Secular Humanism

Post Reply New Topic

Well, they think it is more important to believe things that to actually test it out.

They are the scientific equivalent to drawing dragons on the maps and thus "filling in the blanks" so no one should go and check if there are really dragons out there - they are in the way

The strength of sciense is the ability to say: "We do not know, but we're gonna find out". The weakness of religion is the blindness and the weakness to say: "Uhmm.. it must be gods work, lets not think about it, it hurts my head to think".




No, theism does not need to go away. Just the religious extremists, they are the ones that throw bombs on others because it is "justified by their god" to kill all non-belivers (in comparison to *their* religion).

In short, extremists are in the way of human progress, they are violent and does not fit into the future with a global society with world peace. They are pests and pests should be exterminated.




Then why force it upon them? It is a violation of their human rights. And history is no excuse. And ear piercings are not done on a regular basis by order of a religious cult and is irrelevant.




There is no excuse to be religious extremist just becuse there are other people that are totally missing the point with their political/economical extremism. Extremist capitalism and extremist socialism is equally distasteful.




Yeah, reality is funny, especially whey you choose to ignore it. I am not forcing my belifs on anyone. I want a equilibrium. Schizophrenic psychopath hearing a "god" talk to them should not decide for others.

Again, it is obviously more important that religious extremists are allowed to kill other people. The fact that you ignored my point pretty much sums up your world view.




No, proofs proove things, like that religion is intolerant, it is a bully and are on the verge of being pushed back in the western world. Hopefully more parts of the world will realise this...





Lets not forget Magna Carta...*caugh* (<---Spot the sarcasm)

Religion may have had its time and i am not going to deny that, but nowadays religions is more part of the problem than a viable solution.

It is like one of those extra wheels you put on kids bikes to keep them from falling over when they learn to ride a bicycle. Very helpful for children but they also prevent you from taking corners at high speed with a MTB.

Well, I am assuming that science refers to a similar thing to what I have categorized as science. It is true that one could say that sandwiches are science, but at some point, one has to take one's own categories as absolute and the end of things.

Well, I disagree with that somewhat. It is true that the term is ultimately controlled by consensus. It is also true that the lines of science aren't as built in stone as we often like to think, however, certain subjects are just traditionally so considered not to be science and science considered to have limits in certain subjects to the point where I do feel comfortable stating the limits of science, if only to strengthen the pre-existing value of the linguistic concepts that I consider dominant such that I can reinforce the language I use so I can convey ideas as best possible.

I mean, your attack on my actions makes sense, but the simple issue is that I have to refer to some object, and if the object referred to is intersubjective, I am right to call it objective in as much as I believe that I fit the current intersubjective description.

Perhaps that is just more confusing than I aimed to be, but I honestly believe Sand and Dussel are referring to an absurdity in their claims about science, even if science is mutable.

Who says that human rights exist? They seem about as real as God's covenant reflected by the circumcision of male children.

Well, ear piercings are done frequently, and they are done pretty regularly, and they are also damages to the human body done to children under the age of consent to most such practices, so they are quite relevant if one wants to be fair. I mean, the issue of whether or not a religion is involved is meaningless, let's say that a secular group wanted to circumcise children because they consider this a matter of aesthetic perfection, well, we'd have the same violation of human rights, so secular or not is irrelevant.


Well, the issue is that these variations exist outside of religion, and that blaming the entire problem on religion is not fair. I don't see abolishing these variations in political views either, or the simple fact that people see what they want to see, a phenomenon that probably extends to *all* people.

In any case, your statement on "distasteful" is just a personal value judgment. I am in one of the extremist camps you considered "distasteful".


Well, actually, by taking any political action, you are basically, through some means, forcing your beliefs on another person. Equilibrium imagines some neutral state, but I already consider such an entity non-existent, as each idea of a government fits into someone's ideal, so it is not as if something can be neutral to all ideals.

Well, religious nuts that kill people, are often just nuts, and there usually isn't a lot of that happening, and when it does happen, there are often long-standing cultural lines involved with the whole matter as well.


