Virgil Tibbs

I don't see how that refutes my point. If these are non-fundamentalist groups, and you can name no fundamentalist groups that do allow gay marriage, it would support the idea of a negative correlation between theism and humanism.

I never said that religious humanism did not exist, only that humanism is less common among the religious. And the more strongly religious one gets, the less likely still to be a humanist. I've never heard of any fundamentalist christian who did not consider humanists to be the enemy. It is possible I am ignorant on this subject, but based on what I've observed to this point I think the theory fits the evidence.

I'll grant I don't have any scientific study that backs up my claim. Nevertheless, in the USA at least people with anti-humanist agendas almost always have stong religous agendas. For example, the KKK is an xian organization, though of course most xians would not agree with their views. I've never heard of an anti-gay organization that was also not strongly religious in this country.

Nevertheless morality cannot exist without observations about the universe. For example, I need to observe that other people exist before I can make a moral judgement about my interaction with them, and I have to observe the effects of my interactions. I need to observe that child molestation harms children in order to comdemn it. I need to observe that consensual sexual relationships between adults are not more harmful (to society or the individuals invovled) for homosexuals than heterosexuals before I can reach a conclusion on that.

Of course, I'll admit observations in this case aren't always made by me personally. I also accept peer reviewed science as a valid source of information because I've seen strong evidence that it functions. Namely the large amount of technological advance that has come about in the last century.

Morality is about assigning value to the things we observe. If we muddy the observations with invented events that never took place (i.e. most holy books) than we muddy our ability to judge morality. More broadly, if one takes as absolute truth something that is not supported by evidence, if later on one finds evidence that refutes the "absolute truth," that evidence will tend to be discarded or ignored for unwarranted reasons. I think we've all seen this amply demonstrated by creationists.

If we're arguing about creating appeal in a theistic society, than I agree that humanism will have an easier time than atheism. This is born out in the fact that the newer, moderate xians of the twentieth and twenty-first century have values more closely in line with humanism. However, I don't see religious humanism as being as "stable" as secular humanism because it is built on a world view inconsistent with reality as we observe it, that presists only due to indoctrination.

I will say I feel religious humanism is much better to have around than atheistic nihilism, but in that case the problem is entirely the nihilism and not the atheism. More specifically, the problem is theism promoting a strong link between atheism and nihilism that does not exist. I'm not saying atheism is going to prevent people from arriving at nihilism, just that it does not (barring indoctrination by theists) lead there anymore than theism can.

I look at the situation this way: morality and meaning in life are judgements we make about the universe we observe. If we make flawed observations due to an inaccurate world view (supernaturalism), it makes judging morality more difficult. The less information I have on something, the harder it is to judge that thing. The more misinformation I have something, the harder it is to judge that thing.

If we see our ability to observe the universe as a foundation and our ability to judge what we observe as the house built upon that, than atheisic nihilism would be a shoddy, unsafe house built on a solid foundation, and religious humanism would be a nice house built on a poor foundation. Secular humanism would combine the strong foundation with the nice house.

In the majority of cases religious humanism will do just as well as secular humanism. The problem IMO is if religious indoctrination is used to support humanism and the indoctrination is broken, it is going to leave that person suspicious of humanism as a component of the indoctrination.

Above in a quote you say that "Basic values and moral choices are arbitrary." Unlike secular humanism, religious humanism usually claims basic values and moral choices are 100% objectively supported by the existence of whatever supernaturalism is present in the religion. For example, a theistic humanist will probably say that his god proves his humanism is absolutely true and may not be disputed. Creating an expectation that morality is as objective as, say, measuring liters of fluid is a danerous thing IMO. Upon finding this not to be so it could shatter the person's self-image and world view.

I don't mean to generalize and say all religious humanists would be that dogmatic, but you must admit that religion produces much more dogmatic thought than athetism ever has. And there is no reason to suppose that this would not also hold in the case of the two camps of humanists.

Tibbs

Virgil Tibbs

Oh, and before I forget, congrats on the post count from this particular newbie.

Tibbs

Badfish

What the hell are you guys talking about??

livius drusus

Just what is the point of this post, Badfish? If the discussion perplexes or bores you, then simply refrain from participating.

Badfish

Really livius, I think you need to relax, you know there are a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing......

Ok, ok, remove my posts. They are totally and utterly unacceptable...

HelenM

Badfish, I don't understand the question. Can you be more specific?

Helen

Gurdur

Your argument simply doesn't follow.
Fundamentalism does not equal theism, and vice-versa.
Your presumed negative correlation between theism and humanism simply is disproved by the facts --- since I named groups which are both theist and humanist.
Ah, now that is better said.
But I still disagree.
I think the picture's much more complex than you allow, with all respect.
Now I must really disagree.
In researching for a debate here, I did a lot of reading about 11th-15th century women mystics.
Damnedly religious, frighteningly so.
However, also very humanist.
I might put the info up on the web again.

I'm suggesting your definition of "fundamentalism" is too limited, and bound to late 20th century USA and Middle East experience, with all respect.
How about the American Nazis ?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying religious=humanist.
To some degree, I actually agree with you (despite my mischevious ways).
What I wish to say, though, is that I think you see it a little too simplisitically in the light of 20th/21st century experience, and I don't.Bingo !
Now that very point alone makes for a potentially very interesting discussion. Please stick around !
I'll answer this one at length in 2 days' time, OK ?
I will definitely buy you a beer or a coffee should we ever meet.


BTW, do you ever follow discussions here in the Political Discussions forum much ?
Dominated often by Libertarian/Objectivist atheists, or even by out-and-out moral nihilists. Whom I regard as anti-humanist.

Actual practical humanist action threads are very far and few between. People like James Still, DChicken, LadyShea, Scottym myself, speak very little here about actual practical humanist actions --- there simply isn't the interest.
_________

Sex.

But it's heavily coded --- approved guests only.

Badfish

Sure, let me try to expound.

What the freaking hell are you guys talking about?

Sorry so lengthy, I just felt I had to be specific, so that my motives are not misconstrued.

HelenM

How do you define 'humanist', though?

If you're defining a humanist as someone who holds certain values antithetical to conservative Christianity, then of course the more conservative Christians are not humanists, by definition.

Gurdur, can you define what you mean by 'humanist'? I'm wondering whether you and Virgil Tibbs have the same definition in mind. If not then it's not surprising that you disagree about which people are humanists.

Helen

HelenM

If you want to know what the thread's about, then read the thread.

Helen