Why does belief in God irk the humanist?

[tar]

This is sort of a personal post, but involves science and humanism directly, and might be worth discussing.

 

I was challenging the methodology, and exploring the implications of a study ydoaPs linked (10,000 times) and was charged with strawmaning, reading things into what he was saying, not reading I paper I was not subscribed to and ultimately unfriended by ydoaPs and two others. I do not have many friends to begin with, so I took a significant hit. From both secular leaning and religosity leaning friends. I had never before been befriended, so it left me a little bewildered as well, as I was not smart enough to catch whatever stupidity it was that I exhibited.

 

But my muses upon the implications of the study linking religioustiy to societal problem, and secularity to societal health, and then subsequent studies linking lower levels of religiousity to higher levels of education, intelligence and analytical abilities, forced me into logical corner, where that only leaves about 10 percent of us, that are fit to innovate, and set the standards for the other 90 percent to follow. Being as this seemed rather undemocratic and rather elitist in its implications, I sort of fought it, but to no avail.

 

And if all these correlations are true, and my implications anywhere close to realistic, then Humanism has a serious flaw. How can 10 percent set the moral standands for the other 90 percent? Especially while profusely claiming that there is NO higher authority to go to, but to the 10 percent who know the most about the universe and man and know the best about what our relationship should be to the objective world, including life on Earth, and human organisms that existed before their mortal lifetime, and will exist after their mortal lifetime.

 

Although I do not believe in the literal existence of the god of the Bible, or that Jesus rose to sit on his right hand, or that Gabriel straightened Mohommed out and Allah has no associates, or that elves and fairies or Immortal's 32 or 3000 eminations of Brahman are flitting about vieing for our attention and fear, I do believe my consciousness came about by some means other than me, and this means I have to have had a creator of some variety, that was capable of such a thing as TAR. So I do not know which box I would have to check on the religiosity test. Creator or no creator? How could anyone believe that they popped into existence on their own?

 

And while I do believe the only place from which we could have come, is the primordial sludge of this Earth, this is not a completely different "thought" than the universe in reality, causing us to rise from the mud, learn the difference between good and evil, and thusly separate ourselves from it.

 

If this is as far as humanism would go, then I could join the club, and simply say what is good for one human is good for all, but this is simply not the case.

How can TAR claim club membership to all the clubs that exist in the world of humans, when he doesn't filfill the entry requirements and has not paid the dues of most of them? And how can anyone love humanity, with the exclusion of the Christians and the Jews, the Moslims, and the Buddists, the criminals and bloodsuckers, the huckesters and the theives, the stuck up elite, the unjust, the ugly, the stupid, the racist, the selfish, those of another race, or nation that is suffering cultural problems, or run by a dictator, or mullah, or military industrial complex or a communist regime or a contentious parliment or congress?

 

So the problem with humanism is this. The 10 percent fit to rule, are already ruling. By pen or sword, deceit or power, by wealth or control of the means of production. Everybody has a boss, and their boss has a boss and so on. Every club promotes it tenants and principles, institutions, traditions and laws. Every club has its membership requirements and most people do not have the $600,000 it might take to join a prestigious law partnership or enough money, intelligence, analytical ability, charisma and leadership ability to make their way into an influencial or authoritative role in a World Government, or "church" that would have the authority and power required to establish and enforce a morality system "good for everybody".

 

'til all the world is for Allah?

'til we all know the Secret of the Vedas?

'till we are all Lutheran?

'till we are all under the emperor?

 

What common morality, could Humanists possibly be considering?

That would have nothing at all to do with a creator, or a sense of commonality in belonging to the universe, or be derived from the religions of Humans?

 

Pack morals are the only ones encoded in the genes, morals beyond those, require a bit of human imagination and a bit of dreaming. And we have already been doing that, and humanists think there might be a different way?

 

Regards, TAR

 

hu·man·ism [ hymə nìzzəm ] 1.belief in human-based morality: a system of thought that is based on the values, characteristics, and behavior that are believed to be best in human beings, rather than on any supernatural authority

2.concern for people: a concern with the needs, well-being, and interests of people

3.Renaissance cultural movement: the secular cultural and intellectual movement of the Renaissance that spread throughout Europe as a result of the rediscovery of the arts and philosophy of the ancient Greeks and Romans

Synonyms: nonbelief, unbelief, doubt, skepticism, incredulity, freethinking, disbelief, godlessness, agnosticism, humanism.

 

I might add, that France and the United States have already initiated this secular experiment. And I think we are doing a fairly decent job so far, and have hope it will get even better, with time, and an underlying faith in our common association with God, however we wish to worhip it or imagine it.

Edited January 30, 2013 by tar

[imatfaal]

Why does belief in God irk the humanist?

Belief per se does not! Changing the way I live my life, express my opinions, how the next generation is educated, what I can read and watch, and any impact on criminal law, civil law or community regulations due to another's religious belief is completely anathema to me and I will and do fight against it daily.

This is sort of a personal post, but involves science and humanism directly, and might be worth discussing.

 

I was challenging the methodology, and exploring the implications of a study ydoaPs linked (10,000 times) and was charged with strawmaning, reading things into what he was saying, not reading I paper I was not subscribed to and ultimately unfriended by ydoaPs and two others. I do not have many friends to begin with, so I took a significant hit. From both secular leaning and religosity leaning friends. I had never before been befriended, so it left me a little bewildered as well, as I was not smart enough to catch whatever stupidity it was that I exhibited.

 

But my muses upon the implications of the study linking religioustiy to societal problem, and secularity to societal health, and then subsequent studies linking lower levels of religiousity to higher levels of education, intelligence and analytical abilities, forced me into logical corner, where that only leaves about 10 percent of us, that are fit to innovate, and set the standards for the other 90 percent to follow. Being as this seemed rather undemocratic and rather elitist in its implications, I sort of fought it, but to no avail.

You seem to be making an is/ought fallacy, or at least accusing others of doing so. The studies give broad brush descriptions of how things are; you seem to be interpreting them as technocrats drawing up injunctions as to how society must act. No scientist would claim that the religious cannot innovate - it is easily shown to the contrary for one thing - and perhaps it is this sort of strawman that got others' goat up. We also live in a world with multiple draws on our attention, allegiance, and actions; what most humanists call for is that when we as a polity make decisions that affect the community at large that we do it without enforcing our chosen ideals on the populace. I have very little problem with a catholic couple deciding not to use contraception; however I feel it is an illegal and immoral imposition for their religious teaching to be reflected in a law which makes it difficult for a secular couple to use contraception.

