Freethought & Rationalism Archive

njhartsh · 04-28-2003, 10:55 AM

Okay, maybe I can get this thread going again (along the original lines of discussion) if I point out that there's effectively nothing explicitly nontheistic about Humanist Manifesto III. This stands in notable contrast to HM3's predecessors, which declared that "the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values" and "the time has passed for theism" (HM1), and then later:

Quote:

We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so. Even at this late date in human history, certain elementary facts based upon the critical use of scientific reason have to be restated. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.
- HM2

The third Manifesto sort of implies this kind of sentiment, but "we don't buy supernaturalism" isn't present in clear terms anymore.

What do IIDB denizens think about this?

- Nathan

Starboy · 04-28-2003, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by njhartsh
Okay, maybe I can get this thread going again (along the original lines of discussion) if I point out that there's effectively nothing explicitly nontheistic about Humanist Manifesto III. This stands in notable contrast to HM3's predecessors, which declared that "the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values" and "the time has passed for theism" (HM1), and then later:The third Manifesto sort of implies this kind of sentiment, but "we don't buy supernaturalism" isn't present in clear terms anymore.

What do IIDB denizens think about this?

- Nathan

If the manifesto is to gain any kind of following people will have to find it compelling. If that is so then they will be more interested in what it does promote rather than what it doesn't.

Starboy

Totalitarianist · 04-28-2003, 11:04 AM

Eudaimonist: But I am a humanist.

Eudaimonist · 04-28-2003, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Totalitarianist
Eudaimonist: But I am a humanist.

No, you are not. You have clearly stated that the ultimate end to which human lives are merely a means is "Progress", not their own well-being. In principle, millions of lives could be sacrificed to "Progress", and this would not violate the principles you have publically stated.

Shake · 04-29-2003, 12:51 PM

Here's some more of the context of that Jefferson quote:

Quote:

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences.... If it end in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others it will procure for you."
- Thomas Jefferson

njhartsh · 04-29-2003, 02:11 PM

Hiya, Shake. I'm unclear--are you providing us with a more complete Jefferson quote because it's educational and/or edifying (if so, I salute you), or are you arguing that the "context" undercuts my criticism of Jefferson's statement?

I am generally a fan of Jefferson, and I agree with most everything he wrote in the passage you quoted. But I think that his inference--"if there be [a god], he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear"--though it was a belief that Jefferson held deeply, is actually totally unfounded. Like so many liberal theists and even some atheists, he held the (IMO) unsupported belief that "if there is a god, it must be good." I don't see how any of the context you quote lessens the sting of this fallacious inference.

If your post wasn't a critical response to mine, then never mind. If it was, en garde!

- Nathan

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-28-2003, 11:04 AM	#53
Totalitarianist Banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 1,234	Eudaimonist: But I am a humanist.

04-29-2003, 02:11 PM	#56
njhartsh Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota Posts: 138	Hiya, Shake. I'm unclear--are you providing us with a more complete Jefferson quote because it's educational and/or edifying (if so, I salute you), or are you arguing that the "context" undercuts my criticism of Jefferson's statement? I am generally a fan of Jefferson, and I agree with most everything he wrote in the passage you quoted. But I think that his inference--"if there be [a god], he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear"--though it was a belief that Jefferson held deeply, is actually totally unfounded. Like so many liberal theists and even some atheists, he held the (IMO) unsupported belief that "if there is a god, it must be good." I don't see how any of the context you quote lessens the sting of this fallacious inference. If your post wasn't a critical response to mine, then never mind. If it was, en garde! - Nathan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.