Antitheism?

[Augustus]

If I had held Seneca up as an example of Humanism, that would be fair game. Go look. This is not what I did in any way.

(BTW I also quoted Napoleon making the same basic point about how religion helps make a content populace, and I could cite any number of others. Seneca was only significant as one of the older quotes expressing this position.)

What you are suggesting is that I should have paraphrased the quote or offered it without properly citing the source so that you wouldn't get confused.

OK, last post on this topic.

I just clarified that it was not a direct commentary on the quote you provided. It was not intended to 'refute' the quote.

I was providing additional information on the views of Seneca as they were relevant to the discussion we were having.

See my previous post for greater explanation.

You really are going out of your way to convince me the shoe fits.

You mean the 'religious people are stupid' shoe?

Poor thing. For hundreds of year people like me were burned at the stake. Miss it, don't you.

Shall I pull up a few hundred quotes from good "Christians" showing how they really feel about non-theists?

"If the man doesn't believe as we do, we say he is a crank, and that settles it. It mean, it does nowadays, because now we can't burn him." ~ Mark Twain

You do realise I'm not in the slightest bit religious don't you? It clearly says so on my profile.

I think your misunderstandings are coming from this incorrect assumption leading you to view my posts through an 'apologetics' filter.

Shall we reset the discussion and focus back on the topic, rather than misunderstandings otherwise the thread will get locked for descending into pointless bickering

 

[Augustus]

I'd say that history has a direction. Cultures evolve, knowledge is acquired, and moral codes improved if allowed to. Life has become longer, healthier, safer, freer, more comfortable, and more interesting as time has passed, albeit at times in the form of two steps forward and one back.

We have 2 different types of progress: moral and technological.

Technology does progress in a direction, morality seems not to.

The 20th C was the most 'rational' and 'progressive' century we have had, yet was also one of the most murderous. As well as its Humanistic branch, The Enlightenment also had a profoundly illiberal branch which was the partial cause of many of these 20th C atrocities (Marxism, scientific racialism, etc.)

Science and the idea of progress may seem joined together, but the end-result of progress in science is to show the impossibility of progress in civilization. Science is a solvent of illusion, and among the illusions it dissolves are those of humanism. Human knowledge increases, while human irrationality stays the same. Scientific inquiry may be an embodiment of reason, but what such inquiry demonstrates is that humans are not rational animals. The fact that humanists refuse to accept the demonstration only confirms its truth.

John Gray - The Silence of Animals

The primary function that drove the evolution of coalitions is the amplification of the power of its members in conflicts with non-members. This function explains a number of otherwise puzzling phenomena. For example, ancestrally, if you had no coalition you were nakedly at the mercy of everyone else, so the instinct to belong to a coalition has urgency, preexisting and superseding any policy-driven basis for membership. This is why group beliefs are free to be so weird. Since coalitional programs evolved to promote the self-interest of the coalition’s membership (in dominance, status, legitimacy, resources, moral force, etc.), even coalitions whose organizing ideology originates (ostensibly) to promote human welfare often slide into the most extreme forms of oppression, in complete contradiction to the putative values of the group...

Moreover, to earn membership in a group you must send signals that clearly indicate that you differentially support it, compared to rival groups. Hence, optimal weighting of beliefs and communications in the individual mind will make it feel good to think and express content conforming to and flattering to one’s group’s shared beliefs and to attack and misrepresent rival groups. The more biased away from neutral truth, the better the communication functions to affirm coalitional identity, generating polarization in excess of actual policy disagreements. Communications of practical and functional truths are generally useless as differential signals, because any honest person might say them regardless of coalitional loyalty. In contrast, unusual, exaggerated beliefs—such as supernatural beliefs (e.g., god is three persons but also one person), alarmism, conspiracies, or hyperbolic comparisons—are unlikely to be said except as expressive of identity, because there is no external reality to motivate nonmembers to speak absurdities.

