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?

[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.

[Overcomer]

First of all, let me say that I think this is an excellent topic and I’m glad you brought it up, boatsnguitars. I think it is important to scrutinize worldviews, philosophies and belief systems, whether secular or religious, to determine their value and viability and, ultimately, their truth or lack of it.

I think that most of us would agree that the basic ideas of human dignity and human flourishing are all-important and that the issues of morality, rationality, and the hunt for meaning and purpose in life need to be addressed by any worldview. So I think secular humanists are on the right track when they attempt to outline their beliefs in those areas.

I have chosen to respond to each of the sections outlined in the OP in four separate posts simply because it is a lot of information and I think it would be easier to discuss it in several bite-sized posts rather than one terrifically long one. So I begin with the first section:

Tenet #1:

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.

When the humanist says that morality is inherent to the human condition, is he or she saying that human beings are inherently good? If so, then how do we explain Hitler and the Nazis, Uganda’s Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Un, -- and those are just some of the top baddies from the 20th century. Some people would say that there is something inherently bad in people which is why they lie, cheat, steal and are unkind, selfish, hurtful, etc.

And what is a sense of ethics grounded in? Where do ideas of right and wrong come from?

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.

What is the belief in the worth and dignity of each person grounded in? If we are products of evolution (which I think is part and parcel of human secularism), then we are products of random, purposeless chance. What makes us more important than a mosquito or a skunk or sea anemone? What makes a person worthwhile to the secular humanist? Why do they say human beings have dignity and deserve respect?

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.

No problem there! I say “amen” to that!

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.

Who determines what that responsibility and those duties consist of? Where does the idea of “ we ought to do such and such” come from?

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.

I agree. No problems there.

On to Part 2 in the next post.

[Overcomer]

Part 2

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.

What is that rationalism/rationality grounded in? Again, I point to the materialism which lies behind secular humanism. If all that exists is physical matter and it exists through a long process of unguided evolution, then how can we trust it? What would make one person’s ability to reason superior to another’s? How can we trust anybody’s cognitive faculties? Who determines what is rational and what isn’t? What if two groups see opposing views and actions rational? Could there truly be a consensus on any given topic?

b. We seek to use science and technology to enhance human well-being, and never callously or destructively.

I can certainly see that science and technology have blessed humankind in many ways. However, they have also been used to kill and destroy. And can they truly “fix” everything? Could they have made Hitler a kind, nice human being? If so, why are we not applying them to Putin and ending the war with the Ukraine?

Now on to Post #3

[Overcomer]

Part e:

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.

Yes I am in total agreement with that statement. But again, who determines what does or does not harm another individual? Let me give you a simple example from my local news. A man spent $20,000 building a putting green in his backyard. Unfortunately for his neighbour, rain water runs off it into the neighbour's yard, turning it into a unwanted pool. I realize that’s a simple example, but it shows that one person’s idea of joy and fulfillment can be another person’s headache and nightmare. Who determines right and wrong in these matters?

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.

I’m agreeable to much of this, but I balk at the last statement. The quest for knowledge can lead to arrogance, foolishness and obstinate ignorance.

Knowledge, in and of itself, is useless and even harmful if it’s misunderstood and acted on mistakenly. We currently have more information and more access to it than ever before, but we still have to be able to assess its validity and value. Unfortunately, not everybody can do that.

On to the final Part 4

[Overcomer]

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

[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?

[boatsnguitars]

When the humanist says that morality is inherent to the human condition, is he or she saying that human beings are inherently good?

No, that morality must reside in humans as there is no other place for morality to stem from, or to be practiced by. We don't believe morality stems from lemurs.

If so, then how do we explain Hitler and the Nazis, Uganda’s Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, Josef Stalin, Pol Pot, Kim Jong Un, -- and those are just some of the top baddies from the 20th century. Some people would say that there is something inherently bad in people which is why they lie, cheat, steal and are unkind, selfish, hurtful, etc.

They acted immorally. That's how we expalin it.

And what is a sense of ethics grounded in? Where do ideas of right and wrong come from?

Humanity. 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.

What is the belief in the worth and dignity of each person grounded in? If we are products of evolution (which I think is part and parcel of human secularism), then we are products of random, purposeless chance. What makes us more important than a mosquito or a skunk or sea anemone? What makes a person worthwhile to the secular humanist? Why do they say human beings have dignity and deserve respect?