Well.... no, you have not provided a proof, all you have done is point to a set of historical facts, and I already presented a set of facts that counters your view pretty freaking well, by listing a group of religions that tend to have "tolerance" embedded as one of their doctrines.

The Magna Carta was actually pushed through against the opposition of the church ... I was talking more about the period of the 7th to 11th century. In later other forces were more important e.g. the merchant class in the cities and the request for power of the territorial princes which relied on societies with a clear legal frame work. If you like to have deeper look you may start some reading about the reform movement in Holy Roman Empire between the Teuga Heinrici of 1224 and the Perpetual Peace of 1495 during which, at least on the top level of society, a personal, mystical and religious understanding of government was replaced with a more pragmatic and legalistic one.



Exactly - that is the swift from a society of illiterate people to a society of educated people. Since this swift has been done, this function of religion does no longer exists.

Yuss I am.

http://www.un.org/ - a real life physically existing organisation that spans the globe.

Now, proove that god exists in a SCIENTIFIC way.





No it is extremly fair to criticise religion for the things that religion has done. You was the one that brought economics and politics into the discussion.




Political action is taken by observing reality. And i do not care either for your OPINION about equilibrium since you obviously do not know what it means.




You did not disprove the fact that religion is a problem and has always been a problem. My set of facts are based on observation, yours are not, they are cut and paste wikipedia statements.

Well, at least you spotted the sarcasm - and dissected it in an Aspie way

Ok, you haven't proven human rights. You've just shown the existence of an organization. The Catholic Church is a real life, physically existing organization that spans the globe as well, and that likely supports circumcision.

You want me to prove a supernatural entity using a methodology designed to test for natural changes? I think that would be in error, as the existence of God is a metaphysical problem, not a scientific one. In any case, to get to the matter, prove human rights in a scientific manner. I don't mean "prove a set of behavior tendencies", I mean, literally prove that human beings have a right to anything, unlike what animals, plants, or rocks have.


No, not really. It's just the same as blaming the human species for the holocaust or for the impaling done by Vlad the Impaler. Not all religions are the same. Religions have emerged and died since then. Problems caused by religion are also found in other belief-sets, and belief-sets as a whole cannot be gotten rid of.

I added economics and politics into the discussion because they do similar things to people. If religion is ultimately like some other thing to a point where it can be classified under a greater heading, then blaming religion specifically is in error. I would argue that religion is like these other beliefs, and thus religion alone shouldn't be blamed.


Observation is not an action that impacts political realities, ergo it is not a political action.

Ichinin, I made my argument about this matter. It was an argument, not just an opinion as well. Not only that, but you never explained the term "equilibrium" or gave it much of a meaning. Technically, any stable state in society could be labeled "equilibrium" but that tells us nothing about these societies because such a statement basically says that any society not undergoing civil war is in equilibrium. Another definition of equilibrium would be balance, but the issue then is that perfectly balanced things do not change, but all societies change, ergo they must all be in disequilibrium. Because of this, I think I made a suitable modification by picking the middle idea of neutrality.

In any case, you aren't one to talk about opinion, given that a lot of what you are doing is just stating opinions rather than engaging in a rational analysis of any sort.


I can't prove a negative, and that's that. I can only say that you have not validly reached your conclusion. In any case, you haven't provided a set of facts at all. In fact, you have less than "cut and paste wikipedia statements". Not that "wikipedia statements" really is a valid term given that there is no standard view of wikipedia to refer to anyway. In any case, wikipedia, for an argument such as this would be a valid source(not that any of us have pasted links to it) because nobody here is involving a great depth of knowledge, although I have referenced a few books and research papers without going into much detail about this issue.

Still its taking away freedom of expression.
Its repressive and takes away important values that people should adopt.

"Human rights" or organisations like states, the UN, the EU or a stock company are things which are defined by humans and are subject to changes in the way societies are organized. The modern concept of Human Rights is hardly to find prior the end of the 18th century.

