Secular Humanism

[boatsnguitars]

We spend a lot of time on this site discussing the value of ancient religions that have been shown to be lacking a thousandfold.

I'd like people to critique Secular Humanism. Here are the tenets:

1. Humanists strive to be ethical
a. We accept that morality is inherent to the human condition, grounded in the ability of living things to suffer and flourish, motivated by the benefits of helping and not harming, enabled by reason and compassion, and needing no source outside of humanity.
b. We affirm the worth and dignity of the individual and the right of every human to the greatest possible freedom and fullest possible development compatible with the rights of others. To these ends we support peace, democracy, the rule of law, and universal legal human rights.
c. We reject all forms of racism and prejudice and the injustices that arise from them. We seek instead to promote the flourishing and fellowship of humanity in all its diversity and individuality.
d. We hold that personal liberty must be combined with a responsibility to society. A free person has duties to others, and we feel a duty of care to all of humanity, including future generations, and beyond this to all sentient beings.
e. We recognise that we are part of nature and accept our responsibility for the impact we have on the rest of the natural world.

2. Humanists strive to be rational
a. We are convinced that the solutions to the world’s problems lie in human reason, and action. We advocate the application of science and free inquiry to these problems, remembering that while science provides the means, human values must define the ends.
b. We seek to use science and technology to enhance human well-being, and never callously or destructively.

3. Humanists strive for fulfillment in their lives
a. We value all sources of individual joy and fulfillment that harm no other, and we believe that personal development through the cultivation of creative and ethical living is a lifelong undertaking.
b. We therefore treasure artistic creativity and imagination and recognise the transforming power of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts. We cherish the beauty of the natural world and its potential to bring wonder, awe, and tranquility. We appreciate individual and communal exertion in physical activity, and the scope it offers for comradeship and achievement. We esteem the quest for knowledge, and the humility, wisdom, and insight it bestows.

4. Humanism meets the widespread demand for a source of meaning and purpose to stand as an alternative to dogmatic religion, authoritarian nationalism, tribal sectarianism, and selfish nihilism
a. Though we believe that a commitment to human well-being is ageless, our particular opinions are not based on revelations fixed for all time. Humanists recognise that no one is infallible or omniscient, and that knowledge of the world and of humankind can be won only through a continuing process of observation, learning, and rethinking.
b. For these reasons, we seek neither to avoid scrutiny nor to impose our view on all humanity. On the contrary, we are committed to the unfettered expression and exchange of ideas, and seek to cooperate with people of different beliefs who share our values, all in the cause of building a better world.
c. We are confident that humanity has the potential to solve the problems that confront us, through free inquiry, science, sympathy, and imagination in the furtherance of peace and human flourishing.
d. We call upon all who share these convictions to join us in this inspiring endeavor.

Who disagrees with these principles, and what is lacking?

[boatsnguitars]

And finally:

4. Humanism meets the widespread demand for a source of meaning and purpose to stand as an alternative to dogmatic religion, authoritarian nationalism, tribal sectarianism, and selfish nihilism.

I honestly can’t see how humanism meets that need and would appreciate some explanation of how it does so.

Do you not see how it stands apart from dogmatic religion, authoritarian nationalism, tribal sectarianism and selfish nihilism? If not, I'm not sure you are being honest or rational.
As far as a source of meaning, Humanism squarely places that within the individuals that call themselves Humanists. As you are not a Humanist, you wouldn't find meaning in it - just as I would find no meaning in following a religion.

a. Though we believe that a commitment to human well-being is ageless, our particular opinions are not based on revelations fixed for all time. Humanists recognise that no one is infallible or omniscient, and that knowledge of the world and of humankind can be won only through a continuing process of observation, learning, and rethinking.

This smacks of relativism in which ideas about right and wrong, duty, human flourishing, etc. can, will and should change all the time. It suggests that, perhaps, the majority rules. But what if the majority is wrong? The majority can follow a Hitler, a Stalin, a Kim Jong Un. Human flourishing for Hitler meant getting rid of Jews, the disabled, people with dark skin and homosexuals. He believed the world would be better without them and he got a lot of other people to believe that right along with him.

