Sojourner553

Hi Haran,

Just got on. You mean you never heard of the philosophy of secular humanism that addresses just this issue? (PS Glad we've moved to another board)

I know I am long winded but here goes:

Organized Humanism in the United States

Humanism in the United States became formally organized in the United
States in 1933, when thirty-four liberal religious humanists (many of whom
were Unitarians) sponsored the drafting of Humanist Manifesto I. In 1943,
the American Humanist Association was founded by Edwin Wilson, a Unitarian
minister, who became editor of the organization's official magazine, THE
HUMANIST. Wilson considered himself a religious humanist, although some
members considered themselves to be either nonreligious (secular) humanists
or naturalistic humanists (ie where they view God in transcendental or
naturalistic terms).

The Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (CODESH) was founded
in 1980. It explicitly used the term "secular humanism" to distinguish
itself from religious humanism. Today it publishes the magazine FREE INQUIRY
out of Buffalo, New York.

Humanist Manifesto


The Humanist Manifesto was meant to appeal to
BOTH religious and secular humanists, and states in its entirety:

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

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

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

*We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the
best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and
repressive majorities.

*We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and
state.

*We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of
resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.

*We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with
eliminating discrimination and intolerance.

*We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that
they will be able to help themselves.

*We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race,
religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, or ethnicity, and strive
to work together for the common good of humanity.

*We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future
generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.

*We believe in enjoying life here and not and in developing our creative
talents to their fullest.

*We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.

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

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

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

*We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.

*We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to
be made in the cosmos.

*We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel
ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

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

*We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair,
learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than
guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred,
compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather
that blind faith or irrationality.

*We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are
capable of as human beings."


The above statement of principles and values was set down by the
organization of the Academy of Humanism--whose membership has included,
among others: Steve Allen, Isaac Asimov, Sir Alfred J. Ayer, Francis Crick,
Stephen Jay Gould, Paul MacCready, Sir Karl Popper, Carl Sagan, and
Andrei Sakharov.

Statements on secular humanism

Isaac Asimov

Prior to his death on April 6, 1992 Isaac Asimov was the president of
the American Humanist Association. Here, Asimov explained what humanism
meant to him:

"The Humanist is motivated by a love of life and a sense of adventure.
Humanists, out of respect for science, are skeptical of paranormal claims
and have no belief in the supernatural. They put no reliance upon supposed
cosmic guarantees, rewards, or punishments. But, most importantly,
Humanists take responsibility for their lives and their world. As a result,
they are concerned and involved in efforts to solve the many problems that
plague humanity--problems as diverse as war, overpopulation, hunger, and
destruction of the environment. Humanism is a philosophy of worldly
concern and action."

Corlis Lamont

"The humanist method of solving human problems entails a reliance upon
reason, the scientific method, democracy, and compassion. You may say that
the watchword of humanism is compassion toward all of our fellow human
beings."

Humanistic viewpoints can be found in both the Old and New Testament.
The Ten Commandments, including "Thou shalt not steal", "Thou shalt not
bear false witness", and "Thou shalt not kill", are good humanist ideals
Jesus' sermons on the Mount and the Golden Rule are another example.
(Humanist Reflections, Corlis Lamont HUMANIST, September/October 1988 p 26,48)

Algernon D. Black

"The Humanist does not fall into the trap of believing that man is the
superpower, the highest form of life in existence. Man may be the highest
form we know. But the universe does not revolve around man, nor does it
necessarily exist for man. All man can do in seeking a faith is to be
honest in examining his world of natural environment and his human
environment, and, above all, in examining himself." (Algernon D. Black,
"Our Quest for Faith: Is Humanism Enough?" THE HUMANIST ALTERNATIVE
(Prometheus Books, 1973) p 73)


Will Durant

"[Humanism's] victories of course, are never complete, and may never be.
As long as poverty, suffering, or grief exists, the unfortunate will
seek supernatural aid. We should not begrudge them these consolations; and
we should not attack such creeds unless they attack our own freedom of
belief. Moreover, we shall find it no easy task to mold a natural ethic
strong enough to maintain moral restraint and social order without the
support of supernatural consolations, hopes, and fears. Nor would we let
our critics suppose that we worship man; we know that our species has
soiled itself with a thousand absurdities, enmities, crimes, and even
with massacre and genocide. Our aim is to protect our freedom to work
for the IMPROVEMENT of man--for men brave enough to stand with their feet
on the earth rather than in the sky; and for the multiplication of such
men and women into a more humane society, state, and international order."
(Will Durant, "Humanism in Historical Perspective", pp 6-9, taken from
HUMANIST ETHICS, DIALOGUE ON BASICS, Edited by Morris B. Storer,
Prometheus Books, 1980)

Paul Kurtz

"[W]e live in a period of rapid technological and social change in which
we are constantly confronted by new ambiguities and new problems. We cannot
simply draw upon the moral wisdom of past generations; we must be prepared
for some revision of our traditional moral outlook... The age-old morality
contains many tested principles, but much of it--particularly our religious
morality--was developed in nomadic agricultural societies. It is difficult
to apply these ancient moral codes to the highly technical post-industrial
society in which we now live...Dramatic new scientific and technological
breakthroughs provide enormous opportunities for human betterment, but
they also raise moral dilemmas concerning possible dangers and abuses.