 

And if all these correlations are true, and my implications anywhere close to realistic, then Humanism has a serious flaw. How can 10 percent set the moral standands for the other 90 percent? Especially while profusely claiming that there is NO higher authority to go to, but to the 10 percent who know the most about the universe and man and know the best about what our relationship should be to the objective world, including life on Earth, and human organisms that existed before their mortal lifetime, and will exist after their mortal lifetime.

 

Although I do not believe in the literal existence of the god of the Bible, or that Jesus rose to sit on his right hand, or that Gabriel straightened Mohommed out and Allah has no associates, or that elves and fairies or Immortal's 32 or 3000 eminations of Brahman are flitting about vieing for our attention and fear, I do believe my consciousness came about by some means other than me, and this means I have to have had a creator of some variety, that was capable of such a thing as TAR. So I do not know which box I would have to check on the religiosity test. Creator or no creator? How could anyone believe that they popped into existence on their own?

 

Because the science shows that it is not necessary to interpose a supernatural entity - it is feasible that life did pop in existence. The time scales and complexity are beyond human imagination so we eschew common sense and what is obvious and do experiments, calculate, refine techniques, recalculate (go back to drawing boards sometimes) etc - but despite what many would have you believe there is enough time for all you see around you to develop without a creators hand

[iNow]

And how can anyone love humanity, with the exclusion of the Christians and the Jews, the Moslims, and the Buddists, the criminals and bloodsuckers, the huckesters and the theives, the stuck up elite, the unjust, the ugly, the stupid, the racist, the selfish, those of another race, or nation that is suffering cultural problems, or run by a dictator, or mullah, or military industrial complex or a communist regime or a contentious parliment or congress?

Those other groups are not excluded from love. It is merely their beliefs that do not earn undue deference and respect. Respect is something to be earned based on the merit of ones position, not merely granted based on the passion with which they express it.

 

If I have a child that believes in the tooth fairy or Puff the Magic Dragon, that does not make me love them less. I can still love them and seek ways to maximize their existence and base my thinking on secular humanistic values. I can do all of that without respecting the child's belief in those childish things, and without offering any deference to the belief itself. Why would you think it's any different with those other groups you referenced?

 

Further, this isn't about love IMO, or even respect really. It's about critical thinking and challenging assumptions and views and holding all beliefs to one consistent and quality standard of evidence. Don't blame the critic for pointing out there is no evidence supporting someone's position or illuminating that it's based on faith or wish thinking alone. Encourage the person holding that position to find better evidence in support of it or to have the courage and integrity to alter their beliefs when despite their efforts they cannot.

[imatfaal]

T

And while I do believe the only place from which we could have come, is the primordial sludge of this Earth, this is not a completely different "thought" than the universe in reality, causing us to rise from the mud, learn the difference between good and evil, and thusly separate ourselves from it.

It's completely different; to claim they are in any way parallel is mindboggling. One proposes a set of very simple steps with finite probabilities which in toto will lead to a result. The other interposes a supernatural entity or guiding ethos and claims a will behind the origin of life. These are about as different as you can get.

 

If this is as far as humanism would go, then I could join the club, and simply say what is good for one human is good for all, but this is simply not the case.

How can TAR claim club membership to all the clubs that exist in the world of humans, when he doesn't filfill the entry requirements and has not paid the dues of most of them? And how can anyone love humanity, with the exclusion of the Christians and the Jews, the Moslims, and the Buddists, the criminals and bloodsuckers, the huckesters and the theives, the stuck up elite, the unjust, the ugly, the stupid, the racist, the selfish, those of another race, or nation that is suffering cultural problems, or run by a dictator, or mullah, or military industrial complex or a communist regime or a contentious parliment or congress?

There are no entry requirements - and if there were they would simply be a critical mind, the ability to question, and a refusal to blindly follow authority. Humanists do not exclude Christians and the Jews (and the rest of your impressive list) they merely treat them all as humans; Christians (etc) do not get less of a say, a shorter deal, or labour under extra burdens - but neither do they get to claim infallibility, god-given rights, or pre/proscriptive practices for society at large. The vote and voice of a Jew, of a Mormon, of a crystal healer, and of a scienceforum.net member are all the same and those rights and privileges flow from their humanity not from anything else!

 

So the problem with humanism is this. The 10 percent fit to rule, are already ruling. By pen or sword, deceit or power, by wealth or control of the means of production. Everybody has a boss, and their boss has a boss and so on. Every club promotes it tenants and principles, institutions, traditions and laws. Every club has its membership requirements and most people do not have the $600,000 it might take to join a prestigious law partnership or enough money, intelligence, analytical ability, charisma and leadership ability to make their way into an influencial or authoritative role in a World Government, or "church" that would have the authority and power required to establish and enforce a morality system "good for everybody".

 

Any point that starts that the 10 pct fit to rule are already ruling is trivially shown false by turning on the TV news and watching any coverage of parliament, congress, assemble nationale ... About all one can say universally about those that rule - is that they rule. I find it difficult to find another common factor; most especially it is impossible to say that they are fit to rule (GWB!) The second half of the above paragraph is exactly why I am a humanist - a morality based on shared humanity avoids the obvious pitfalls you highlight above

'til all the world is for Allah?

'til we all know the Secret of the Vedas?

'till we are all Lutheran?

'till we are all under the emperor?

 

What common morality, could Humanists possibly be considering?

A morality based on the simple principle of the worth and importance of every human being - with decisions being made without regard to religion, sect, race, power, money, sex, nationality, eye colour, heritage, culture

 

That would have nothing at all to do with a creator, or a sense of commonality in belonging to the universe, or be derived from the religions of Humans?

Nothing to do with a creater - correct, why should it? One can believe in a creator and still believe that one should treat others as you would have the community treat you. One can believe in a creator and still believe that morality is of human origin - and once one believes that morality is not god-given, the only practical basis for it is a shared humanity.

 

Pack morals are the only ones encoded in the genes, morals beyond those, require a bit of human imagination and a bit of dreaming. And we have already been doing that, and humanists think there might be a different way?

I don't know what pack morals are - and if I make a guess at your definition I disagree with the fact that they are encoded. What makes you think that humanists don't dream of the world as a better place, imagine our community without violence, intolerance, and inequality; it is our very ability to do just that thing which makes us try and change things. Let's be clear - religion has been running things for thousands of years - in the last handful of decades irreligion has started to make a name for itself. Religion sets out to create the society which best reflects the needs, and designs of their god and holymen (still always men) - that is where their imagination and dreams are spent. Humanism sets out with different ends in mind; equality, community well-being, freedom of expression and thought etc

 

 

 

Regards, TAR

 

hu·man·ism [ hymə nìzzəm ] 1.belief in human-based morality: a system of thought that is based on the values, characteristics, and behavior that are believed to be best in human beings, rather than on any supernatural authority

2.concern for people: a concern with the needs, well-being, and interests of people

3.Renaissance cultural movement: the secular cultural and intellectual movement of the Renaissance that spread throughout Europe as a result of the rediscovery of the arts and philosophy of the ancient Greeks and Romans

Synonyms: nonbelief, unbelief, doubt, skepticism, incredulity, freethinking, disbelief, godlessness, agnosticism, humanism.