Ultimately, if there is no objective universal truth from a source outside of humanity, then relativism reigns. And the relativist has no right to accuse anyone of doing wrong, even Hitler, if he or she is honest about being a relativist.

False dichotomy. Also, do you then believe that your particular opinions are based on revelations fixed for all time? Do you believe that someone is infallible or omniscient? Do you disagree that knowledge of the world and of humankind can be won only through a continuing process of observation, learning, and rethinking?
I have to wonder why you believe your individual source of purpose isn't relative? What purpose isn't relative?

b. For these reasons, we seek neither to avoid scrutiny nor to impose our view on all humanity. On the contrary, we are committed to the unfettered expression and exchange of ideas, and seek to cooperate with people of different beliefs who share our values, all in the cause of building a better world.

So humanists are not trying to impose their beliefs on the world? I don’t buy that.

That's on you.

If they think they’re right, then they are going to try to convince people to go along with them.

And yet, you are wrong. Perhaps you are jaded by how Religions try to onvince others?

In fact, in that very statement, they speak of joining with “people who share our values”. So they have already rejected those who don’t line up with their beliefs.

Right, a violent authoritarian woudn't be considered a Humanist and we wouldn't want them to be called one.

And, again, I have to ask, who sets the values of secular humanism? Do all secular humanists have the same values? Are there no disagreements between those who espouse that worldview?

We do - We Humanists do. This very manifesto has been revised many times over the decades. If you don't like it, you are free to do your own thing. However, if you like those principles (which, you'll admit, they are very good), you can join in. You do you, though.

c. We are confident that humanity has the potential to solve the problems that confront us, through free inquiry, science, sympathy, and imagination in the furtherance of peace and human flourishing.

It’s fine to list all these, but I need practical examples showing me how we can all move forward and apply secular humanism to our everyday lives. Where does the rubber meet the road in secular humanism?

Promoting Education: Secular humanism encourages the pursuit of knowledge and critical thinking. In everyday life, this can translate into supporting quality education for all, fostering a love for learning, and advocating for evidence-based teaching methods.
Human Rights and Social Justice: Secular humanism emphasizes human dignity and equality. In practice, this means actively working to protect and promote human rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the right to a fair trial. It also involves advocating for social justice by addressing issues like discrimination, poverty, and inequality.
Scientific Inquiry: Secular humanists value science as a means to understand the world and improve human well-being. In everyday life, this can involve supporting scientific research, evidence-based policymaking, and making informed decisions based on scientific information (e.g., vaccination for public health).
Compassion and Empathy: Secular humanism encourages empathy and compassion toward others. This can manifest in acts of kindness, volunteering, and contributing to charitable causes that help those in need.
Ethical Decision-Making: Secular humanists often use ethical frameworks based on reason and empathy to guide their choices. In daily life, this means making ethical decisions in personal and professional contexts, considering the well-being of others, and seeking to minimize harm.

d. We call upon all who share these convictions to join us in this inspiring endeavor.

Again, what are these convictions grounded in? Why should we commit ourselves to seeing that they are exercised in life? Who says so?
[/quote]
Reason and Rationality: Secular humanism places a strong emphasis on reason and critical thinking as the foundation for beliefs and actions. These convictions are arrived at through rational inquiry and evidence-based thinking rather than relying on dogma or faith.
Empirical Observation: Humanists often ground their convictions in empirical evidence and observations of the world. They believe that the scientific method is a reliable way to understand the natural world and human behavior.
Ethical Values: Secular humanism is based on ethical values such as empathy, compassion, and the pursuit of human well-being. These convictions stem from a commitment to promoting ethical behavior and social justice.
Human Autonomy: Humanists value individual autonomy and freedom of thought. Their convictions are grounded in the belief that individuals have the capacity to make informed and ethical decisions for themselves.
Secular Principles: Secular humanism, as the name suggests, is rooted in secular principles, which means it is not tied to any particular religious or supernatural beliefs. It relies on principles that are accessible and applicable to people of diverse backgrounds and worldviews.


