Addressing the Problems of Secular Humanism

[standing_alone]

I want this to be a discussion among nontheists only (hence why it is in the Secular Beliefs DIR), as this is a topic that can easily have a thread made about it in another forum and is typically addressed in the debate forums in some form or another quite frequently anyways. Thank you.

About two weeks ago, my philosophy class had as a guest speaker D.J. Grothe, who is from the Center for Inquiry. He came to introduce my class to secular humanism. Since I'm going to assume that, as nontheists, we have at least a basic grasp of secular humanism, I'm not going to highlight any of D.J. Grothe's lecture, though I will say that I thought it was quite excellent.

In the next class after D.J. Grothe's lecture, my philosophy professor, as was proper, provided a response highlighting the problems he saw with secular humanism. These problems, according to my professor, are as follows:

---The first problem my professor pointed out about secular humanism is the way in which secular humanists approach science. He said that secular humanists have an outdated approach to science, that they approach science as if it were monolithic, though science is diverse (there are disagreements among scientists, for example)
---The second problem my professor had with secular humanism is with the approach to reason, namely that reason would differ among people, as people are diverse, and how one determines what is truly reasonable - basically, the criticism is that there isn't neccessarily one standard of reason (similar to the criticism as the approach to science).
---A third problem my professor had is that he claimed that the secular humanist's demands for adequate evidence to be rational begs the question. My professor states that in order to know that evidence is rational, we would need to conduct a study of all legitimate forms of belief, which is what is at issue to begin with.
---Another thing my professor pointed out is that science is ever-changing (science's self-correcting nature). This ties back to the way my professor claims that secular humanists approach science - as if it is the "be all end all" of determining "truth," "rationality," etc.
---My professor also claimed that secular humanists merely substitute the supernatural in favor of ideals, which are not based on reason. Idealized humanity and utopian rational thinking doesn't allow anyone a "real feel" for such, as it is disembodied - basically, secular humanism overlooks the sensitivities of real people in favor of its ideals.

Now, I think some of these criticisms are fair enough, while others I question. I thought this would make an interesting topic for nontheists (whether considering themselves secular humanist or not) to discuss amongst each other.

What do you think of these criticisms of secular humanism? Are any of them fair criticisms? Or are some of them unfair? Any discussion from nontheists about this topic is welcome and appreciated.

 

[robtex]

Just starting with the first one, secular humanism endorses science but doesn't "play scientists" which is what i feel this first one is saying.

the secular humanist sites like the council of secular humanism and secular humanism tribe and the international humanist and ethical union promote the idea that evidence and reasoning is a better way to structure a society around as opposed to faith which by contrast is the archtype or arch thesis for knowing truth on ideas such as abortion by the religious. This idea lends itself to support of the sciences but doesn't make or suggest that secular organizations are scientists or sciencist wanna-be's.

The allure of secular humanism to science and over dogma is more akin to the methodologies of the scientific community, paricularlly the medical community, of using the scientific model to promote thesis over divine revelation which is the most applicable method of theory development in the religious community.

I see it more as an endorsement of the procedures used by one field over another and the potential benefits from the information derived from one field over the other as relationship of secular humanism to science as opposed to the idea presented in # 1 of secular humanists being or playing scientist themselves.

http://secularhumanism.tribe.net/
http://www.iheu.org/
http://www.humaniststudies.org/
http://www.secularhumanism.org/

 

[standing_alone]

I see it more as an endorsement of the procedures used by one field over another and the potential benefits from the information derived from one field over the other as relationship of secular humanism to science as opposed to the idea presented in # 1 of secular humanists being or playing scientist themselves.

Yeah, that's the problem I had with that criticism, too. I don't think that secular humanists (though perhaps some do) see science as something that is infallible and stagnant. I think that most secular humanists realize science is self-correcting, thus changing as new evidence becomes available. This is what, I think, secular humanists like about science; it is self-correcting, changing when it has to because of new, natural evidence, scientific method, etc. instead of always clinging to the same belief based only on faith. It's how they want people to think about things/claims/the world - critically, skeptically, demanding evidence, being rational, changing beliefs when evidence isn't behind them, etc.