 

I might add, that France and the United States have already initiated this secular experiment. And I think we are doing a fairly decent job so far, and have hope it will get even better, with time, and an underlying faith in our common association with God, however we wish to worhip it or imagine it.

 

France is a fairly good example of a secular state - the USA is an incredibly bad example (check out the Kentucky law of 2006 which means that the homeland security building has a plaque stating that "the safety and security of the commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon almighty god"). This is a division of church and state except when the church wants to get involved. Look at some of the threads Moon, ydoaps, and I have opened in politics about the invasion of secular society by the right-wing church in the United States; tragic and scary. Unfortunately you are not doing a good job; in my line of research (the law, punishment, penal institutions etc) - the country which once was a beacon of good ideas, of progressive thought, of evidence based legislation, and of liberal values (which I unashamedly prize and promote) has become a place of retrogressive and sadistic punishment, where over one percent of the adult population are incarcerated, where the aims are retribution not rehabilitation, where religion and knee-jerk reflex takes precedence over research, and chillingly many decision are made at the behest of the corporations that run penitentiaries

[ydoaPs]

Why does belief in god irk the humanist?

Thanks for the loaded question.

I was challenging the methodology, and exploring the implications of a study ydoaPs linked (10,000 times) and was charged with strawmaning

....because you were. Here is the thread in its entirety. Tar was consistently placing positions on me that I never made, explicitly didn't make, and that in no way followed from any position I did make.

ultimately unfriended by ydoaPs and two others

I did no such thing.

that only leaves about 10 percent of us, that are fit to innovate, and set the standards for the other 90 percent to follow. Being as this seemed rather undemocratic and rather elitist in its implications, I sort of fought it, but to no avail.

Gods forbid we change our education system such that it actually teaches critical thinking methods. No, the only answer is an atheocracy. Yep, no other possible alternatives.

if my implications anywhere close to realistic, then Humanism has a serious flaw.

Conditionals with false antecedents are always true.

 

It's about critical thinking and challenging assumptions and views and holding all beliefs to one consistent and quality standard of evidence. Don't blame the critic for pointing out there is no evidence supporting someone's position or illuminating that it's based on faith or wish thinking alone. Encourage the person holding that position to find better evidence in support of it or to have the courage and integrity to alter their beliefs when despite their efforts they cannot.

Indeed.

[tar]

ydoaPs,<br /><br />I do tend to overanalyize, or overthink. I jump to the only conclusions I can find standing in the aftermath. I thought at some point, we had befriended each other and then concurrent with my strawmanning episode, got a big red -3 friends announcemnent along with a button to press, that reads "see who". Upon pressing the "see who" button I received a screen inviting me to join some facebook defriending announcement service which I had no interest in joining. Figuring that I would know exactly where and when and why I had parted paths with somebody, or could retrace my interactions with "missing" friends, and figure it out for myself. When I found you "missing" from my short group of friend icons, I made a reasonable assumption that I had overstepped the bounds and broken the bonds of whatever associations we may have previously made with each other.<br /><br />Obviously there are yet other explanations, that would fit the facts, since you did not unfriend me.<br />We may never have been friends, and I mis-remembered, thinking that we rather should have been.<br />There was a computer glitch of some sort that mislisted my current friends.<br />The facebook pop-up thing is a false advertisement of some sort to get me interested in the service and does not actually reflect three missing forum friends, but may reflect missing facebook friends, or no missing friends at all.<br />You actually were and are on my list, and I scanned past your Icon, or looked at and did not see it.<br /><br />I do not think that the quantity of my analytical thinking is at fault, though evidence shows that the quality of it may be highly suspect, as I very often arrive at false conclusions and I have recieved confirmation of my deficiencies along these lines by recently just receiving my GMAT score breakdown.<br />TAR's standing amoungst the population of folk aspiring to enter MBA programs:(in percentiles) Verbal=90%, Quantitative=36%, Total=69% (raw score 620), Analytical Writing=20%, Intergrated Reasoning=52%.<br /><br />So analytic ability is not something I possess in large quantities and I am probably not able to study up and train, and score above 718 and show myself to be Ivy League Business school material. (studied test taking strategy and familiarized myself with the content for three weeks before the test and had scored a 540 on the initial practice test, so perhaps I could raise my score some of the way, to Ivy League status, by additional study and practice, but you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.)<br />But in general, you do not want me as your CFO, though I might aspire to middle management roles and muddle through OK, and be admitted to less than Ivy league Master Programs, or programs that do not look at the GMAT.<br /><br />Point being, we are all not capable of what our greatest minds are capable of, yet we all are human, and have equal rights to associate with the universe. And one can aspire to helping their fellow man, in whatever small ways they can manage, or use their talents to guide lesser equipt folk. And the workable solutions of the elite amoung us, are sometimes offered freely to all, or come with a cost, or are secretly locked away, or used to control and manipulate. And us lesser folk have not the where-with-all to discern the difference. We can not use anaytical abilities that we do not have to discern who among us is on humanities side, and who among us is working against the cause. Because each of us is already in the human club and automatically on its side, and works toward survival and the benefit of themselves, family, friends, neighbors, workmates, company, church, institutions, organisations, nations and each of us serves and is guided by whatever rules and morals and values have been, agreed upon within and surrounding the particular instance of each of the above which with we associate. We can study ourselves, and we can create many things, we can deconstruct and reconstruct and know the reasons why things work the way they do and use this knowledge for good or ill, but we have no way of creating matter or energy, and we ourselves as humans did not create our own concsciousness, nor did we engineer the first mitochondria, nor did we create the environment that shaped these "accidents" or emergent things. We can name and understand all processes and entities we encounter, but we can never be other than them, superior to them, or disassociate ourselves from them. We would not be conscious of them if they had not already been the case and cause of and the focus of our attention.<br /><br />I am not arguing against human judgment, or rationality, I am rather arguing for it, and accept all your arguments for progress and excellence, education and innovation, but if you know that you yourself are capable of this thing called human judgment, it requires that everybody else has the same general asset and must have been excercising it, from the dawn of man, from their birth til their death, up to now, and will continue to do such into the forseeable future. There has to be this "human spirit" to allign oneself with.<br /><br />America has already signed up for the secular experiment, whether we are as Americans doing it right in someone elses eyes or not. There is not a secular god/judge to turn to for a decision other than our own supreme court, and there is no way to void the contract, but by revolution, or sucession, or denouncing citizenship, and no way to change the rules but by legislative process and influencing such by vote and lobby.<br /><br />Our Ideals are already sound. One nation, under god, with liberty and justice for all. We are already on the case, and need no outside body to inform us that we don't know what we are doing. Nor is it reasonable to assume that by force of intelligence or analytical excellence we could rise to any loftier heights than are reachable by the excercise of human judgment.<br /><br />To trust humanity, and distrust the guy across the street, reveals some sort of internal conflict that we Americans must, by definition, already be addressing successfully, through our laws and traditions, agreements and institutions, or we would not have lasted over 200 years as a nation, operating under the same constitution (with appropriate amendments to extend rights to include any class or type of human, ommited or depreciated in stature in the first take).<br /><br />Under this aggreement, one could hate the idea of anal sex, see no rational for it, find correlations between it and Aids and other health problems, and STILL fight for the rights of two men to love each other, and be full citizens, and completely count as 2 votes, and two whole humans in the eyes of the law. But have no reason to sanction anal sex on any rational basis.<br /><br />Regards, TAR2