Thanks for the questions. Please let me know if I can clarify anything. And remember, I don't intend to convert anyone - in fact, I expect people to entrench themselves further into their beliefs. However, for the person lurking, they may need to hear the Good News about Humanism and shed their irrational, dogmatic and authoritarian paradigms.

Either way, you can do more research on Humanism here:

https://secularhumanism.org/what-is-secular-humanism/
https://humanists.uk/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog ... r-humanism
https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-hu ... -humanism/

As a final note, related to the thrust of your questions:

Humanists believe we are alone to solve our problems. If that means there are no objective truths, or are, or all things are relative - or not - than it's still up to us to discover these things. There is 'no one coming to save us'. Therefore, instead of relying on a guy in a robe and funny hat telling us what Reality is, Humanists have decided to find out for themselves. (We don't believe there is a God, therefore, anyone claiming to speak for God is either delusional or a liar).
Either way, God or not, we still don't know what the answers to our problems are (if you've noticed, religion hasn't solved them yet, either).
Humanists believe we must keep searching and refining our methods. The Humanist Manifesto is not like the Bible: fixed despite being proved demonstrably wrong. If the Manifesto has something wrong, we can change it. We don't try to gaslight people into thinking that people didn't understand it, and you have to have occult knowledge to understand why, for example, the formation of the universe makes no sense. Science exemplifies this process of constant correction.
Humanist believe this is better (and has demonstrated its value), whereas religion continues to show no improvement over time (other than a new declaration being made dogmatically: OT is replaced by NT, NT is replaced by Koran, Koran is updated to BoM.,... - to Humanists, this isn't the same kind of improvement. It's just a new Dogma based on the fact that the original wasn't good to begin with but wasn't allowed to be changed.)

[Purple Knight]

Who disagrees with these principles, and what is lacking?

It's missing a solid basis for determining what those universal rights should be and why, as well as who should have them and who should be left out. It's missing the same why as religion is missing, though for most people "because God says" hides the fact that it's missing it.

I think it's obvious that Humans are the basis - that Humans are repsonsible for determining their own guidelines since there is no other possible source. What other source could possibly be implied or inferred?

So what does this mean in practice? Does it mean Humans decide who gets rights or all Humans should have rights? If the former, how is it decided? And if the latter, who decides who is human and who is not? If Bob says, "Only I get rights," and Tammy says, "Yeah, only Bob and me get rights," and Bob nods his head and says, "Yep. You and me, but not Purple Knight. He does not get rights. He's evil and therefore doesn't qualify as Human." and Tammy agrees, is that right and just? If not, why not?

[boatsnguitars]

Who disagrees with these principles, and what is lacking?

It's missing a solid basis for determining what those universal rights should be and why, as well as who should have them and who should be left out. It's missing the same why as religion is missing, though for most people "because God says" hides the fact that it's missing it.

I think it's obvious that Humans are the basis - that Humans are repsonsible for determining their own guidelines since there is no other possible source. What other source could possibly be implied or inferred?

So what does this mean in practice? Does it mean Humans decide who gets rights or all Humans should have rights? If the former, how is it decided? And if the latter, who decides who is human and who is not? If Bob says, "Only I get rights," and Tammy says, "Yeah, only Bob and me get rights," and Bob nods his head and says, "Yep. You and me, but not Purple Knight. He does not get rights. He's evil and therefore doesn't qualify as Human." and Tammy agrees, is that right and just? If not, why not?

Sure, and if you, me and 3000 other people decide differently, then tough luck to Bob and Tammy.

"We" - collectively - decide. Which is why it's important to develop good thinking skills.

Again, what is the alternative? To let Jesus or the Pope decide?

