consequence to your murder? Sounds morally excellent to me.

How on Earth did you get that interpretation from the quoted statement?

 

We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

Why would you think religious people do not do the same?

Again, the statement does not claim to exclude others from sharing this value.

[Greg H.]

While I think JMJones addressed most of the points in the OP well, I wanted to touch on this question:

The question remains how do we attain what is morally excellent in this plural society?

 

Why shouldn't our society, or any society, be able to achieve "moral excellence"? Unless you are implying that without some kind of divine guidance, we cannot hope to discern right from wrong. Why do we have to assume some supernatural bringer of morality is required? And if we do make that assumption, which supernatural entity do we choose? God? Allah? The multiple deities of Hindu or Shinto? Why is any one of these supernatural entities better than the rest?

 

It is far less incredulous to accept that men and women make their own decisions over right and wrong within the moral backdrop of their society - if they choose to go against the grain of that moral backdrop, their actions are deemed "wrong" or even illegal. The fact that many societies may find the same acts wrong or immoral is not an indication of some supernatural ultimate moral authority; rather it is evidence that humanity has learned, over thousands of years of civilization, that some rules just make sense.

 

We have no need to invoke a supernatural cause for morals - like humanity itself, they evolve to meet the changes in our society. Indeed, assuming that morals are absolute, unwavering, and universal leaves no room for them to change and adapt as our societies change in the modern world.

[John Cuthber]

Hang on!

Where did this come from?

"So the right to die with dignity would be a veiled way to promote euthanasia."

 

Oh, I see, Afungusamongus made it up.

 

its the same with

"Then murder would only be bad if you get caught and have some consequence to your murder? Sounds morally excellent to me."

It's a claim with no actaul basis in what was said.

 

"Philosophical understanding can also contribute to the betterment of human life. Almost every field can do this. Hard to hear for those who have science as their only saviour but it remains true."

Note to Afungusamongus

Science is a philosophical understanding.

There's a side order of: if I have an acute infection I would rather get antibiotics than a "philosophical understanding".

 

"Why would you think religious people do not do the same?"

because I don't see how this " We want to nourish reason and compassion. " tallies with, for example, the teachings of the bible which is both irrational (and therefore an attack on reason) and deeply xenophobic (thus an attack on compassion).

 

Seriously, had you thought this lot through before you posted it?

[Moontanman]

I was told to read this in one of the other threads and thought I would write a response here so as not to derail that thread. Mods here seem to be put a emphasis on people staying on topic. Here is the link

 

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=affirmations&section=main

 

 

 

 

 

What makes people think that certain Christians do not do the same?

 

Christians, the ones that do, only started to do so after the enlightenment. Before that Christians thought diseases were caused by supernatural elements. Only after science began to explain things by naturalistic means did "certain" Christians give up the supernatural causes.

 

 

 

Why is this deplorable? Are Christians not allowed to posit reason for why the think the universe began? Why are Secular Humanist afforded the opportunity to posit theories but the religious folk who do the same efforts are now deemed deplorable.

 

A theory has to be falsifiable, the supernatural is not...

 

 

 

It can do good off course, but it can do great evil as well. Philosophical understanding can also contribute to the betterment of human life. Almost every field can do this. Hard to hear for those who have science as their only saviour but it remains true.

 

The next few points I think Christians would think are admirable qualities and I think would be something a lot of Christians agree with.

 

Religion, even the Christian religion is capable of deplorable evil as well, what would be your point?

 

 

 

 

The question remains how do we attain what is morally excellent in this plural society?

 

Christianity has historically been morally bankrupt, only after Christianity was gelded by the enlightenment has it been touted as moral and even today Christians call for the death of homosexuals, rounding them up into concentration camps, the teaching of creationism as science, sometimes violent opposition to birth control. The Old testament is full of morally bankrupt commands by god and even in the new testament slavery is condoned. Morals do not come from religion, any religion.

 

 

 

So the right to die with dignity would be a veiled way to promote euthanasia. Giving the right to doctors to take human life as long as the doctor has permission or the patient is ill enough. How would this count for those who strive for "moral excellence"? Does the exercising of reproductive freedom also include abortion?

 

So requiring people to suffer unnecessarily is moral? Why can the patient not choose to die with dignity? A woman should have the right to have an early abortion if she wants, i do not agree with abortion as a method of birth control but making someone have a baby who does not want to have one is immoral in my opinion.

 

 

 

Then murder would only be bad if you get caught and have some consequence to your murder? Sounds morally excellent to me.

 

How do you get that from the quote you gave?

 

 

 

Why would you think religious people do not do the same?

 

Dogma is not reason...

 

 

 

This is a gross characterization of what religion really is.

 

Not if you read what the bible really says...

[doG]

We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.

Why would you think religious people do not do the same?

Some do. Others teach their children that they need to grow up to be martyrs while killing those of other beliefs. Some teach their children that they are the 'chosen' ones and others should be cleansed from society. Children are not born with religious intolerance of others, it is taught to them. Where else do you think children would get religious intolerance and hatred from?

 

We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

This is a gross characterization of what religion really is.

No it's not. Religious ideologies run from the 'love everyone' mentality of Mother Teresa to the 'hate everyone but your own kind' mentality of religious extremists. Get your head out of the sand!!!