What is there to fault in this?

[Zzyzx]

.
What is there to fault in this?

Secular humanism is a non-religious worldview rooted in science, naturalistic philosophy, and humanist ethics. Rather than faith, doctrine, or mysticism, secular humanists use reason, compassion, and common sense to find solutions to human problems. We promote universal values such as integrity, benevolence, fairness, and responsibility, and we believe that with good reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made toward building a better world for ourselves and future generations.

Humanist is defined as:

a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/humanist

a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially :  a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanism

A system of thought that focuses on humans and their values, capacities, and worth. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/humanism

One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/humanist


Is there any complaint with the above?

What does religion offer that humanism does not?

[bluethread]

Many Religionists look down their nose at secular humanism (perhaps demonstrated in these debates) with a pretend superiority -- while offering nothing that can be shown to be better.

Many secular humanists also look down their noses at the practices of theists (perhaps demonstrated in these debates) with a pretend superiority -- while offering nothing that can be shown to be better. Therefore, I contend that intellectual snobbery is a common human condition and not really relevant to the distinction between the two.

The problem is that on this site Christianity and Religion are put on the block, so secular humanists feel theists are obligated to support their philosophical positions, while they are not. Your first question is admirable, because it puts secular humanism on the block. However, your second question quickly diverts attention back to theism, a tactic that is roundly criticized when the roles are reversed. So, if you will permit, it might be more useful, if this thread were viewed as a thread on debating secular humanism and ethics.

[Plumbus Grumbo]

Many Religionists look down their nose at secular humanism (perhaps demonstrated in these debates) with a pretend superiority -- while offering nothing that can be shown to be better.

Many secular humanists also look down their noses at the practices of theists (perhaps demonstrated in these debates) with a pretend superiority -- while offering nothing that can be shown to be better. Therefore, I contend that intellectual snobbery is a common human condition and not really relevant to the distinction between the two.

I disagree. Violence keeps decreasing year after year around the globe. We currently live in the most peaceful time in history. No religion has done that. Humanity has done it. I claim it's a product of humans being more aware of other and a decrease in tribaliatic outlook. Nontheiats, I believe, "look down their noses" at theists precisely because theism IS tribalistic and separates people along lines that cannot be proven to exist. And that should be looked down upon.

The problem is that on this site Christianity and Religion are put on the block, so secular humanists feel theists are obligated to support their philosophical positions, while they are not. Your first question is admirable, because it puts secular humanism on the block. However, your second question quickly diverts attention back to theism, a tactic that is roundly criticized when the roles are reversed. So, if you will permit, it might be more useful, if this thread were viewed as a thread on debating secular humanism and ethics.

The larger, unproven claim receives more critique just like the squealing tire gets the brake job.

[bluethread]

Many Religionists look down their nose at secular humanism (perhaps demonstrated in these debates) with a pretend superiority -- while offering nothing that can be shown to be better.

Many secular humanists also look down their noses at the practices of theists (perhaps demonstrated in these debates) with a pretend superiority -- while offering nothing that can be shown to be better. Therefore, I contend that intellectual snobbery is a common human condition and not really relevant to the distinction between the two.

I disagree. Violence keeps decreasing year after year around the globe. We currently live in the most peaceful time in history. No religion has done that. Humanity has done it. I claim it's a product of humans being more aware of other and a decrease in tribaliatic outlook. Nontheiats, I believe, "look down their noses" at theists precisely because theism IS tribalistic and separates people along lines that cannot be proven to exist. And that should be looked down upon.

Theism is simply the view that there is a deity or are deities, nothing else. Nothing of what you said follows from that premise. Also, you have provided no support for your implication that your contention that we live in the most peaceful time in history is due to secular humanism.

The problem is that on this site Christianity and Religion are put on the block, so secular humanists feel theists are obligated to support their philosophical positions, while they are not. Your first question is admirable, because it puts secular humanism on the block. However, your second question quickly diverts attention back to theism, a tactic that is roundly criticized when the roles are reversed. So, if you will permit, it might be more useful, if this thread were viewed as a thread on debating secular humanism and ethics.