[Purple Knight]

So what does this mean in practice? Does it mean Humans decide who gets rights or all Humans should have rights? If the former, how is it decided? And if the latter, who decides who is human and who is not? If Bob says, "Only I get rights," and Tammy says, "Yeah, only Bob and me get rights," and Bob nods his head and says, "Yep. You and me, but not Purple Knight. He does not get rights. He's evil and therefore doesn't qualify as Human." and Tammy agrees, is that right and just? If not, why not?

Sure, and if you, me and 3000 other people decide differently, then tough luck to Bob and Tammy.

This is worrisome. I'm not willing to rely on collective agreement. It hasn't worked for me before and I've had more than one person talk about how I'm not really human, and/or expect me to accept abuse because I don't really deserve to exist in the first place. In the grand scheme of things I don't matter, but if we let the majority decide who gets rights, we're doomed to repeat tragedies like American slavery and the Holocaust. Those things do matter. And if the machinery of rights produces them, we need to change the machinery.

I've yet to meet another atheist who isn't appalled by the story of Abraham and Isaac. But since the only people up on that mountain were God, Abraham, and Isaac, and if God can convince Abraham that Isaac doesn't have a human right not to be murdered, then Isaac does not have such a thing and good to go? I don't think this is how it works. It can't be, or no atheist would be appalled.

"We" - collectively - decide. Which is why it's important to develop good thinking skills.

Again, what is the alternative? To let Jesus or the Pope decide?

The alternative is for a right to represent an equal agreement between two parties, and if they can't agree then no deal and nobody has any rights. This forces people to give everyone rights, or accept that they have none either.

There's a difference between a society and a state of nature. There are dictatorial societies, but in a state of nature, one man cannot simply stand up, proclaim himself dictator, and say, "No more murdering now I declare it wrong." He can't do this unilaterally. If he tries, and no one accepts it, it is clear that the state of nature remains and no society has been formed. That requires at least some level of agreement from the People. I thus argue that this level of agreement, for an equal society, is nothing less than total.

[boatsnguitars]

This is worrisome. I'm not willing to rely on collective agreement. It hasn't worked for me before and I've had more than one person talk about how I'm not really human, and/or expect me to accept abuse because I don't really deserve to exist in the first place. In the grand scheme of things I don't matter, but if we let the majority decide who gets rights, we're doomed to repeat tragedies like American slavery and the Holocaust. Those things do matter. And if the machinery of rights produces them, we need to change the machinery.

It sure is worrisome! But, again, what is the option?

It's worrisome that I have to share the road with hundreds of strangers everyday - but I have to have some faith in the system. I have to generally trust my fellow human being to agree on basic rules - and for the most part we do.
Most people agree on a basic framework for society. Most animals do.

We get it wrong once in a while. Some times horribly wrong - and most people agree that slavery and the holocaust were evil. That should give you some optimism.

But, like I said, what else is there? An alien race that will come and tell us what is and isn't moral?

The alternative is for a right to represent an equal agreement between two parties, and if they can't agree then no deal and nobody has any rights. This forces people to give everyone rights, or accept that they have none either.

There's a difference between a society and a state of nature. There are dictatorial societies, but in a state of nature, one man cannot simply stand up, proclaim himself dictator, and say, "No more murdering now I declare it wrong." He can't do this unilaterally. If he tries, and no one accepts it, it is clear that the state of nature remains and no society has been formed. That requires at least some level of agreement from the People. I thus argue that this level of agreement, for an equal society, is nothing less than total.

I think social philosophers have addressed this in many different ways. I'd do a poor job of paraphrasing them. I think, also, that we have a fairly well-entrenched system, or a core of a system and we really are talking about tweaking the system. It's why we get outraged for a few minutes when a school is shot up, and really outraged when someone doesn't listen to the cops and gets themselves beaten up by the poor officer....
(People are still upset that Michael Brown was selling cigarettes, and few people care about Sandy Hook).

That is, it's not a perfect system, hence why there's activism on both sides. That is Us discussing it. Right now, for example, we - society - are "discussing" Transgenderism. A few decades ago we "discussed" Gay Marriage and came to a conclusion. We "discussed" Interracial marriage, Women's vote, etc.