This raises a problem for scientists: Coalition-mindedness makes everyone, including scientists, far stupider in coalitional collectivities than as individuals. Paradoxically, a political party united by supernatural beliefs can revise its beliefs about economics or climate without revisers being bad coalition members. But people whose coalitional membership is constituted by their shared adherence to “rational,” scientific propositions have a problem when—as is generally the case—new information arises which requires belief revision. To question or disagree with coalitional precepts, even for rational reasons, makes one a bad and immoral coalition member—at risk of losing job offers, one's friends, and one's cherished group identity. This freezes belief revision.

Forming coalitions around scientific or factual questions is disastrous, because it pits our urge for scientific truth-seeking against the nearly insuperable human appetite to be a good coalition member. Once scientific propositions are moralized, the scientific process is wounded, often fatally. No one is behaving either ethically or scientifically who does not make the best case possible for rival theories with which one disagrees.

What scientific term or concept ought to be more widely known? - Coalitional Instincts
John Tooby

There is no claim in humanism that all problems can be solved. The claim is that those problems that can be solved will be solved by a combination of reason, empiricism, skepticism, and compassion, not scripture, divine intervention, or prayer.

Amsterdam Declaration:

"By utilising free inquiry, the power of science and creative imagination for the furtherance of peace and in the service of compassion, we have confidence that we have the means to solve the problems that confront us all."

The problem is that one of the problems that cannot be solved is that of human irrationality, which puts a spanner in the works of the Humanist ideology.

 

[Augustus]

Ecclesiastes 1:18 - "For in much wisdom is much vexation and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow

Ecclesiastes is one of the greatest pieces of philosophical writing in the history of the world imo (and I'm not religious).

That quote is a bit out of context. Th chapter is basically about the tragic nature of existence and that we are always 'chasing after the wind' looking for the redemption which never comes. We are also the playthings of fate and people get 'trapped by evil times that fall unexpectedly in them' (when we think humanity has progressed we get the hubris slapped out of us again).

Then I turned my thoughts to consider wisdom,
and also madness and folly.
What more can the king’s successor do
than what has already been done?
13 I saw that wisdom is better than folly,
just as light is better than darkness.
14 The wise have eyes in their heads,
while the fool walks in the darkness;
but I came to realize
that the same fate overtakes them both.
15 Then I said to myself,

“The fate of the fool will overtake me also.
What then do I gain by being wise?”
I said to myself,
“This too is vanity.”
16 For the wise, like the fool, will not be long remembered;
the days have already come when both have been forgotten.
Like the fool, the wise too must die!

I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath[c]; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is vanity. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

22 So I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot. For who can bring them to see what will happen after them?

I have seen something else under the sun:

The race is not to the swift
or the battle to the strong,
nor does food come to the wise
or wealth to the brilliant
or favor to the learned;
but time and chance happen to them all.
12 Moreover, no one knows when their hour will come:

As fish are caught in a cruel net,
or birds are taken in a snare,
so people are trapped by evil times
that fall unexpectedly upon them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Amsterdam Declaration:

"By utilising free inquiry, the power of science and creative imagination for the furtherance of peace and in the service of compassion, we have confidence that we have the means to solve the problems that confront us all."

The problem is that one of the problems that cannot be solved is that of human irrationality, which puts a spanner in the works of the Humanist ideology.

I stand corrected. Somebody IS claiming we can fix all problems. If that speaks for all humanists, then I guess I'm not a humanist.

I have confidence that we can solve the problems that are solvable using the values and methods outlined in the Affirmations of Humanism. I think it's pretty self-evident that some problems may not be be solved.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Ecclesiastes is one of the greatest pieces of philosophical writing in the history of the world imo (and I'm not religious).

That quote is a bit out of context. Th chapter is basically about the tragic nature of existence and that we are always 'chasing after the wind' looking for the redemption which never comes. We are also the playthings of fate and people get 'trapped by evil times that fall unexpectedly in them' (when we think humanity has progressed we get the hubris slapped out of us again).