[John Cuthber]

So, you got conned by the spam advertising in the top right corner.

[ydoaPs]

The facebook pop-up thing is a false advertisement of some sort to get me interested in the service and does not actually reflect three missing forum friends, but may reflect missing facebook friends, or no missing friends at all

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

[tar]

Hey pal, you calling me a dingdong or a wiener?

[elfmotat]

[tar]

It's completely different; to claim they are in any way parallel is mindboggling. One proposes a set of very simple steps with finite probabilities which in toto will lead to a result. The other interposes a supernatural entity or guiding ethos and claims a will behind the origin of life. These are about as different as you can get.

 

There are no entry requirements - and if there were they would simply be a critical mind, the ability to question, and a refusal to blindly follow authority. Humanists do not exclude Christians and the Jews (and the rest of your impressive list) they merely treat them all as humans; Christians (etc) do not get less of a say, a shorter deal, or labour under extra burdens - but neither do they get to claim infallibility, god-given rights, or pre/proscriptive practices for society at large. The vote and voice of a Jew, of a Mormon, of a crystal healer, and of a scienceforum.net member are all the same and those rights and privileges flow from their humanity not from anything else!

 

 

Any point that starts that the 10 pct fit to rule are already ruling is trivially shown false by turning on the TV news and watching any coverage of parliament, congress, assemble nationale ... About all one can say universally about those that rule - is that they rule. I find it difficult to find another common factor; most especially it is impossible to say that they are fit to rule (GWB!) The second half of the above paragraph is exactly why I am a humanist - a morality based on shared humanity avoids the obvious pitfalls you highlight above

A morality based on the simple principle of the worth and importance of every human being - with decisions being made without regard to religion, sect, race, power, money, sex, nationality, eye colour, heritage, culture

 

Nothing to do with a creater - correct, why should it? One can believe in a creator and still believe that one should treat others as you would have the community treat you. One can believe in a creator and still believe that morality is of human origin - and once one believes that morality is not god-given, the only practical basis for it is a shared humanity.

 

I don't know what pack morals are - and if I make a guess at your definition I disagree with the fact that they are encoded. What makes you think that humanists don't dream of the world as a better place, imagine our community without violence, intolerance, and inequality; it is our very ability to do just that thing which makes us try and change things. Let's be clear - religion has been running things for thousands of years - in the last handful of decades irreligion has started to make a name for itself. Religion sets out to create the society which best reflects the needs, and designs of their god and holymen (still always men) - that is where their imagination and dreams are spent. Humanism sets out with different ends in mind; equality, community well-being, freedom of expression and thought etc

 

 

France is a fairly good example of a secular state - the USA is an incredibly bad example (check out the Kentucky law of 2006 which means that the homeland security building has a plaque stating that "the safety and security of the commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon almighty god"). This is a division of church and state except when the church wants to get involved. Look at some of the threads Moon, ydoaps, and I have opened in politics about the invasion of secular society by the right-wing church in the United States; tragic and scary. Unfortunately you are not doing a good job; in my line of research (the law, punishment, penal institutions etc) - the country which once was a beacon of good ideas, of progressive thought, of evidence based legislation, and of liberal values (which I unashamedly prize and promote) has become a place of retrogressive and sadistic punishment, where over one percent of the adult population are incarcerated, where the aims are retribution not rehabilitation, where religion and knee-jerk reflex takes precedence over research, and chillingly many decision are made at the behest of the corporations that run penitentiaries

Imatfaal,

 

I agree with large portions of your thinking, and have been influenced in my background by some of the same ideas that have influenced you. I wanted to discuss the influence that religion had on the establishment of various institutions and people that formed my persona, but thought my argument would be better understood if I could find some religious underpinning to your beliefs through your background. Your college shows that part of your education was obtained from the same college in London where Eric Bohm was a professor, and the school was founded by a man with Quaker parents.

 

From Wiki's article on Quaker:

"Quakers, or Friends, are members of a family of religious movements which collectively are known as either the Friends Church, or the Religious Society of Friends. Friends' central doctrine is the priesthood of all believers,^[1][2] a doctrine which is derived from the Biblical passage 1 Peter 2:9.^[3] Most Quakers view themselves as a Christian denomination. They include those with evangelical, holiness, liberal, and traditional conservative Quaker understandings of Christianity. Controversially, over the last 25 years, a minority of Quakers in the Western world have started to question some traditional Christian beliefs and practices."

 

I attended the wedding of my cousin to a Quaker. We sat silently in a bare wooden barrack like structure on wooden benches. Communing with each other with eye contact mostly, but basically just silently. Few if any words were spoken. I noticed the couple was sitting in the only patch of sunlight entering though the several openings in the wall. Everybody noticed and was pleased and there were many smiles, and still no words.

 

The priesthood of every believer, is a similar thought on some level, to the equalitarian sharing of knowledge, and my thesis would say that the founder of your college, may have held the moral values of his parents, whether or not he himself believed in God, and your founder may have attended a Quaker wedding and felt whatever it was I felt that day when the sun shone upon my cousin and wife, and everybody smiled, and no one said a word.

 

Regards, TAR

 

elfmotat,

 

I was not able to hear the video (my volume control doesn't open), but I think I got the drift.