Excellent post, by the way, Rob.

 

[robtex]

is your prof a person of faith? did he overall seem to have a rudimentary understanding of what secular humanism is and could he even name more than one group by example that is a secular humanist group? Just wanted to know where the prof is coming from when addressing these points.

 

[standing_alone]

is your prof a person of faith? did he overall seem to have a rudimentary understanding of what secular humanism is and could he even name more than one group by example that is a secular humanist group? Just wanted to know where the prof is coming from when addressing these points.

I'm really not sure where my professor stands. He's not a secular humanist, but I'm not sure if he is a man of faith. I think his goal was just to present criticisms of secular humanism in the name of objectivity, thus presenting arguments he agreed with and maybe some others he just presented because they were relevant to the topic at hand. I guess I would be willing to bet he stands behind these arguments (though he also mentioned an interest in the philosophy of science, having studied it, which is on what he based his criticisms - by saying people like Grothe have an outdated view of science). He didn't bring up any other secular humanist groups, just Grothe, who represented the Center for Inquiry, but I think that's because his lesson was a response to Grothe. I think like how many times secular humanists will argue against religions using the more fundamentalist elements to highlight their points, my professor decided to take a certain perspective of some secular humanists, perhaps, in order to provide the class with criticisms because this is an introductory course, so its goal is to give students an introduction and a little background, instead of diving in very deep.

 

[robtex]

the second point is the same as the first so i am gonna skip it. On # 3:

begging a question is when you make an assumption in the conclusion and supply it in the premise. asking for emperical data (aka evidence) to propel a conclusion is the anti-thesis of begging the question.

it is also important to put forth that faith (which it appears is what he/she meant when he/she said belief) and reasoning are mutually exclusive by design.

in addition the phrase of "we would need to conduct a study of all legitimate forms of belief," implies that the idea of analyizing emperical data for interpretation is so large and difficult a project we shouldn't do it at all. The irony of that statment being that assuming that it is too difficult to get all sides on any particular issue is begging that question by assuming the premise in the conclusion.

that is like asking a christian where heaven is and they say "the universe is a big place."

it doesn't address the issue and futher advocates not addressing issues in general but instead retiring to gut feelings (aka revelations when god is in the mix) in lew of emperical data.

In # 3 is that by contrast emperical data doesn't beg the question but quantifies but by contrast the gut feeling approach (which is the competing method) always begs the question.

 

[robtex]

as a footnote here is the humanist manifesto 3, on the american humanist association website:

http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm

 

[linwood]

---The first problem my professor pointed out about secular humanism is the way in which secular humanists approach science. He said that secular humanists have an outdated approach to science, that they approach science as if it were monolithic, though science is diverse (there are disagreements among scientists, for example)

This is a false dilemma , the vast majority of humanists know and understand the current limitations and methods of scientific inquiry.

---The second problem my professor had with secular humanism is with the approach to reason, namely that reason would differ among people, as people are diverse, and how one determines what is truly reasonable - basically, the criticism is that there isn't neccessarily one standard of reason (similar to the criticism as the approach to science).
---A third problem my professor had is that he claimed that the secular humanist's demands for adequate evidence to be rational begs the question. My professor states that in order to know that evidence is rational, we would need to conduct a study of all legitimate forms of belief, which is what is at issue to begin with.

Your professor sounds like a post-modernist.
This isn`t a problem for people who aren`t

---Another thing my professor pointed out is that science is ever-changing (science's self-correcting nature). This ties back to the way my professor claims that secular humanists approach science - as if it is the "be all end all" of determining "truth," "rationality," etc.