Then I turned my thoughts to consider wisdom,
and also madness and folly.
What more can the king’s successor do
than what has already been done?
13 I saw that wisdom is better than folly,
just as light is better than darkness.
14 The wise have eyes in their heads,
while the fool walks in the darkness;
but I came to realize
that the same fate overtakes them both.
15 Then I said to myself,

“The fate of the fool will overtake me also.
What then do I gain by being wise?”
I said to myself,
“This too is vanity.”
16 For the wise, like the fool, will not be long remembered;
the days have already come when both have been forgotten.
Like the fool, the wise too must die!

I also said to myself, “As for humans, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals. 19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath[c]; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is vanity. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. 21 Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

22 So I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot. For who can bring them to see what will happen after them?

I have seen something else under the sun:

The race is not to the swift
or the battle to the strong,
nor does food come to the wise
or wealth to the brilliant
or favor to the learned;
but time and chance happen to them all.
12 Moreover, no one knows when their hour will come:

As fish are caught in a cruel net,
or birds are taken in a snare,
so people are trapped by evil times
that fall unexpectedly upon them.

Sorry, but I can't identify with that at all. What does he gain by being wise, he asks? If he's also not cut down by bad luck (fatal illness, auto accident, war, drive-by shooting), he gains satisfaction. He avoids the consternation that the fool inflicts on himself. The fact that the wise man and fool are both mortal does not mean that there is no point in being wise or that all is folly or vanity.

 

[Augustus]

Sorry, but I can't identify with that at all. What does he gain by being wise, he asks? If he's also not cut down by bad luck (fatal illness, auto accident, war, drive-by shooting), he gains satisfaction. He avoids the consternation that the fool inflicts on himself. The fact that the wise man and fool are both mortal does not mean that there is no point in being wise or that all is folly or vanity.

I think you are taking it a bit too literally. It's basically a poem for large parts. The narrator tells you to enjoy what you do anyway, which covers your point about satisfaction. He is just saying that knowledge isn't going to save you from the human condition (which I suppose is somewhat anti-Humanist).

Have you read the whole thing for the larger context? Its seems completely out of place in the Bible.

We think we know what we want, but when we get it we are often dissatisfied whether this is knowledge, wealth or whatever. We are all still affected by the same problems that affect humans and from this there is no escape. For all our conceits we are just like the animals with no promise of redemption.

So enjoy whatever it is you do as there is little else, but take care to protect yourself against the capriciousness of fate because this life is not fair, people do not get what they deserve and bad circumstances can befall anyone.

 

[Thumper]

OK, last post on this topic.

I just clarified that it was not a direct commentary on the quote you provided. It was not intended to 'refute' the quote.

I was providing additional information on the views of Seneca as they were relevant to the discussion we were having.

See my previous post for greater explanation.

You mean the 'religious people are stupid' shoe?

You do realise I'm not in the slightest bit religious don't you? It clearly says so on my profile.

I think your misunderstandings are coming from this incorrect assumption leading you to view my posts through an 'apologetics' filter.

Shall we reset the discussion and focus back on the topic, rather than misunderstandings otherwise the thread will get locked for descending into pointless bickering

Seneca's views were not and should never have been part of the discussionas Seneca himself was never held up as an example of Humanism in any way.

The Content of the quote was all that should have been in play.

In fact, my first rebuttal used Napoleon to make the same point, and I could have used Karl Marx or Mary Gillespie or numerous others to underscore the same point.

But YES, we have definitely spent way too much time on this side tangent.

 

[Thumper]

I stand corrected. Somebody IS claiming we can fix all problems. If that speaks for all humanists, then I guess I'm not a humanist.

I have confidence that we can solve the problems that are solvable using the values and methods outlined in the Affirmations of Humanism. I think it's pretty self-evident that some problems may not be be solved.