"We cannot cope by retreating to the absolutes of the past; fresh thinking
in the future is essential. Critical intelligence is the most reliable
tool we have--it is not perfect, but nothing is when dealing with moral
dilemmas."

Sojourner

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Do not that which you cannot tell yourself without lying was right.

Questions I ask before acting (only if I am morally unsure of an action):

Will it harm someone?
If so, is that harm:
a) great or small?
b) deserved or undeserved?

Will people benefit?
How many?
Who, exactly will benefit?

Remember, that you are NOT the only person--you cannot let yourself be the only benefactor. Society is able to function when people strive to maximize the benefit for society as a whole. To allow society to collapse is to destroy manking. Strengthen it wherever you can.

From these, and these alone, you can make good moral judgements. Unfortunately, even though I follow this code, I have a very skewed view of what harm was justified. I have not led a happy life, and my childhood was hell. Those who have wronged me have forever poisoned me against those like them. I have tried to forgive and forget, but I cannot. It burns in my soul and in my heart. I do not make moral decisions as a result of this (at least insofar as what is morally permissible. I have not acted in a manner not inconsistent with conventional morality--yet). Do not be a judge in your own case. That is how you must avoid the pitfall that I have fell into. To let others suffer as you have is not right--tough it will feel so when acting against those who have done you harm. I will tell you this, for I am damned, and damned forever: causing others pain is NEVER justified. Do not cause misery. Do not cause grief. Do not hurt to punish. Act to correct--malice must NEVER enter your heart, for once it does, it will grow.

I'm ranting now. Well, almost. Learn from someone who failed. They provide better examples than those who never did.

Haran

Cool! So, I can kind of pick and choose, a little bit of this and a little bit of that?

Someone said that I should think about continuing with the values that I already have. Should I borrow them and continue on with life?

Haran

tronvillain

Actually, it's a little hard to see how you'd get rid of them, unless the only reason you were holding them was because you were commanded to.

HallaK9

By Haran:
Do that. It's not like you have a choice, anyway You can't wake up tomororrow and be a totally different person even if you wished.

And anyway, beign human is not rocket science. It comes quite naturally to most people, what with them being humans and all that.

Antti

Jamie_L

Practically speaking, I don't think you need to rethink your morals or values much at all.

For the most part, I would guess you choose to do things that you consider "good" because you like to do "good" things. Likewise, you probably don't do things you consider "bad" because you don' like to do "bad" things. God was a convenient explanation for why you "should" hold your moral opinions about "good" and "bad", but I doubt it defines much of your morals.

Ask yourself this - if you found out there was no God (conclusively), would you decide to kill all your family and friend? If no, why not? Because you think it's wrong? Well then, my friend, you have already have a morality independent of God.

Now, there are some things that "God" may command as moral that you don't feel are "bad" without that commandment - pre-marital sex might be an example. Those things you might recondsider. But the big stuff - I bet you already have a non-God moral code, you just don't believe it.

Jamie

Hobbs

Yea, just like now. You know, the way theists pick and choose when they interpret their scriptures, or select which denomination or church to belong to, or which of its teachings to accept.

Only now, you'll be doing it without the concept of "god". But you'll see that this is really an advantage, especially after realizing that "god" turns out just to be your own preferences and prejudices to which you have granted divine status by interpreting them as being from god. (I've always wondered why it is that god always invariably agrees with his followers on matters of theology, morality, etc.)

You'll probably find it a bit more difficult now, though, since now you'll actually have to think about your actions and the possible consequences of them, and realize that you have to justify to others how your actions affect them without being able to just say that god told you so. In other words, you'll have to take responsibility for your own actions rather than taking the easy way out and letting god take care of making all your decisions for you.

Of course, you've actually already been responsible for your decisions and actions. But now, you'll be able to be more intelligent about handling your responsibility.

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Hobbs ]</p>

Eudaimonist

I studied the ethics of Ayn Rand and the ancient Greeks, and found many good ideas and arguments. That's one method. It may not suit everyone, since not everyone is intelligent enough to grasp philosophy.