I don't see any other way, honestly. This is the system we have, and we can't change it - not individually (other than being an advocate and speaking up to the point that you inspire others to join your cause). Sometimes, even that isn't enough.

I always come back to the fact that we are in this together - and on our own. No saviors, no gods, no aliens, no superheroes - we don't live in a comic book.

It comes down to us individually, and even then, there are good, rational, moral reasons to be selfish, or disregard the suffering of others. We can try to be Good, but that may actually let Bad people win.

It's not easy - though, on it's face it seems Right and Wrong should be - and it's not going to get easier. It certainly will not change in our lifetimes. Not in any grand way. After Transgender becomes yesterdays news, something will take it's place and society will discuss it again.

It's better than open warfare - which seems to be the brink humanity is perpetually on.

[Purple Knight]

I have to generally trust my fellow human being to agree on basic rules - and for the most part we do.
Most people agree on a basic framework for society. Most animals do.

We get it wrong once in a while. Some times horribly wrong - and most people agree that slavery and the holocaust were evil. That should give you some optimism.

Part of that universally-agreed-upon framework for humans is that the majority does not determine people's human rights. So paradoxically, if you think the majority determines rights, then the majority does not determine rights because it says it doesn't. The problem comes in when it cannot offer an alternative framework.

I can, and it's simple: No equal agreement, no rights. Everyone gets an equal say. No voice is silenced or drowned. If "Black people don't have rights" is added to the framework, then Black people have the right to opt out. The majority must recognise this, under their basic framework that they, the majority, do not determine rights. When people opt out, it will be bad for everyone. So society has every interest in a fair core system.

I think social philosophers have addressed this in many different ways. I'd do a poor job of paraphrasing them. I think, also, that we have a fairly well-entrenched system, or a core of a system and we really are talking about tweaking the system. It's why we get outraged for a few minutes when a school is shot up, and really outraged when someone doesn't listen to the cops and gets themselves beaten up by the poor officer....
(People are still upset that Michael Brown was selling cigarettes, and few people care about Sandy Hook).

That is, it's not a perfect system, hence why there's activism on both sides. That is Us discussing it. Right now, for example, we - society - are "discussing" Transgenderism. A few decades ago we "discussed" Gay Marriage and came to a conclusion. We "discussed" Interracial marriage, Women's vote, etc.

I don't see any other way, honestly. This is the system we have, and we can't change it - not individually (other than being an advocate and speaking up to the point that you inspire others to join your cause). Sometimes, even that isn't enough.

I always come back to the fact that we are in this together - and on our own. No saviors, no gods, no aliens, no superheroes - we don't live in a comic book.

It comes down to us individually, and even then, there are good, rational, moral reasons to be selfish, or disregard the suffering of others. We can try to be Good, but that may actually let Bad people win.

It's not easy - though, on it's face it seems Right and Wrong should be - and it's not going to get easier. It certainly will not change in our lifetimes. Not in any grand way. After Transgender becomes yesterdays news, something will take it's place and society will discuss it again.

It's better than open warfare - which seems to be the brink humanity is perpetually on.

I disagree. I think fighting serves a purpose. It avoids the tyranny of the minority, which is never discussed anymore but ought to be, even though we really don't have anything like it. There have been vile kings, there have been exploiters of the People, in the distant past, all claiming that they have sole authority on what is moral and who has rights.

It is starting though. We see it in schools I think. They punish kids for hitting back much worse than they punish bullying. In the immediate, enforcing the pecking order and making students submit to bullying means less violence. They're sacrificing the fairness people need to build an equal future, for a decrease in negative outcomes right this moment.

The idea that anyone can and should fight, physically, if they are downtrodden and not heard, is part of what I'm advocating for.

[boatsnguitars]

Im sure most people disagree with you. War is the worst thing humanity has to offer, perhaps beyond total slavery, but this is not where we are at.
We aren't perfectly free, nor in a state of war. Somewhere in between with room for improvement. I'm not sure what your truth is, but it's hard for me to imagine war would ever be preferable.