"Solve the problems that are solvable" is a key point!

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." ~ Charles Darwin

 

[Thumper]

And Augustus was using the philosophy, not the person."

Doesn't matter, Seneca's philosophy was not part of the discussion. I never inferred in any way that Seneca was a Humanists, had Humanist ideals, or any thing else.

A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent"

Explain to us how, in assaulting Augustus' refuting point of Seneca's philosophy as "ad hominem" rather than refuting the argument itself, you are not guilty of this.

Arguing Seneca's character or philosophies was ad hominem. Getting side-tracked on tangents that have nothing to do with the original discussion are diversion fallacy.

A straw-man is when I create a false position for my opponent (the straw-man position) and then proceed to argue against that position (the straw-man argument).

As an example, I could state that everybody knows people who like Norse mythology are alcoholics (the straw-man position) and then start arguing about the dangers of alcoholics (the straw-man argument). Although my argument about the evils of alcoholics might be factual, the starting position that this applied to all (or even any) people who like Norse mythology was the fallacy.

You've never had any formal argumentation and debate training (Info.sjsu.edu), have you?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I think you are taking it a bit too literally. It's basically a poem for large parts. The narrator tells you to enjoy what you do anyway, which covers your point about satisfaction. He is just saying that knowledge isn't going to save you from the human condition (which I suppose is somewhat anti-Humanist).

Why do I want to be saved from the human condition? I consider myself quite fortunate to have been born human and gotten to experience the human condition.

Yes, I understand that for some, life is cruel and unfair. I simply object to a worldview that sees all live that way.

Have you read the whole thing for the larger context? Its seems completely out of place in the Bible.

Yes, I have read the Bible cover too cover three times, and I know how such books as Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiates, and Son of Solomon relate to the remainder.

We think we know what we want, but when we get it we are often dissatisfied whether this is knowledge, wealth or whatever.

You've hit on the difference between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence helps us achieve what we want. Wisdom is knowing what we ought to want - what will make us happy if we get it.

We are all still affected by the same problems that affect humans and from this there is no escape. For all our conceits we are just like the animals with no promise of redemption.

Are you aware of how pessimistic your words are? Escape? Redemption?

Escape from what? Life? Occasional rough patches?

Redemption from what? Somebody else's idea of a god that doesn't approve of me?

For all our conceits we are just like the animals with no promise of redemption.

What conceits? Bloated opinions of self? Misunderstandings? Poetic metaphors or pathetic fallacies?

Your unshared premise about needing redemption doesn't have meaning for me.

So enjoy whatever it is you do as there is little else, but take care to protect yourself against the capriciousness of fate because this life is not fair, people do not get what they deserve and bad circumstances can befall anyone.

Thanks, but I learned that without consulting a holy book, and the scripture you quoted added no new knowledge. I'll say it again: I have lived my life according to humanist values, it has served me quite well, I am very happy, have no worries and few regrets.

I hope that you can say the same.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"Solve the problems that are solvable" is a key point!

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." ~ Charles Darwin

Here are several examples of such pronouncements (from Famous Predictions That Never Came True )

[1]"Rail travel at high speed is not possible, because passengers, unable to breathe, would die of asphyxia.”- Dr Dionysius Lardner (1793-1859), professor of Natural Philosophy and Astronomy, University College London

[2]"Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value.”- Marechal Ferdinand Foch

[3]"The phonograph has no commercial value at all.”- Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1880s

[4]"What can be more palpably absurd than the prospect held out of locomotives traveling twice as fast as stagecoaches?”- The Quarterly Review, March, 1825

[5]"The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking itÂ…knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient.”- Dr. Alfred Velpeau, French surgeon, 1839.

[6]"No one will pay good money to get from Berlin to Potsdam in one hour when he can ride his horse there in one day for free.”- King William I of Prussia, on hearing of the invention of trains, 1864.