The larger, unproven claim receives more critique just like the squealing tire gets the brake job.

How is the contention that there are deities the larger unproven claim than the implication that no one finds secular humanism problematic?

[Zzyzx]

.

If that is the stated goal of "humanism" then that is very admirable goal, but what in the world would this have to do with Christianity? It is not the stated goal, or purpose of Christianity to "find solutions to human problems.

Jack, what IS the stated goal or purpose of Christianity?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 14 by Zzyzx]

Jack, what IS the stated goal or purpose of Christianity?

Well, a question I have for you would be, where did you get the idea that Christianity had anything at all to do with, "solutions to human problems?" The reason I believe this question to you is so important is because, it would seem that someone such as yourself, who is so critical of Christianity would have a real good idea of what it actually is all about? In other words, how can you be so critical about a subject, and yet be so far off as to what it's purpose actually is?

One thing I do know is, there are a number of historic creeds, and confessions, expounding upon the historic Christian Faith, and not one of them ever mentions, "solutions to human problems." So then, since these folks who had dedicated themselves to the things recorded in the Bible, and were involved in writing these historic creeds, never mention, "solutions to human problems", where would you get such an idea?

At any rate, I only mention these creeds, and confessions, NOT because I believe they have some sort of authority, but rather to demonstrate that these folks who were dedicated to expounding upon the content of Christianity, never mention, "solutions to human problems."

So then, since the creeds, and confessions, are not NECASSARILY authoritative, what do you think would be? Well Christians believe the Bible is the rule of faith, and practice. So then, the Bible would be where one would need to go, in order to determine, what it's stated purpose would be.

The Bible is composed of 66 different writings, by 40 different authors. With this being the case, if one wants to know the "stated purpose" then one would need to read each writing in order to determine what it is, the writer intended to communicate.

As a good example, let us look at one particular letter in the Bible, which has been entitled, "The Gospel of Luke." The writer begins this letter by saying,

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

So then, as we read this above, we can clearly see the "stated purpose" of the author, which was to give an account to a friend named Theophilus, in order that his friend may have confidence in the things he had been taught, and this is the way in which we should read this letter! In other words, we do not read it as if it were written to us, but rather just as it is, a letter that we are reading, written by Luke, to his friend Theophilus.

This is the way in which to read the content of the Bible, by reading each writing in the way it was written, attempting to determine the intent, and purpose of each.

If one were to go through, and read each one of the writings contained in the Bible, I believe they will discover that none of the content, had anything to do with attempting to make a "stated purpose" of the whole, because none of the writers had any idea that what they were writing would one day be contained in a book, we now call the Bible.

The overwhelming majority of the Bible contains those who were simply claiming to record historical events, which would mean, this was their sole purpose at the time. With this being the case, I believe one would be hard pressed to come up with a "stated purpose" for Christianity. Rather, as you read all of these accounts, written by many different men, over 1500 years, what you will see is a story unfold, from what is claimed to be, real historical events, of what God has done throughout history!

You see, as you have demonstrated, humanism has a "stated purpose" which is fine, and I have no problem with that. However, simply because humanism has a "stated purpose" does not mean that Christianity has the same stated purpose, nor does it mean that Christianity has a "stated purpose" at all. Rather, as I have said, Christianity is about a Story, of real historical events, of what God has done, and not a purpose.

[Zzyzx]

.

Jack, what IS the stated goal or purpose of Christianity?

Well, a question I have for you would be, where did you get the idea that Christianity had anything at all to do with, "solutions to human problems?"

Jack, congratulations on a valiant attempt to avoid identifying 'the stated goal and purpose of Christianity'.

As you (and presumably readers) are aware, my failings or misunderstandings have nothing to do with said goal and purpose of Christianity.

Just clearly state the 'goal and purpose' so I might 'understand correctly'.

I opened a thread to clarify the matter: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 030#848030

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 16 by Zzyzx]

I really do not know how I could state it more clearly! So then, since you seem so certain that Christianity has a "stated purpose", and that I am attempting to "avoid identifying what it actually is", then maybe you can explain to us all what it is?