Independently I am in favour of Human Rights or against such a concept, I had to recognize that this concept is a definition and not a matter of fact, because the examples of societies which did not know this concept historically and modern is enormous. What I can try to show is that the adaptation of this concept (like any other one, as Free Market or socialist economy or a theocracy or ...) has concrete benefits for those living in such a society. Here I can again use the scientific method and try to analyse the function of societies which adopted such concepts and their circumstance to make more-or-less well based predictions.

In propaganda, which includes here often the legal declarations (e.g. the preamble of the Declaration of Human Rights 1789), does not make this scientific process. But this shall not stop us to use it.



The idea of the existence of god must have direct influence into the measurable/observable world. There must be any trace to support this idea. Otherwise it would a mere speculation with not more support than Russell's Teapot. If your supernatural being exist it must be recognizable in any way.

Until know it is not - therefore it had be taken as non-exiting.



If you use "to blame" in the meaning of the moral concept of "guilt" the human species is as an whole not to blame, but if you use "to blame" in the meaning of causing by its nature - than it is to say that such atrocities are obviously part of our nature and we are therefore "to blame".



There is an interesting text Marx regarding religion (Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie. Einleitung, 1843). Marx saw here religion as the product of society. His conclusion was that if fight religion we fight in reality the circumstances in society which were the cause of religion. Religion and society emerge together. Any religion (or religious movement) is a symptom of the state of the society and need of its members. There is nothing supernatural in in the raise and downfall of religions. In this Marx compared religion with opium which supresses the pain caused by the real circumstances. Depriving someone from this kind of opium may will raise the pain on the short term but help him/her to see the reality better.

Which values? Why poeple should adopt those? How say so?

And most important: Cui bono?

Well, right. But the issue is that such an understanding of human rights does not allow us to set them above the Catholic church, or above circumcision.


Umm.... no, human rights isn't a concept, it is a matter of fact by definition, this can be seen in the US Declaration of Independence(which you just call propaganda):



Note, the writers do not refer to rights as anything instituted, but rather as "truths" that prescribe certain actions. Rights are thus not the thing decided upon, but rather the basis for making decisions. They are morals. They are oughts. You can just once again call it propaganda, however, if the concept wasn't an ought, then why is it invoked in a category that would be radically different from what it referred to? Not only that, but why is the term "right" a reference to morality?

right (rit)adj. right-er, right-est. Abbr. r., R., rt. 1. Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality: do the right thing and confess

---------------------------------------------------------
Excerpted from American Heritage Talking Dictionary
Copyright © 1997 The Learning Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

I mean, you can say that the entire term "human right" is incorrect, but the issue is that in using the term, we have to look at the words used, and the usage of this term. The words used, and the usage both agree with each other, disagree with you, and thus I would have to call your interpretation of human rights to be utterly erroneous, and a bastardization forced upon the idea by your rigid philosophy that likely is missing some very important categories that prevent this idea from making sense.

Because of the proper use of the term "human right" is moral, as seen in it's usage, and it's compositional words, it CANNOT be made into a matter of science. Human rights impacts normative judgments based upon science, but not the positive science itself. This distinction, while perhaps alien to you, is found in economics, which has developed a very strong boundary between these two matters, and your attempt to cross this line is in violation of the study itself.


Well, one: it doesn't have to have many testable signs of influence because this influence is considered miraculous.

Another issue is that believers in Christianity actually do believe that there is direct influence into the world found in the resurrection, which they believe is a strong case, and use(you might argue misuse) historical data and Bayesian analysis for their case.


The issue is that the latter claim is false in the case of religion as shown by pacifist, and humanist religions, so I was pointing to the former.


One does not have to accept the negativities of the Marxian analysis of religion given the fact that religion is found by some to have health and psychological benefits, with a member of this forum once citing the strong social benefits of religion. As well, a lack of religion does not necessarily mean "rationalism" but often just means uncontrolled mysticism, which religions actually do keep under wraps. Finally, the final analysis has a relatively shaky basis, as you don't know how religion will change the view of external realities, you don't know whether this change is good(as I already pointed to the fact that irrational things can create beneficial impacts), and finally, if religion is an evolved response then why would taking it away necessarily make things better? Why would this ill-supported guess work better than years upon years of evolution? No reason given.