[7]"X-rays will prove to be a hoax.”- Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883.

[8]"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.”- Lord Kelvin

[9]"Radio has no future.”- Lord Kelvin

[10]"While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility, a development of which we need waste little time dreaming.”- Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, 1926

 

[Augustus]

I'll be anxious to read why you consider all ideologies mythological, and what you think humanism explains about the world.

Because they are not objectively true, and are generally demonstrably false. That something is not objectively true is not necessarily a bad thing though.

Humanism explains the guiding principles that Humanists see as desirable. It explains the nature of how society should be.

It's interesting seeing Christians trying to give credit to Christianity for science ("Newton was a Christian"),

For the record, I'm not a Christian or in the slightest bit religious. Don't you wonder though why modern science emerged in Christian Europe rather than somewhere else?

The Judaeo-Christian influence on the development of modern science is not the preserve of rabid apologists, this is from a respected physicist, Paul Davies,

Historians of science are well aware that Newton and his contemporaries
believed that in doing science they were uncovering the
divine plan for the universe in the form of its underlying mathematical
order. This was explicitly stated by René Descartes :

t is God who has established the laws of nature , as a King
establishes laws in his kingdom … You will be told that if God
has established these truths, he could also change them as a King
changes his laws. To which it must be replied: yes, if his will can
change. But I understand them as eternal and immutable. And I
judge the same of God.
(Descartes, 1630 )

The same conception was expressed by Spinoza :

Now, as nothing is necessarily true save only by Divine decree,
it is plain that the universal laws of nature are decrees of God
following from the necessity and perfection of the Divine nature
… nature, therefore, always observes laws and rules which
involves eternal necessity and truth, although they may not all
be known to us, and therefore she keeps a fi xed and immutable
order.
(de Spinoza, 1670)

Clearly, then, the orthodox concept of laws of physics derives directly
from theology. It is remarkable that this view has remained
largely unchallenged after 300 years of secular science. Indeed, the
“theological model” of the laws of physics is so ingrained in scientific
thinking that it is taken for granted. The hidden assumptions
behind the concept of physical laws, and their theological provenance,
are simply ignored by almost all except historians of science
and theologians.

the US Constitution ("It's based on the Bible"), and apparently now, humanism as well.

But the fact is that Christianity was and is antithetical to all of that as we have been discussing.

Christianity and Judaism were undoubtedly a major influence on Humanism. This is why liberal Christianity during the Enlightenment was almost identical to atheistic (or deistic) Humanism during the Enlightenment. The only real difference being one credited Divine Providence and the other Reason.

It's as if you believe that everything good in Western society occurred out of a rejection of the most important single influence on its cultural development. It's just your stereotyped and partisan view of Christianity that is antithetical to everything we've been discussing.

Where do you think Humanism came from though? What was its intellectual genesis?

then eliminated slavery

Are you going to give that one to Humanists too? It's good, therefore Humanism must have done it. Slavery is in the Bible don't you know...

Both the Abolitionist movement (especially Quakers and Evangelical Anglicans) and the US Civil Rights movement (Southern Baptists like MLK) were very much religiously motivated.

 

[Thumper]

....
Are you going to give that one to Humanists too? It's good, therefore Humanism must have done it. Slavery is in the Bible don't you know...

Both the Abolitionist movement (especially Quakers and Evangelical Anglicans) and the US Civil Rights movement (Southern Baptists like MLK) were very much religiously motivated.

You just love to rewrite history, don't you --

Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery?

To summarize in James H. Thornwell’s words, those who support abolition are “atheists, socialists, communists [and] red republicans.”

 

[Augustus]

You just love to rewrite history, don't you --

Why Did So Many Christians Support Slavery?

To summarize in James H. Thornwell’s words, those who support abolition are “atheists, socialists, communists [and] red republicans.”

You do realise the 2 things are not mutually exclusive don't you?