I am a peculiar version of Atheist though, who feels the sting and hurt of proclaiming myself atheist, who sees religion's harm to secularity, its role in bigotry, its role in sexism and sees right through all its lies and usurptions of heavely powers, yet an Atheist that thinks I know the "real" components that people who believe in God might be refering to. Religion's role in the maintanence of social order on the one side, and its rational basis in asserting that we all have a certain connection to the same universe, at the same time, on the other side.

I would argue, along with humanists that we should just go with the sure knowledge of the common connection to the universe, and forget about this divine association bit...but humanists believe that there is nothing greater than a human to believe in, and here I have to part company, because there IS something greater than a single human to believe in. First of all, there is every other human, second of all there is the massive long lived universe in every direction, that is quite spectacular in both its order and diversity, that has been able to spawn intelligence, in at least one instance (humans) and probably in other species here on Earth like dolphins, and might be able to have had spawned such elsewhere. With or without intention or plan, this tiny chunk of universe material named TAR, knows I am in it. I know therefore that this emmense universe is at least capable of being as intelligent as I am. With no evidence to show that I am as intelligent as the universe can get. Rather I am a rather tiny peice and glimpse of the whole deal. If its this "whole deal" that believers in God might be usurping the power of, and attributing goofy stuff to, then even every scientist believes in this "whole deal" thing, And I can easily pretend that this "whole thing" that I am under is the same thing that my country's constitution was written under, and if common belief in this thing is good for cohesion and social order, and I have no claim to anything greater than THAT, why should I ask another man to take the word God, off my coinage?

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited February 1, 2013 by tar

[tar]

on whose authority should I make such a request? Whose name should I use? What principle or ideal or dream of collective truth should I reference? Should I speak for humanity? Jesus already tried that, and humanists doubt his rational basis for doing such. Yet they have no problem speaking for humanity on their own authority. Seem like a rent in logic to me. To use the exact same argument to both debunk religion, and support ones own cause.

[imatfaal]

Imatfaal,

 

I agree with large portions of your thinking, and have been influenced in my background by some of the same ideas that have influenced you. I wanted to discuss the influence that religion had on the establishment of various institutions and people that formed my persona, but thought my argument would be better understood if I could find some religious underpinning to your beliefs through your background. Your college shows that part of your education was obtained from the same college in London where Eric Bohm was a professor, and the school was founded by a man with Quaker parents.

Well there is David Bohm (who's a quantum mechanic) and Eric Hobsbawm (historian and recently deceased president of the college) - but Eric Bohm not sure about. And yes Birkbeck was a quaker - but you would be hard pressed to find a more secular and rationalist institutions than those of Bloomsbury (UCL, Birbeck, SOAS etc).

 

 

From Wiki's article on Quaker:

"Quakers, or Friends, are members of a family of religious movements which collectively are known as either the Friends Church, or the Religious Society of Friends. Friends' central doctrine is the priesthood of all believers,^[1][2] a doctrine which is derived from the Biblical passage 1 Peter 2:9.^[3] Most Quakers view themselves as a Christian denomination. They include those with evangelical, holiness, liberal, and traditional conservative Quaker understandings of Christianity. Controversially, over the last 25 years, a minority of Quakers in the Western world have started to question some traditional Christian beliefs and practices."

 

I attended the wedding of my cousin to a Quaker. We sat silently in a bare wooden barrack like structure on wooden benches. Communing with each other with eye contact mostly, but basically just silently. Few if any words were spoken. I noticed the couple was sitting in the only patch of sunlight entering though the several openings in the wall. Everybody noticed and was pleased and there were many smiles, and still no words.

 

The priesthood of every believer, is a similar thought on some level, to the equalitarian sharing of knowledge, and my thesis would say that the founder of your college, may have held the moral values of his parents, whether or not he himself believed in God, and your founder may have attended a Quaker wedding and felt whatever it was I felt that day when the sun shone upon my cousin and wife, and everybody smiled, and no one said a word.

Too many mays - why bother with wild guesses about what George Birkbeck thought? Look at what he did - not least a founder, amongst others, of both UCL, Herriot-Watt, and Birkbeck; a man that plays a large part in founding the first university in England to accept those outside the established religion and who founds numerous further education instituions to cater directly for working men can be judged on his achievements. I like Quakers - I just don't see how they help your point.

 

/snipped

[overtone]

 

But my muses upon the implications of the study linking religioustiy to
societal problem, and secularity to societal health, and then subsequent
studies linking lower levels of religiousity to higher levels of
education, intelligence and analytical abilities, forced me into logical
corner, where that only leaves about 10 percent of us, that are fit to
innovate, and set the standards for the other 90 percent to follow.
Being as this seemed rather undemocratic and rather elitist in its
implications,

The notion that higher levels of intelligence/analytical ability (confounded, usually) even, much less education, entitle one to rule, prevent innovation by others, and lay out morality for all of society, is a very dubious notion. I doubt a majority of humanists would subscribe to it, put bluntly like that.

 

The presumption that claims of intelligence and education, true or false, are taken or intended to legitimize the seizure of power over lesser folk, is a culturally derived presumption. In the US it is peculiarly strong in what are called "bluecollar", "redneck", "inner city", "backwoods", etc, subcultures.

 

Most humanists I have put the question to agree in general with theistic conservative William Buckley, when he asserted that he would rather be governed by the first 400 people listed in the New York City telephone book than by the faculty members of Harvard University.

[tar]

Well there is David Bohm (who's a quantum mechanic) and Eric Hobsbawm (historian and recently deceased president of the college) - but Eric Bohm not sure about. And yes Birkbeck was a quaker - but you would be hard pressed to find a more secular and rationalist institutions than those of Bloomsbury (UCL, Birbeck, SOAS etc).

 

 

Too many mays - why bother with wild guesses about what George Birkbeck thought? Look at what he did - not least a founder, amongst others, of both UCL, Herriot-Watt, and Birkbeck; a man that plays a large part in founding the first university in England to accept those outside the established religion and who founds numerous further education instituions to cater directly for working men can be judged on his achievements. I like Quakers - I just don't see how they help your point.

Sorry about giving Mr. Bohm the first name of someone I knew by the same sirname in my youth. My mistake.

 

I think my point may have been several fold, and I was tying to prove them all, similltaneously. I think the general point I am driving at, is that not only is secular thought based on religious thought, but that there is some amount of truth behind religious thought. Even though the God of the Bible is demonstrably false.

 

Another example. There is a story called "The Girl that trod on a loaf", that affected my sister, who is an atheist, very strongly when she heard it as a child. So much so, that she takes special extra caution and care, not to be vain and selfish, as to not suffer the same fate as the girl in the story. Allegorically speaking, the girl found herself in hell for being vain.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

http://www.hca.gilead.org.il/girl_who.html

Edited February 5, 2013 by tar

[tar]

Would you rather have wings or not?