Humanity.
Products of random, purposeless chance isn't the same as being random or purposeless.
Our feeling of importance makes us more important - we are Humans developing a 'rulebook' for dealing with other humans. There is nothing that claims we are more important or less important than skunks.
Being human, to start.
That is a belief Humanists have.
If you don't have that belief, you'd be considered a poor or non-praticing humanist. (For example, you'd be a bad Christian is you didn't believe Jesus was divine).

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.

No problem there! I say “amen” to that!

Excellent!

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.

Who determines what that responsibility and those duties consist of? Where does the idea of “ we ought to do such and such” come from?

From Humans ability to reason and decide that 'if we are going to write up some ground rules for being Human, what would they be?"
The Oughts are derived from the basic, objective reality of being human, e.g., "If one wants to live, one ought not drink deadly poison."

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.

I agree. No problems there.

Excellent!

On to Part 2 in the next post.

[boatsnguitars]

Part 2

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.

What is that rationalism/rationality grounded in? Again, I point to the materialism which lies behind secular humanism. If all that exists is physical matter and it exists through a long process of unguided evolution, then how can we trust it? What would make one person’s ability to reason superior to another’s? How can we trust anybody’s cognitive faculties? Who determines what is rational and what isn’t? What if two groups see opposing views and actions rational? Could there truly be a consensus on any given topic?

Empirical Observation, Logic, Cognitive Abilities, Norms and Values, Social and Pragmatic Context, and Philosophical Foundations.
Secular humanism does indeed rely on human reason and rationality, but it doesn't necessarily require materialism as its sole philosophical foundation. While some secular humanists may be materialists, it's not a universal requirement of the worldview. Many secular humanists base their rationalism on a broader set of philosophical foundations, including various forms of naturalism, humanism, and ethical frameworks that prioritize human well-being. As for whether we can trust it, what are we distrusting? Is this Plantinga's argument?
I don't know why some people reason better than others - maybe genetics, maybe teaching. Not sure. Seems, though, that it's obvious that some are better than others.
Trust how? Perhaps we have to out of necessity. We need to trust in others cognitive ability to drive on the highway.
God determines who is rational... just joking. We have our basic understanding of what makes a person rational. I think this is a rather odd question when the point of the Humanist perspective is that we all know what rationality is (even Theists) and that we are simply saying we strive for it, over being emotional or irrational.
If two groups oppose, Humanists suggest they continue to use logic and reason to develop an pathway forward. Not irrationality or emotion.
I don't know. Let's find out!

b. We seek to use science and technology to enhance human well-being, and never callously or destructively.

I can certainly see that science and technology have blessed humankind in many ways. However, they have also been used to kill and destroy. And can they truly “fix” everything? Could they have made Hitler a kind, nice human being? If so, why are we not applying them to Putin and ending the war with the Ukraine?

Now on to Post #3

The principle is very clear: "never callously or destructively." Can they fix everything? I don't know, but there are things they can fix - like:
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandso ... he-triumph
Sounds like Carter - a Christian - is following the Humanist principle to a tee.
But, I do think we've been using many rational and scientific or technologies to end the war in Ukraine. In the absence of Religion solving problems, wouldn't it make sense to use technology and science?

[boatsnguitars]

Part e:

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.

Yes I am in total agreement with that statement. But again, who determines what does or does not harm another individual?

We (humans) do. There is no one else.

Let me give you a simple example from my local news. A man spent $20,000 building a putting green in his backyard. Unfortunately for his neighbour, rain water runs off it into the neighbour's yard, turning it into a unwanted pool. I realize that’s a simple example, but it shows that one person’s idea of joy and fulfillment can be another person’s headache and nightmare. Who determines right and wrong in these matters?

We (humans) do. There is no one else.

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.

I’m agreeable to much of this, but I balk at the last statement. The quest for knowledge can lead to arrogance, foolishness and obstinate ignorance.

Which wasn't suggested as something to treasure.

Knowledge, in and of itself, is useless and even harmful if it’s misunderstood and acted on mistakenly. We currently have more information and more access to it than ever before, but we still have to be able to assess its validity and value. Unfortunately, not everybody can do that.

On to the final Part 4

Sure, hence the other principles, e.g., "never calously or destructively."