I'd say human rights to be a needed concept for societies or the world to function, ideally, which is tied with moral concepts of good and evil, right and wrong. Do they do exist in the natural world? No, as a philosophical, metaphyisical and/or ideological and subjective concept? Yes.

Human rights are not something concrete, and there are disagreements about which rights we owe to adopt (e.g. abortion, gay marriage) but the issue is about the forming a set of conduct giving benefits and obligations and fairness to members of a society.

I know I won't be able to provide enough argumentation for the exisence of Human Rights, but anyway, I would say that human rights exists just as ethics does, just as philosophy does, just as metaphysics does, I mean, to ask wether Philosophy does exist or not, would that be just as reasonable to ask? Metaphysics often seems to be considered meaningless by empiricists, nevertheless, meaningless or not, metaphysics is there and is philosophy.

I tend to agree with Dussel that science can do studies regarding people's behaviour, mental and emotional state regarding the sociopolitical environement they are living, and also to ask the question, and trying to get an answer of what makes humans as a unique species on earth to have or create such concepts, and so in that sense I believe science can participate in that regard, and the results may be justifications for existence of such concepts. For instance, why the immigration in the US during WWII and conflicts in other parts of the world, and why people are more succesful in a territory that advocates for freedom in a given society, did Einstein's success, therefore his contribution to the scientific community related to difference in political/morel principles, why Capitalism is defended to be better than Communism, etc.


well, if the issue is about the concept of human rights being meaningless or unexistence so will be the concept of consent, and well, wether parents should ear pierce a child or not because of damage on their bodies as well as the issue of consent, I would say they would be based on moral principles and related to human rights, at least indirectly perhaps, I mean, why not damaging their bodies?


well, Secular Humanism seems to me to be a necessity for nonbelievers for justification of ethics and morality out of religion, and I would say the goal would be the human condition to be as comfort as possible ideally, as they see it as an important factor for progress, and from this perspective, religion would not be the solely source for morality anymore, rejecting the concept of Hell and Heaven as the motivation for behaviour but rather the use of 'reason' as they see it.

I can understand that stand to some extent, however, the issue with this is it makes any ethical stance arbitrary. To enforce ethics is to enforce a person's personal opinion.


I can understand that, however, to refer to human rights as if they were real and necessarily applied to all beings is still fallacious. Particularly in adjudicating debates about which rights should exist, which was the matter that was in question.


One can disbelieve in ethics and still believe in philosophy and metaphysics though, in fact philosophy and metaphysics are just matters of logic applied to pre-existent human categories, but ethics itself claims to be above the human conception, just as free will is, so both ethics and free will can meaningfully not exist other than as ideas.

In any case, empiricism is meaningless for empiricists, as is anything but empiricism, so I don't see much reason to give much weight to these overly strong empiricists if they cannot see anything but their own little world.


I am more skeptical of his claims to engineer society though, as I do not think that societies can truly be engineered. This is a long-standing disagreement on the nature of law that he and I have, where I think that laws emerge from society, and that societies are better understood evolutionarily rather than top-down, and where he takes a more Hobbesian view that laws and lawfulness come straight from the top.

Yes, I think that some amounts of studying can occur, but I do think that some a priorisms are necessary for these studies to take place, as our problems cannot just be solved with empricism, as these problems are too complicated, but rather conceptual models, must be formed, off of a model of human nature and the basic problems found in society.


Absolutely, but layers of arguments are good, as your opponent will have to claw through each layer before they can make their point. Human rights is a moral principle.


But why justify ethics and morality? If they are false, then wouldn't seeking to justify them disagree with the secular humanist tenet of reason? If they are now resurrected as fictions, then wouldn't that disagree with the humanism as it is now taking a lie to be necessary for human existence.

What human condition? There is my condition. There is the condition of my allies. There is the condition of my enemies. Why should I care about the latter or seek it at all?

Some people suggest that secular humanism, with its unfounded belief in human equality and the brotherhood of man, is just liberal Christianity without the belief in God.

Sorry if someone on this thread has said this already!

Nobody has said that on this thread, so it is a valid statement.