So..he prefers dogma to altering our understanding of the universe when confronted with something that clashes with observed reality?
I`m willing to bet he doesn`t have a preferable method for understanding "Truth"

---My professor also claimed that secular humanists merely substitute the supernatural in favor of ideals, which are not based on reason. Idealized humanity and utopian rational thinking doesn't allow anyone a "real feel" for such, as it is disembodied - basically, secular humanism overlooks the sensitivities of real people in favor of its ideals.

Another false dilemma I`m a secular humanist and trust me I have no utopian ideology.

Now, I think some of these criticisms are fair enough,

Which ones?

What do you think of these criticisms of secular humanism? Are any of them fair criticisms? Or are some of them unfair? Any discussion from nontheists about this topic is welcome and appreciated.

I think your prof needs to learn what Secular Humanism is.

 

[Storm]

it is also important to put forth that faith (which it appears is what he/she meant when he/she said belief) and reasoning are mutually exclusive by design.

No, they're not.

 

[Slightly Perfect]

The first problem my professor pointed out about secular humanism is the way in which secular humanists approach science. He said that secular humanists have an outdated approach to science, that they approach science as if it were monolithic, though science is diverse (there are disagreements among scientists, for example)

I consider this to be admirable. It eliminates most forms of fundamentalism. Admitting you are wrong and eradicating arrogance are very important for social progress.

The second problem my professor had with secular humanism is with the approach to reason, namely that reason would differ among people, as people are diverse, and how one determines what is truly reasonable - basically, the criticism is that there isn't neccessarily one standard of reason (similar to the criticism as the approach to science).

Yes, but there will also be agreeance among people who care enough and have enough passion to be socially pragmatic. This is an essential part of secular humanism. It's as if he's saying that because there can be disagreeance among the people, SH is somehow dysfunctional.

A third problem my professor had is that he claimed that the secular humanist's demands for adequate evidence to be rational begs the question. My professor states that in order to know that evidence is rational, we would need to conduct a study of all legitimate forms of belief, which is what is at issue to begin with.

Ah yes. Personal belief is one thing, but having this personal belief legislated on the collective is another thing entirely.

Another thing my professor pointed out is that science is ever-changing (science's self-correcting nature). This ties back to the way my professor claims that secular humanists approach science - as if it is the "be all end all" of determining "truth," "rationality," etc.

We have to be honest with ourselves that morality changes per culture and society. No one goes to a holy or any other book and says, "What an idea!" Most culturally universal morals (like murder, child abuse, etc) are known to humans already. A god is not needed to "notarize" such common sense.

My professor also claimed that secular humanists merely substitute the supernatural in favor of ideals, which are not based on reason. Idealized humanity and utopian rational thinking doesn't allow anyone a "real feel" for such, as it is disembodied - basically, secular humanism overlooks the sensitivities of real people in favor of its ideals.

That'd be interesting--if it was true.

I hope that helps!

 

[Slightly Perfect]

I think your prof needs to learn what Secular Humanism is.

Agreed! Well said.

 

[Slightly Perfect]

I think your prof needs to learn what Secular Humanism is.

Agreed! Well said.

 

[charles brough]

I am glad you lump all of us non-theists together because we should be, we should be united as Free Thinkers against the belief that natural cause and effect can be altered by "spirits."

I try to be totally objectively scientific in my thinking and agree with the post that especially social science theory is being corrupted by old religion influences and that explains the problems with science that the professor listed.

To me, Secular Humanism has more fundamental problems, however. That is, that it is not a closed system of thinking and, hence, can never replace any of the old religions. A closed system of thinking is best created by answering four questions: what is our origin, our goals, the means (morals) we need apply to gain them, and what stands in our way. The answers to such questions are clear and consistent in Christianity, for example. Secular humanism has no single or consistent such answers. That is why it is an open system and why one of its doctrines is that of "the open mind."

If social science theory that is put in the social science and especially sociology texts was uninfluenced or uncorrupted by efforts to reconcile science with religion, social science data could be applied logically to that task and turn secular social science into a self-consistent word view and way of thinking, one that could replace the old religions.