[imatfaal]

Sorry about giving Mr. Bohm the first name of someone I knew by the same sirname in my youth. My mistake.

 

I think my point may have been several fold, and I was tying to prove them all, similltaneously. I think the general point I am driving at, is that not only is secular thought based on religious thought, but that there is some amount of truth behind religious thought. Even though the God of the Bible is demonstrably false.

 

Another example. There is a story called "The Girl that trod on a loaf", that affected my sister, who is an atheist, very strongly when she heard it as a child. So much so, that she takes special extra caution and care, not to be vain and selfish, as to not suffer the same fate as the girl in the story. Allegorically speaking, the girl found herself in hell for being vain.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

http://www.hca.gilead.org.il/girl_who.html

 

 

Whilst it would be futile to claim that religious thinking had no influence on those who grew up in an intensively religious world - one must also admit the possibility that these peoples actions were motivated against religion rather than as a progression of religion. University College London - Birkbecks big sister institution - was the first place in England where you could get a degree without being a member of the state religion (or at least pretending to be); and yet you claim the motivations of those prototypically enlightenment figures (Mill, Bentham, Birkbeck etc) were at a basic level religious.

 

I have yet to see any convincing argument that there is any amount of truth behind religious thought - there is far more ethical teaching in the harm principle (incidentally this was first promoted by JS Mill the son of the above James Mill) than in most religious texts. Telling someone not to kill because god condemns that act is not morality; it is law. Explaining how (or at least attempting to) a society can function with simple rules and methods of thought that everyone can apply is the basis of an ethical and moral community; not - "do this or burn in hell".

[tar]

imatfaal,

 

I do agree with you, mostly. I wish people could take the bible, and take messages that work, in the literal way that they indeed work, and take other messages more figuratively, as a suggestion as to how it most likely is to turn out for the good. And like you, I completely agree that one can be good, and have a conscience, without some made up threat, hanging over their head, and a made up reward for doing it right. No pretend stick and carrot should be required for an adult human. The rational, real rewards for propler behavior and the real punishments are enough. You get to eat later, if you plow the fields and plant and water and wait and harvest, and store, and cook. You get awfully hungry if you don't. And fulfilling your role in society tends to keep you fed and warm and free to pursue happiness. Anti-societal actions on the other hand tend to leave you in uncomfortable situations, where you are alone and possibly restricted in your freedoms. For real.

 

But here I have noticed is exactly where the truth in religion, might be found. The real world, in actuality does judge you. The people on your team, can find you pleasing and helpful, or irritating and harmful, and thus other people, collectively, form a very real and very true objective reality, that is much much larger and more significant than you. So many of the objective rules of behavior, the difference between good and bad, are completely and truely enforced by the world of men and women, and institutions that inhabit the Earth. And people can talk about you, and be affected by your voiced thoughts and your actions, while alive, even after your death. The world will judge you, and remember your additions and substractions to it. For real.

 

But if this is true, then the clouds and Sun and stars we all know, are true as well. And they extend, at least the stars, for distances so emmense we can not comprehend them, and have been in existence for a time so long we can not comprehend it. And as small and short lived as we are, from birth to death, each of us contains a complex myriad of cells, and each of these structures and chemicals, and each of them molecules and atoms and quarks. For real.

 

Any pattern we can recognize is just one example of it, that may well repeat in both directions, like a Mandebrot pattern. We can never hold even one instance of a cell in its complexity in our focus and memory in a complete way. We cannot know the history and relations of every quark in every atom and every molecule in every strand of DNA and RNA and in every protein and structure in even a single skin cell that just fell off our left pinky. And that is just one cell. And just one current arrangement of that large group of quarks. The actual world, outdoes any imaginary concept, by a very significant amount. And the whole deal, is not something we can actually contain. It rather contains us, and everything else. For real.

 

Regards, TAR2

[imatfaal]

imatfaal,

 

I do agree with you, mostly. I wish people could take the bible, and take messages that work, in the literal way that they indeed work, and take other messages more figuratively, as a suggestion as to how it most likely is to turn out for the good. And like you, I completely agree that one can be good, and have a conscience, without some made up threat, hanging over their head, and a made up reward for doing it right. No pretend stick and carrot should be required for an adult human. The rational, real rewards for propler behavior and the real punishments are enough. You get to eat later, if you plow the fields and plant and water and wait and harvest, and store, and cook. You get awfully hungry if you don't. And fulfilling your role in society tends to keep you fed and warm and free to pursue happiness. Anti-societal actions on the other hand tend to leave you in uncomfortable situations, where you are alone and possibly restricted in your freedoms. For real.

A lot of the beatitudes and that portion of X's teaching are very easily reproduced in a secular setting; but I have a few reasons for not teaching them in a Xian setting. Firstly they do not originate (in the western tradition) in the teaching of christ - they are older and I see no reason not to go to source rather than choose X's version. Secondly, they do not need the baggage of the rest of the New Testament - let alone the frightful nature of the old. Why should those struggling to comprehend moral and ethical rights freedoms and responsibilities have the extra burden of working out which bits of the bible are literal, which figurative, and which an accident of history which can be safely ignored. Thirdly, I actively disapprove of many of the actions of the established church and I believe that even an implicit, let alone an explicit, link with the good parts of humanism is disingenuous and to be avoided. I do not believe that an establishment that expends so much energy in campaigning against homosexual marriage should get any credit for part of their creed being do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

 

But here I have noticed is exactly where the truth in religion, might be found. The real world, in actuality does judge you. The people on your team, can find you pleasing and helpful, or irritating and harmful, and thus other people, collectively, form a very real and very true objective reality, that is much much larger and more significant than you. So many of the objective rules of behavior, the difference between good and bad, are completely and truely enforced by the world of men and women, and institutions that inhabit the Earth. And people can talk about you, and be affected by your voiced thoughts and your actions, while alive, even after your death. The world will judge you, and remember your additions and substractions to it. For real.

But this only has a connexion with religion if you will it - there is no intrinsic religious nature to the constant checking, measuring, judging etc that goes on within any pack.

 

But if this is true, then the clouds and Sun and stars we all know, are true as well. And they extend, at least the stars, for distances so emmense we can not comprehend them, and have been in existence for a time so long we can not comprehend it. And as small and short lived as we are, from birth to death, each of us contains a complex myriad of cells, and each of these structures and chemicals, and each of them molecules and atoms and quarks. For real.