Some secular Enlightenment thinkers were Humanists, others supported scientific racialism and violent despotism. Strangely enough, people who belong to superficially similar camps can often have radically different views if you take the effort to learn about them. Funny that.

Any comments on what I actually said? Are you denying that it is historically accurate? (BTW the American South wasn't exactly the centre of the abolitionist movement)

 

[Thumper]

You do realise the 2 things are not mutually exclusive don't you?

Some secular Enlightenment thinkers were Humanists, others supported scientific racialism and violent despotism. Strangely enough, people who belong to superficially similar camps can often have radically different views if you take the effort to learn about them. Funny that.

Any comments on what I actually said? Are you denying that it is historically accurate? (BTW the American South wasn't exactly the centre of the abolitionist movement)

Hey, you claimed that these movements were "religiously motivated". I think it is fair to point out that there were factions on all sides of the issues. You should read Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan Jacoby. Or pick up a copy of the oped sections of major newspapers of the time and see what the pundits were saying.

A lot of people actually fell into the middle, with or without religion. To quote Lincoln "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

 

[Augustus]

Hey, you claimed that these movements were "religiously motivated". I think it is fair to point out that there were factions on all sides of the issues. You should read Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan Jacoby. Or pick up a copy of the oped sections of major newspapers of the time and see what the pundits were saying.

A lot of people actually fell into the middle, with or without religion. To quote Lincoln "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

They were religiously motivated.

America wasn't they key to ending the slave trade. The UK was due to its naval power being able to enforce the law.

The abolitionist movement in the UK was driven by Quakers and evangelical Anglicans although they were not the only people involved.

Also remember that there was very little tangible difference between liberal Christians and many non-religious Humanists in what they advocated.

These 2 traditions are intertwined after all. Most Humanist values demonstrably had their origin in liberal religious thought.

I'm not sure why some Humanists are so hostile to this aspect of the history of ideas.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Am I safe to assume "hard evidence" means "material evidence?" There are many plausible arguments out there for gods, it's just a matter of you rejecting them for whichever reasons. Theists present evidence and arguments all the time, but because materialism is presumed the arguments are rejected off the bat.

Rationality, not materialism.

"Materialism" is the excuse theists use when their arguments prove unconvincing.

 

[1137]

Rationality, not materialism.

"Materialism" is the excuse theists use when their arguments prove unconvincing.

Lol, "rationality," "unconvincing." Hysterical coming from a guy who does all he can to avoid addressing the foundational philosophical failures of materialism. You're adorable, but the word you're looking for is faith. Modern atheism has simply become so dogmatically religious in their beliefs that they think their position is equated with and the sole guardian of rationality.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Doesn't matter, Seneca's philosophy was not part of the discussion.

Then if anything, it makes it a Red Herring, but even that is reaching.

Arguing Seneca's character or philosophies was ad hominem.

And that was not done. Stoicism is a philosophical ideology, not a character.

I could state that everybody knows people who like Norse mythology are alcoholics (the straw-man position)

No, that would just be a really asinine thing to try and argue. If you begin with that position and argument, you're not making a straw man as that's your original argument. It would only be fallacy if the argument or debate was about something else. For instance, if the argument was about how Norse culture has a rich history of mead making, and then you take the position that everyone involved in Norse culture and lore are alcoholics.

A strawman is never the starting point.

 

[Thumper]

Then if anything, it makes it a Red Herring, but even that is reaching.
And that was not done. Stoicism is a philosophical ideology, not a character.
No, that would just be a really asinine thing to try and argue. If you begin with that position and argument, you're not making a straw man as that's your original argument. It would only be fallacy if the argument or debate was about something else. For instance, if the argument was about how Norse culture has a rich history of mead making, and then you take the position that everyone involved in Norse culture and lore are alcoholics.

A strawman is never the starting point.

So you've never had any formal education in argumentation and debate. Got it.

And you're easily distracted. Got that too.

We're done here.