This is a problem -- one that non-theists would be wise to solve if they wish to help new non-theists. One solution already exists, at least in its infancy: the Fellowship of Reason. New non-theists could attend meetings and listen to oratories on ethics that make abstract ethical principles come down to earth in a form that a newbie can easily grasp. That could be a big help for many people.

Sojourner553

So absurd! You really need to rise above the wishful thinking level....


Philosophically speaking, there are two groups:

Humanists and funamentalists.

I showed you the Manifesto of Secular Humanists.
In it you see emphasis on reason and toleration, and general kindness to one's fellow man.

Christian humanists (often being good people with a 'natural' emphathy towards others) have had to fight their fundamentalist counterparts for the authoritarian and cruel passages in the Bible.

Examples:

(1) Slavery
The Quakers were an example of good humanistic Christians who were opposed to the principle of slavery almost from the start. There were some wonderful Methodist and Presbyterian abolitions as well. But I saw on a post that you contributed on (slavery) that a large number of atheists were also abolitionists.

Your "theory" cannot account for atheist humanitarians -- so you IGNORE IT. I wrote you that it was my own experience that I felt more emphathy towards others after I switched from religion to non-religion because I realized this was the only life a person was going to have. And "I" cared about it. I didn't need a deity promising me "rewards" for any good deed I did. I would do good even if I were punished for it. (Is the only reason you Haran act good is to be rewarded for it? If so, you are a very very selfish person!)

But back to the point: It was not religion that peacefully decided the issue of slavery. There was a Civil War, and even the losing side (conservative/fundamentalist Christians insisted on instituting cruel Jim Crow laws that still kept down blacks as inferior.)

My mother taught me the Ham myth when I was a young child explaining it as the principal reason why blacks lived hard lives. I learned as an adult, that NO WHERE in the Bible does it state Ham was a black man. It was all in the "interpretation."

* * *

I'll just quickly rattle of some other areas where the Bible had to be "re-interpreted" to get us to a more enlightened, secular environment we live in today:

(2) women's rights

I saw a reference from the nineteenth century when divorce was rare, questioning rather a woman should be able to divorce her husband who blinded her in a fit of rage.

Also, have you ever read the history of the opposition to using painkillers for women during childbirth. It was said to go against God's will that women should suffer in childbirth as a curse to Eve and her descendants. This attitude is still around. Ask Andrea Yates.

Want multiple wives -- ie polygamy? Then go to the back hills of Utah and become Mormon.

(3) child abuse laws. It was the old biblical laws of "spare the rod, spoil the child" genre that fought the recent implentation of child welfare laws.

********************************************
I see a lot of conflict among Christians -- on the following issues

*Birth Control/Contraception
*Divorce Law (too easy, too hard)
*Abortion
*Should good, law-abiding gays being allowed to marry, adopt children, be ministers
*Euthanasia
*Are demons, witches, and possessions real?
*Criminal Executions

I watched a religious panel put together on tv following the insane atheist who killed members of a Baptist church in Ft. Worth Texas. They couldn't agree among them whether it was the devil to blame or man's free will.

* * *

Now, fundamentalists -- be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, or atheist -- I would agree typically seach to find doctrines to justify whatever they really wanted to do in the first place.

*Fundamentalist Christians can also find just about any verse in the bible to justify anything.

The history of pograms, Inquisitions, torture, wars, and slavery demonstrates this. There was a test on another post recently challenging whether capitalism was mentioned in the Bible. Obviously the term had not been invented then -- but the concepts were there. And yes, one could find verses justifying it or opposing it.

With fundamentalist atheists, the same applies.
And like their Christian fundi counterparts --can also pick and choose pretty much as they please! Both get what they really wanted anyway.

People who throw rocks shouldn't live in glass houses, Haran!

BTW -- I never saw an answer from you on my long (no doubt too long) response on the Biblical Archeology board. Please move any response over here if you have one.

Sojourner

[ April 02, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

I have no problem with you thinking for yourself. In fact, even though I know nothing about you, I suspect that we would both feel far more comfortable with the results of your thoughtful and honest discernment than with Deuteronomy.

Actually, the subtext here is both interesting and disturbing. You wish to suggest with your clever hypothetical that establishing morality is difficult, if not impossible, without recourse to God and ultimate judgement. But, does this not imply contempt for the followers of Buddha and Confucius?

And, if we are to join you and dismiss them as having nothing to offer when it comes to "shaping [a] new morality", what are we to say about the rest? Is one brand of theism better at 'morality building', or are all theists somehow equally blessed with the necessary tools? Is Christianity useful but Hinduism deficient? Or perhaps, as Joseph sings in the musical, any dream will do.