Is Secular Humanism a Religion?
It is technically impossible to empirically prove values of any kind, therefore all value systems ultimately rely upon faith. Is that a fair statement? The reasoning is that since reason itself is a method, just like science- not a value system. Reason and science can only say what is, not what it should be.
Some say that If we take axiomatically that well-being is preferable to dis-ease, it’s plausible to empirically prove that some values are better than others. But why is well-being better than disease? Because we value human life – but it’s not empirically provable that human life is valuable. Some believe it is a scourge to the planet. These are value statements and therefore faith statements and not empirically provable.
Some would argue still and say that existence is a value. The only measure is our existence. Liberals often argue that their existence is of no consequence to others unless you threaten it or impose some duty on it. "Unless I self-destruct, I will fight to defend it." But what are values other than shared meanings, collective responsibilities? Values integrate and organize - that is why we call someone with no values a sociopath. Being completely bereft from society. No one opinion from a mere mortal can impose collective value-therefore humanism is faith.
Would love to hear your thoughts on this.
0
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Yes and the Supreme Court agrees. Any world view is a religion. collectively S.H. is taught in schools, but people aren't taught critical thinking so they don't realise that it is a religion/world view. Also personal exemptions (personal wold view) were created in states to be the same status as organized religion so they could dodge the war.
Russellaclifton
Level 1
Apr 13, 2019
1
I think the traits of Secular Humanists are much like what God would have all men be. With compassion, ethics, morals - perhaps those innate traits are the part of us that are designed by God. It seems to me that if we look at the animal kingdoms we see those very traits in them as well as love,joy, playfulness, fear, pain - so perhaps it is not human, perhaps it is design. Perfect design that we should desire to be loving and good.
IzoraRaeE
Level 5
Apr 13, 2019
0
I'm the one, so far, to have voted secular humanism is a religion. What tips it over for me is the dogma and zeal of it's followers. All that's needed to fit the literal definition is some higher power, and I believe that higher power exists. Whether the power is a celebration or worship of self directly or the celebration or worship of objects we've created (science, reason, philosophy), I think an argument can easily be defended at least one of those conditions exist. In my experience with secular humanists, it's obvious--as much as each worshiper struggles against the label--like holy water on their devlish skin, hahaha. The naivete of secular humanist zealots is somewhat astonishing, and they're plentiful. I've seen a couple on this site, which isn't surprising since they often gravitate toward these conversations, which makes sense. But, I find religion/science/reason/logic to be a prolific measure of ability. I have chosen the hill to live or die on and use it extensively as a lens. It's served me well, which is not evidence of validity, but then we exist in a reality where our knowledge is exceeded dramatically by our ignorance.
chuckpo
Level 8
Apr 13, 2019
1
@R_D_Russell, this is really interesting--lots of good conversation fodder. I want to unpack it a little bit.
On the idea that nothing is really true. I myself don't see the world that way. What I do see is one objective reality, but we all are limited in how we look at it--we each may see a piece or pieces of the truth. Often, when people aren't just flat out wrong, all of our 'different viewpoints' may combine to start defining the real truth. But, of course, we're so small in the way we view things, it become territorial, and we defend vigorously our small pieces (freud, have fun with that one).
I'm not sure meaning and truth are the same thing, but I see the argument that says the process is the same (and the misperceptions about meaning).
The part about not believing anything without empirical proof is an exceedingly puerile understanding of the world, in my view. Now, this one is completely analogous to the more extreme areas of religion where dogma supersedes humility and curiosity. That's really dangerous. Because it says you're willing to be wrong and worship that wrong in spite of any evidence you find that you're wrong. That's a great point.
Nihilism isn't necessary when we embrace 'I don't know' as a legitimately useful way to orient ourselves in the world. My take is we're dumb, but we're doing the best we can to understand. There's a lot we don't know, and that's okay. We're learning. And, we hope there's is some meaning in our desire to understand and pursue that understanding. This is where I get sounding like one of those pot-smoking hippie types, but I'm not a hippie, and I don't smoke pot (probably should). Well, before I pull us down a rabbit hole, when I accepted not knowing a my singular lens for observing the world, I found it transformative and liberating.