Yes - and this is even more fascinating with the knowledge that we can understand many of the processes that create this complexity and these processes are simple! There is no need for a great black box labeled with "god-did-it" - and increasingly there are fewer and fewer unknown processes and these account for smaller and smaller manifestations. I disagree about not comprehending it - we cannot easily understand - but we can encompass these huge scales within our finite imagination.

 

Any pattern we can recognize is just one example of it, that may well repeat in both directions, like a Mandebrot pattern. We can never hold even one instance of a cell in its complexity in our focus and memory in a complete way. We cannot know the history and relations of every quark in every atom and every molecule in every strand of DNA and RNA and in every protein and structure in even a single skin cell that just fell off our left pinky. And that is just one cell. And just one current arrangement of that large group of quarks. The actual world, outdoes any imaginary concept, by a very significant amount. And the whole deal, is not something we can actually contain. It rather contains us, and everything else. For real.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

All of this increases my rationalism and sceptical attitude to religion - we no longer need nor want supernatural explanations, we can glory in the natural, the physical, the mundane; all of which far outstrip the paltry notions of the bible. The bible portrays wonder as seven headed dragons - I see wonder in understanding that you and I are manufactured in part from the remnants of a long past star which became a super-nova through a process that we can never really observe but which we understand on both a macro and a quantum level. Every element heavier than iron (i think that's right) are formed in the massive few moments of the explosion of a supernova - and they seriously think that a sea of blood is impressive!

[tar]

Imatfaal,

 

I think you and I share a great deal of common "consciousness", as to which collective societal thoughts are valuable and workable and which are antiquated and conterproductive, and nearly evil. In harmony, you and I, at least enough to guess that you, along with me, consider, as a guiding "spiritual' principle, the ascending Hegelian spiral, where "we" retrace our cyclical path, but on a higher level every time we pass over a familiar mark.

 

But I will still hang back a bit, and be apologist for the religious, because humanity as a whole has to progress together, or not at all. The progress of an individual or a small group of individuals is either inconsequential or imaginary, and might act only as an example for others. Such individual progress is akin to the sage on the hilltop reaching Nirvana. Does imaginary wonders for the Sage, but absolutely nothing for the rest of us. The sage does not reach down and in reality pull the rest of us along, Instead he/she might instead consider it a "secret" he/she knows, that the rest of us, are oblivious to.

 

In this I would like to make sure that the rational humanist does not get to "heady", and keeps their feet on the same ground where the rest of us stand.

 

 

Regards, TAR2

[SamBridge]

In reference to the first post, the belief itself does not, it's basing fundamental actions and logical causation off of some arbitrary god or entity that does, this is similar for other systems such as Buddhism and science.

Edited February 7, 2013 by SamBridge

[imatfaal]

Tar - I think that all other things being equal there is a lesser chance of the humanist setting herself apart from everyone else than a religious person who follows an almost identical path (in terms of actions and reactions). The humanist acts - and that act is complete in an of itself; the religious person acts - but that act is part and parcel of a larger whole. Some portion of that larger whole is denied/unavailable to the non-believer - thus a barrier/difference is created between the religious person that does act A in response to stimulus B and a non-religious person who does act A in response to stimulus B. As there is no additional belief baggage to the humanist's act there is no created division between the humanist and someone who would not consider themselves either religious or a humanist.

 

In very broad and shoddy terms - by following the non-religious "nice" bits of the sermon on the mount and other parts of the new testament teaching and only those bits, this does not make you a christian, but it might well make you a moral and ethical person akin to a humanist. In other terms - you can be a humanist without willing it, without knowing it, and without understanding it; merely through your actions and the thought processes that led you to that decision. On the other hand - Christians are created through teaching, learning, obeyance, and sacrifice; it is an external and public subjugation of the self to the will of the larger church

[tar]

Tar - I think that all other things being equal there is a lesser chance of the humanist setting herself apart from everyone else than a religious person who follows an almost identical path (in terms of actions and reactions). The humanist acts - and that act is complete in an of itself; the religious person acts - but that act is part and parcel of a larger whole. Some portion of that larger whole is denied/unavailable to the non-believer - thus a barrier/difference is created between the religious person that does act A in response to stimulus B and a non-religious person who does act A in response to stimulus B. As there is no additional belief baggage to the humanist's act there is no created division between the humanist and someone who would not consider themselves either religious or a humanist.

 

In very broad and shoddy terms - by following the non-religious "nice" bits of the sermon on the mount and other parts of the new testament teaching and only those bits, this does not make you a christian, but it might well make you a moral and ethical person akin to a humanist. In other terms - you can be a humanist without willing it, without knowing it, and without understanding it; merely through your actions and the thought processes that led you to that decision. On the other hand - Christians are created through teaching, learning, obeyance, and sacrifice; it is an external and public subjugation of the self to the will of the larger church

 

Imatfaal,

 

Well this subjigation to the larger church is also a tenant of the humanist (just that the imaginary judge is some unknown collective consciousness, that we just have to trust, to do all things in our best interest). And here is where I see the parallels and wonder how much "selfishness" is allowable and reasonable, and how much sacrifice is allowable and reasonable.

 

Just as a vague generalisation one could consider that there are more people suited to follow, than are suited to lead. And likewise, as you consider larger and larger size groups of people there are families that do it better than other families, clubs that are more capable than others, companies that follow "best practices" and those that don't, states that are poor and weak and states that are rich and powerful, nations that are uneducated and ruled by a mullah/dictator and nations that are mostly educated middle class, ruled by a quite powerful and capable industrial/political/scientific complex. Orderly families, clubs, companies, states and nations, don't require being enlightened by "outside" rules. At each level, it is "their" rules that make the most sense, their purposes and values that guide their actions.

 

Rational humanists, in my estimation, cut out all the real middlemen that stand between the individual and the human collective. They figure that their rationaly arrived at rules should be good for everybody. This one size fits all, does not consider the possibility that human judgment has already been engaged at every level, and a goodly number of workable solutions to conflicts, already engaged. Promises made, contracts signed, consensus arrived at, and trust already placed in the capable and loyal.

 

Social cohesion is not some static thing. It needs constant maintenance, repair and adjustment, to meet the conditions reality imposes.

 

Look at Egypt. Sure the power of the individual has increased with the internet, and an idea can spread like wildfire among the populace, but it does not generate social cohesion. If the long standing rules and structures are tossed, there is not a sensible, realistic "idea" that can just be inserted in its place, There is no realistic grounding to the new power holders. All the required peices have not been cobbled together over generations. There will be winners and losers and chaos. Like in Sryria, the King will, as good Kings are supposed to do, try to hold the place together. By force, if required.

