ohwilleke

Let's carry the anaylsis side of the philosophical basis of secular humanism a little farther:

Axiom of a Miracle Free World. God does not intervene in the world, if there is a God at all. (Deism, Agnosticism and Atheism).

Axiom of an Indifferent Nature. Nature, plants, and animals are not in an intentional conspiracy to influence the course of human affairs.

Theory of Collective Human Responsibility. If neither God nor nature make any significant effort to influence human affairs then humanity, collectively, determines the course of human affairs to the extent that there are multiple possibilities for the course of human affairs. Furthermore, since only humanity has the ability to influence the course of human affairs, the human race bears collective responsibility for its own fate.

Corrollary of Individual Human Responsibility. The collective responsibility of the human race for its own fate results in action in the world only through the actions of individual human beings.

Axiom of the Desirability of Well Being. The course of human affairs is better when people are happy, than it is when people are unhappy.

Theory of Proactivity. If each individual human beings take personal responsibility for creating a state of human affairs where people are happy rather than unhappy, to the extent of his or her own individual abilities, the course of human affairs will tend to be better.

There is, of course, a great deal more to secular humanism, but the theories and axioms above, lay out, I think, the basic philosophical foundation of secular humanism.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: ohwilleke ]</p>

mturner

**

Hi all;

Just for fun, what is the ethical foundation for secular humanism? That man is the measure of all things? What is the basic 'sine qua non' upon which all secular humanist values are established?
Human life? Any ideas?

pax,

mturner

Jayhawker Soule

He that doth not pisseth against the wall. ( Just for fun. )

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Laurentius

ReasonableDoubt
Do you really think you're being witty, or are you actually adding up posts on a tally?

Laurentius

dostf
AVE

It is a value premise on which I think Humanism should ground.

Basically, it points that it is preferable that one reserve or limit ideologically biased one’s judgments for the common interest of the community and one’s own thriving within it.

Well, that may depend on the philosopher. I’ve posted Friedrich Nietzsche’s parable “The Madman” as an example. And I’ve mentioned that it is just a choice of mine I am testing.

AVE

Laurentius

snatchbalance

AVE

Embracing a philosophy, which often mingles with ideology, is still a form of lay religiosity.

Humanism is about a prospective attitude that may, for the sake of the human benefits it pursues, ignore several ontological problem, such as “Is there a God or not?”

Who can tell whose delusion is the most desirable?

AVE

Laurentius

Ohwilleke

AVE


Thank you for your good points. I'll just re-write them:

AVE

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

Laurentius

mturner

AVE

This is what I've found:

"Humanism believes in an ethics or morality that grounds all human values in this-earthly experiences and relationships and that holds as its highest goal the this-worldly happiness, freedom, and progress - economic, cultural, and ethical - of all humankind, irrespective of nation, race, or religion.

Humanism believes that the individual attains the good life by harmoniously combining personal satisfactions and continuous self-development with significant work and other activities that contribute to the welfare of the community."

AVE

mturner

Hi Laurentius;

I'm still not seeing the basic, a priori principle upon which secular humanism would develop an ethic. When you say 'happiness', do you mean Utilitarianism, Hedonism, or what? What does 'progress' mean uness there is a pre-determined goal or end? "Personal satisfaction" is just another way of saying 'happiness', or 'pleasure', isn't it? And 'self-development' is personal progress towards a known, desired, and intended end, is it not? What is that goal for a secular humanist? What is the "summum bonum", "the greatest good"?

I note that both 'personal satisfaction' and 'self-development' are self-centred. I am dubious of self-centred, egoistic ethics. Randism being the grossest example. Utilitarianism, contra Hedonism, calls for the greatist 'good' for the greastest number. (If that's where you are going with this).

pax,

mturner

Someone7

Laurentius.

The thing you are forgetting, like theists sometimes do when they ask us why we spend so much time debating something we don’t believe in, is that issue has wide political ramifications. Do you think this board would exist, or even be as popular as it is if theists and atheists agreed with each other about all political issues? Of course not.

At the very basis of the political conflict between theism and atheism (indeed, between any two ideological positions) is what should be taught to children in public education systems. Do we teach children that God exists? Do we teach them that some religion is true? Who wants to send their children to learn what they think is a lie? I know I would never send my child to a school that teaches Christian doctrine in any form, or any religious doctrine for that matter. I’m pretty sure no Christian would want to send their children to a school that teaches that God is a fairy tale that some crazy idiots believe.

There are also a great many other social issues that arise between competing ideologies. No one wants to be treated as a second-class citizen because of what they believe. No one wants to feel forced into conformity. What if atheists were regularly discriminated against (yeah, what if…)? Even if there were no laws discriminating against atheists or favoring Christians, Christians could still discriminate against atheists in many other, legal ways.

If there were no political or social issues involved when two ideologies clash, there probably never would be a debate. But this isn’t the case, especially not in America.

Sure, this doesn’t necessarily justify debating over atheism and Christianity rather than egalitarianism versus favoritism (not to imply that atheism = egalitarianism or Christianity = favoritism), but it does show that the debate itself isn’t useless.