MY guess at this point is we'll be 'working it out' for the rest of our lives, and we'll die there. I'm not thinking right now that the value is in knowing, but in trying to know--that may be the one truth that is most profound in life. I don't know. I'm still too caught up in searching like I will actually answer these questions.
Great response! Fun!
Depends on what you mean by "technically impossible to prove values of any kind." It is not technically possible to prove anything empirical to a demonstration, as in a mathematical or logical proof, for the simple reason that demonstration of that kind does not, by definition, apply to the empirical, but merely to abstractions, whose truth value ultimately depends on cognizing matters of fact correctly. But what of that? One cannot prove technically the sun will rise tomorrow, or that fire burns, or water drowns, or that oxygen is necessary for human life. That fact alters not a wit the validity--the truth value, if you will--of the belief. It is what would be called a "moral proof"--that is, it is as empirically grounded as any belief can be about matters of fact.
One such fact is that human beings can only live when they purposefully establish a hierarchy of values, that they may choose to live or die. Absent such a choice, they die. Values are an integral part of life and reality and cannot be ignored. Such recognition of reality, of rational values, does not rely on "faith" but upon reason applied to the facts of reality.
If a human being chooses the wrong values in any choice, he dies, or suffers dire consequences. If he chooses at all rationally, he at least has a chance to live. Reason and values are therefore intimately tied. Reason has no function apart from values. Values are meaningless apart from reason.
ThomasAnderson
Level 4
Apr 13, 2019
1
@R_D_Russell A wrong decision leads to death; a right decision leads to the possibility of life. If a man nourishes his body with food, then he lives; if he eats or drinks poison, he likely dies. He cannot know the correct decisions before he experiences life, but that is why he benefits from having savvy parents. This is a general principle for all of life on this planet. The difference for homo sapiens consists in his large brain--his ability to adapt to almost any environment the planet offers. Good decisions promote or enhance his life; bad decisions diminish his life or kill it.
His life experience can then be taught to his offspring--what we call culture in the broadest sense.
The abstract notions depicted with the words "utilitarian" and "rationalist" introduce all manner of thinking errors. Reason cannot be divorced from reality--it is simply a tool whereby human beings cognize the facts of reality, promoting their values thereby. "Utilitarian" implies decision making having dropped the full context of the experience. It suggests that the value of a decision lies in its immediate effects--as opposed to its long-range consequences, which cannot necessarily be determined with any confidence.
Opposed to utilitarianism--a species of collectivism--I advocate individualism--rational egoism. No one can know the happiness of another; he is fortunate to get a sense of his own happiness. But even here, mere "happiness" may be too shallow a goal. Perhaps "meaning" or "rational fulfillment" might be better goal descriptions.
Moral decisions can only be made by the moral agent making the decision--the individual human being. It is not possible to make moral decisions for others--which is why collectivism always leads to death, misery, destruction.
This is reminiscent of the Sam Harris / Jordan Peterson debate. My sense was that a Harris was a proponent of the materialist reductionist perspective. Hence the need to validate truth through some form of empiricism. I lean towards Peterson’s view that the “truth” of how to act in the world is as valid as empirical truth but a truth of a different sort. I don’t believe empiricism adds anything to substantiate the validity of the truth as it relates to how to act properly.
Demere
Level 6
Apr 13, 2019
0
Intelligent, rational people--of course--validate their choices all the time. Those who do not do not live long. If by "empiricism" you mean respect for matters of fact, without it, there would be no way to determine the better choices in life. All would be arbitrary, and therefore meaningless. People would not be able to determine whether water drowns them or fire burns. Each new day would be just another trip around the goldfish bowl.
The difficulty in arguing for faith as a species of knowledge is that there is no objective standard to determine truth, aside from authority, of course, which, by definition, is not objective.
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.