 

And like John Lennon's "Imagine", we could all live as one, once you join us...if it were not for those daft Chinese communists.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited February 8, 2013 by tar

[imatfaal]

Imatfaal,

 

Well this subjigation to the larger church is also a tenant of the humanist (just that the imaginary judge is some unknown collective consciousness, that we just have to trust, to do all things in our best interest). And here is where I see the parallels and wonder how much "selfishness" is allowable and reasonable, and how much sacrifice is allowable and reasonable.

There is no imaginary judge - there is just you.

Just as a vague generalisation one could consider that there are more people suited to follow, than are suited to lead. And likewise, as you consider larger and larger size groups of people there are families that do it better than other families, clubs that are more capable than others, companies that follow "best practices" and those that don't, states that are poor and weak and states that are rich and powerful, nations that are uneducated and ruled by a mullah/dictator and nations that are mostly educated middle class, ruled by a quite powerful and capable industrial/political/scientific complex. Orderly families, clubs, companies, states and nations, don't require being enlightened by "outside" rules. At each level, it is "their" rules that make the most sense, their purposes and values that guide their actions.

Yep - no matter what size you arbitrarily set the sample size there will be differences in groups. But at root of decision making process there is a set of bootstrap routines; many people have religion here - I prefer the ideas of a shared humanity

 

Rational humanists, in my estimation, cut out all the real middlemen that stand between the individual and the human collective. They figure that their rationaly arrived at rules should be good for everybody. This one size fits all, does not consider the possibility that human judgment has already been engaged at every level, and a goodly number of workable solutions to conflicts, already engaged. Promises made, contracts signed, consensus arrived at, and trust already placed in the capable and loyal.

You must differentiate between laws of society and rules of an ethical life. Society determines its laws - and the most prominent mindsets in the polity will have the biggest impact; I would prefer that the most influential strand was liberal pluralism but I cannot demand anything other than a fair share of the debating time and an equal vote. But my rules of my own behaviour, how I live my life within secular society, my ethos is mine alone; I can blame none for its failure and can take the credit for its success. I really have no problem with a personal morality drawn from a holy book which functions on a personal level but within a secular society - what I hate, and fear the very concept of, is the annihilation of my ethos because it contradicts his holy book

 

Social cohesion is not some static thing. It needs constant maintenance, repair and adjustment, to meet the conditions reality imposes.

It is a difficult concept - we know when it has worked, or when it fails - but the difference of the methods is sometimes hard to fathom

 

Look at Egypt. Sure the power of the individual has increased with the internet, and an idea can spread like wildfire among the populace, but it does not generate social cohesion. If the long standing rules and structures are tossed, there is not a sensible, realistic "idea" that can just be inserted in its place, There is no realistic grounding to the new power holders. All the required peices have not been cobbled together over generations. There will be winners and losers and chaos. Like in Sryria, the King will, as good Kings are supposed to do, try to hold the place together. By force, if required.

There was social cohesion under mubarak - the glue was the blood of dissenters. I hold the monarchy in almost as much contempt and hatred as I hold religion

 

And like John Lennon's "Imagine", we could all live as one, once you join us...if it were not for those daft Chinese communists.

 

Regards, TAR2

[tar]

imatfaal,

 

I do believe it is of great importance to stand up for ones own ethos.

 

Its a tricky business though, because others don't have identical rules, and have not come to similar rules for the same reasons.

 

I for instance am not in a position to make people "not lie", even though honesty is very important to me. I hate when people lie, because I figure that life is complicated enough without deception, plus I have never figured out why and how people do it, Everything fits together, and I can tell when someone is lying, when things don't add up, I figure other people have the same capability to see through a lie, and fabricating a story that is not true, is hard to maintain if you do not intend to keep up the same lie, should other evidence that contradicts it, show up. So another reason I don't lie, is that I have no talent in manufacturing the more complicated lie required to cover up the first, and figure that it therefore is better to tell the truth.

 

My theory does not seem to affect the creationist. Million year old fossils don't add up with the 4000 years worth of begatting, that the bible lies about. So the more complicated lies about how carbon dating faults and finding the fossils under layers might be explanations are reaches way beyond any kind of credibility. It just gets so silly, that any reasonable person HAS TO discount any literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story. Except not everybody operates under my ethos and people rationalize the situation out to fit their requirements. Lie to themselves, or accept the lie, or ignore the lie, and still hold on to the general message, for other reasons, or take things figuratively, that cannot be honestly accepted as literal.

 

It is quite hard to assume that someone else will bow to your logic, just because you see the corner they have backed themselves into. Think of all the different kinds of philosophies that very intelligent people have come up. Each person that holds a particular philosophy can see with clarity, where people with opposing philosophies have backed themselves into a corner that they cannot get out of, and still retain their philosophy. But few of us recognize our own corner. We have our own rationalizations that allow us to think and act as we do.

 

I think people act, to various degrees, as if they represent their families, and their families them. And every family member differs in philosophy, intelligence, character, personality, capability, history and knowledge. But in many families, if you discrace the family, you lose your membership. If you are in a group with traditional values, and you break the trust of the group by going against the traditional values, you risk losing membership.

 

Under these conditions, "citizen of the world" is not a title anybody can, in reality hold. Such a title can only be held imaginarily.

Because there is not now, nor will there ever be, a situation where 6 and half billion people, with 6 and a half billion wills, personalities, characters, capabilities, values and purposes can each and every one, be pleased with your every action, and never a one find your actions discraceful.

 

You say it is only me that is the judge. This is a lie. We have billions of judges currently operating. They, together would have to be the God of the secular humanist. And no secular humanist is willing to accept the judgement of most of the humans currently on the planet. Not many secular humanists care to be citizens of the real world, they view the place as a mess that can only be cleaned up if people changed their attitudes, and adjusted them, to match the attitude privately held by the secular humanist making the judgment.

 

I think such thinking is a discrace. I view it as elitist, and bigoted, and hypocritical. It is not workable and it ranks no higher in "good" than the approach to the world of any god fearing man or woman on the planet.

 

I have recognized that we each are selfish protectors of our own club rules. Act locally, think globally, is the best any man or woman can do. Act globally, think locally is the worst. I do believe we have to meet in the middle between our responsibilities to others, and our responsibilities to ourselves. And we HAVE been attempting this feat already. And a human needs to feed his/her body, mind and spirit and many have been finding better and better ways to do these things.

 

I would like to find ways to associate the beliefs of the religious with the beliefs of the humanist. Because I have this theory that both camps are actually basing their beliefs on the same thing. There only is one reality that we share, there therefore has to be a mapping that would translate between the opposing camps. Seems better to look for these common things, and accept ones own biases, than to attempt to prove oneself unbias.

 

Regards, TAR2