What I recorded, is not something I simply made up on the fly, but rather has been my understanding all along. So again, since you are under the impression that Christianity must, and has to have a "stated purpose", then why do you not dig in, to investigate this "stated purpose" to share with us all?

[Plumbus Grumbo]

Many Religionists look down their nose at secular humanism (perhaps demonstrated in these debates) with a pretend superiority -- while offering nothing that can be shown to be better.

Many secular humanists also look down their noses at the practices of theists (perhaps demonstrated in these debates) with a pretend superiority -- while offering nothing that can be shown to be better. Therefore, I contend that intellectual snobbery is a common human condition and not really relevant to the distinction between the two.

I disagree. Violence keeps decreasing year after year around the globe. We currently live in the most peaceful time in history. No religion has done that. Humanity has done it. I claim it's a product of humans being more aware of other and a decrease in tribaliatic outlook. Nontheiats, I believe, "look down their noses" at theists precisely because theism IS tribalistic and separates people along lines that cannot be proven to exist. And that should be looked down upon.

Theism is simply the view that there is a deity or are deities, nothing else. Nothing of what you said follows from that premise.

If you'll kindly notice. I discussed religion, not theism. My claim thus holds.

Also, you have provided no support for your implication that your contention that we live in the most peaceful time in history is due to secular humanism.

Widely known and easily verifiable facts are often not "supported" in an argument.

https://www.good.is/articles/closer-to-peace-than-ever

The problem is that on this site Christianity and Religion are put on the block, so secular humanists feel theists are obligated to support their philosophical positions, while they are not. Your first question is admirable, because it puts secular humanism on the block. However, your second question quickly diverts attention back to theism, a tactic that is roundly criticized when the roles are reversed. So, if you will permit, it might be more useful, if this thread were viewed as a thread on debating secular humanism and ethics.

The larger, unproven claim receives more critique just like the squealing tire gets the brake job.

How is the contention that there are deities the larger unproven claim than the implication that no one finds secular humanism problematic?

The claim that any god exists is larger and less likely to be proved than the claim that human interest in humans and their welfare has done humanity good. Gods cannot be proven to exist by any method we know of. That many humans intend better for humanity is easily proven billions of times each day by the actions of humans.

Where is the support for your embedded claim that secular humanism is "problematic?"

[Zzyzx]

.

I really do not know how I could state it more clearly! So then, since you seem so certain that Christianity has a "stated purpose", and that I am attempting to "avoid identifying what it actually is", then maybe you can explain to us all what it is?

So again, since you are under the impression that Christianity must, and has to have a "stated purpose"

Jack, I did NOT bring up 'goal and purpose of Christianity'. YOU did with:

If that is the stated goal of "humanism" then that is very admirable goal, but what in the world would this have to do with Christianity? It is not the stated goal, or purpose of Christianity to "find solutions to human problems.

When you introduced the idea (by reference to what it is not) it is reasonable for me to ask for clarification of what the 'goal and purpose' IS.

then why do you not dig in, to investigate this "stated purpose" to share with us all?

I have done exactly that, Jack, by ASKING those who should know about such things – Christians. I have even started a separate thread to discuss that matter. http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 030#848030

I suspect (but do not claim to know) that said 'goal and objective' relates to promises and threats regarding a hypothetical 'afterlife'. We shall see.

What I recorded, is not something I simply made up on the fly, but rather has been my understanding all along.

Opinion noted. Is that widely or universally accepted within Christendom's multitude of denominations – from Eastern Orthodox, to Roman Catholicism, to Protestantism (including Mennonite, LDS, SDA, JW, etc, etc)?

[JehovahsWitness]

.

I was more referring to the first point: I said it was unrealistic and instead of countering "No it is realistic" you effectively said "So is faith in God" which is by its nature an agreement that, noble as the aims are they ARE indeed unrealistic. Do you see what I'm saying ?

I fully agree that the stated aims of Secular Humanism ... are unrealistic (even if noble).

Which is what I said. It seems we agree at least on this one point. It's nice to find some common ground.