Laurentius

AVE

One ought to clarify one’s position to oneself before engaging in any grand discussion, and that’s what I seem to have been doing since I became a member here. This thread has been opened with the ambition to question and seek for a philosophical foundation of Secular Humanism.


I am a Secular Humanist – strongly secular, and equally strongly humanist, despite my sporadic bursts of Nihilism.

The starting point of Secular Humanism is atheism, but I think that the secular atheist should not indulge in endless and fruitless arguments with worshipers.

Today I’ll be referring to the dispute between the religious and secular people.

Hoping that it is going to be okay by you, I have chosen to present my position in parables, which seem to suit me better.


The Pious and the Lay
In an old village there were two neighbors. One was a deeply pious man, who went to the temple regularly and acted only to please heavenly authority, while the other, although honest and hardworking, seemed more preoccupied with earthly activities as he never brought any offerings to the village shrine and ignored religious life altogether.
One day it happened that the emperor passed through the village and, as it was a holy day, he participated in the service, rather out of duty, but he and his noble companions enjoyed the spirit of the community so greatly that they decide to accept the invitation the pious neighbor had made them to take a complete tour of their small but proud settlement. Having visited the whole village and seen how splendidly affluence went hand in hand with piety, the emperor and his host reached a thriving lot near an orchard, where a man and his family were busy plowing:
“I can’t help admiring the hard work this man has been doing,” said the emperor, “but why does he have to work on this holy day?” The emperor frowned puzzled to the pious neighbor, who spoke quite grudgingly:
“Well, Your Majesty, he doesn’t have to. This man, in fact, chooses to ignore his sacred duties, and never brings any offerings to the village shrine and leads a life of neglect.”
“How is it then that his household appears to be so wealthy and prosperous?” The emperor asked.
“Well, Your Highness,” the pious neighbor had to admit it, “with respect to the duties toward his family, this man is without flaw. His honesty and hard work have made their household one of the most well-to-do in our village.”
“I see,” nodded the Emperor thoughtfully. “How about then the duties toward his emperor?”
“He’s the first to pay his taxes or defend the boundary if there’s a threat.”
“In this case,” the emperor gestured that they should move on, “rarely have I seen a man carrying out his earthly duties so exemplarily. As for the heavenly ones, that is his own problem, for it is not we that hold the authority to judge him.”

____________________

I am looking forward to your response.
AVE

dostf

Laurentius:

your parable would suggest that if a person is taking care of of his "earthly duties" and is basically " a good person", we should not judge whatever beliefs he might have.
Certainly so. I imagine only "believers" would argue your position. Such a person is what i might describe as "a good citizen". I don't think many people would have difficulty with such a person except the aforementioned "believers".
However, from another position one might state that the cow is a very useful animal. It gives milk, provides meat, doesn't cause much trouble etc.-Is there nothing more than this?

Also, while you might express yourself better in "parables" I'm sure your aware they lead to many an incorrect assumption or interpretation, as i may have done here.
I suggest we have enough difficulty communicating effectively using language to express our thoughts, without adding the "story" variable.

Laurentius

dostf

I didn't just toss the parable - I was careful to explicitely say where I was getting at: the futility of the time&energy-consuming argument between believers and atheists. Having stated my position, I added the parable to be used as an argument, not as a conclusion.

Now, about the vagueness and ambiguity of a discourse using parables.
1. It has been done before, with lasting results (Plato, Taoists etc).
2. One is often likely to be misunderstood when using denotative language; if one makes use of conotative language though, rarely is he/she misundertood (at most, not non-understood).
3. I have started this with the purpose of stirring things a little bit, rather than settle them.

AVE

John Page

Atheists as secular humanists parable (from Wind in the Willows)

Ezra

I'm with the ducks.

dostf

Laurentius:
The starting point of Secular Humanism is atheism, but I think that the secular atheist should not indulge in endless and fruitless arguments with worshipers.
-note is this a conclusion of yours or a point raised to invite discussion?

I'm not sure how your parable argues for your assertion that it is a waste of time/energy to argue with worshippers. (not that i necessarily disagree with you). Unless it is that we can all"do our own thing" and live together in harmony?

L-
1. It has been done before, with lasting results (Plato, Taoists etc).
2. One is often likely to be misunderstood when using denotative language; if one makes use of conotative language though, rarely is he/she misundertood (at most, not non-understood).
3. I have started this with the purpose of stirring things a little bit, rather than settle them.

Parables....
1. This does not necessarily make it correct or desirable.
2. Both can be difficult to deal with.
3. OK!

Laurentius

the madman
Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!" - As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated? - Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him - you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us - for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars -and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"

Friedrich Nietzsche

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

Bill

The difficulty, as always, is with how one is to define what is "good" (as in noting that so-and-so is "a good person"). The essence of religion is to define the standards for making such value judgments. Unfortunately, in the eyes of any devout person of any religious persuasion, no other person is truly "good" if that person adheres to a wildly different set of religious beliefs.

Even the idea of "tolerance" for those of other religious beliefs is, itself, a religious belief (and it is a widely disowned idea in Muslim states where you can get the death penalty for saying the wrong thing about Mohammed).

There is no one single argument that would justify secular humanism to those of all religious persuasions. Unfortunate, but true.

== Bill

Laurentius

Bill

AVE


I agree. My endeavor is to, if possible, reach a partial armistice under the umbrella of Humanism.

Yes, but nowadays we live in a globalized world that leaves less and less room for theocratic arbitrariness.

My position leaves the door open to those Humanists who, although religious, would like to join to my Humanist ideals. I have met Christians with whom you could organize a charity without either of you having to "praise the Lord" every five minutes. I mean, some of them are really pragmatic and willing to form temporal alliances so as to deal with common enemies, such as absolute poverty, disease, illiteracy and so on. The eradication of all these might represent one of the goals of any Humanist, no matter what belief he/she had.

Therefore there are some religious tendency more dangerous than others. I'm sure there are common grounds for Secular and non-Secular Humanists to fight such coommon foes.

This sounds quite cynical - or shall I say Nihilistic?

AVE

snatchbalance

AVE


To me, (I think this is Dawkins analogy)religion is like a virus. It is not realy alive,in that it has no basis. Yet, it takes over the host, and spreads to others.

No matter how mild the infection may be, it still provides delusions that must be acted on. Remember, this is an alternative reality that we are dealing with.

Should these delusions be pointed out to those that are delusional? Can delusions, in the long run, be beneficial? Where does it stop? Should it be stopped?

Myself, at times, I still engage in the endless and fruitless arguments. Maybe that's just my own pathology showing.

Snatchbalance