Antitheism?

[The Kilted Heathen]

We're done here.

Apparently so.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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

The Enlightenment. Humanism was a reaction to sterile and suffocating theistic ideologies. It derived from ideas like these:

• "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." – Diderot

You credit Christianity for humanism, right?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Are you going to give that one [eliminated slavery] to Humanists too?

Who then? Show me the scripture that condemns slavery.

Slavery is in the Bible don't you know.

Yes.

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ." - Ephesians 6:5

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

Slavery is antithetical to humanism. If you support the idea of owning people, scourging them with whips, stealing their labor, freedom and dignity, and selling their wives and children, you are not of the same ideology I am

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)

Can you be explicit? Comment on what?

Where do you think that the idea that slavery is immoral and cruel came from? Not the Christian Bible.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Most Humanist values demonstrably had their origin in liberal religious thought.

Please feel free to demonstrate that then.

What is liberal religious thought?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Hysterical coming from a guy who does all he can to avoid addressing the foundational philosophical failures of materialism.

Maybe you can explain to us what the failures of materialism are, then go on to enumerate the successes of supernaturalism.

 

[1137]

Maybe you can explain to us what the failures of materialism are, then go on to enumerate the successes of supernaturalism.

Only if you can quote where I claim anything about the supernatural. That "natural" means physical is simply a foundational belief of physicalism, a presumption.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

What is liberal religious thought?

I would imagine non-dogmatic religious belief and thought.

 

[Thumper]

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/drt/2012/962860/
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.

I know I've been through this before on at least one of these threads, but what does it mean to have evidence if it can't be observed nor measured?

"Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight?

"If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so. Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!'

"All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know." ~ Isaac Asimov

 

[Augustus]

The Enlightenment. Humanism was a reaction to sterile and suffocating theistic ideologies. It derived from ideas like these:

• "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." – Diderot

You credit Christianity for humanism, right?

I partially credit it, yes. It is liberal Christian ethics and teleology fused with Greek rationalism.

Ideas generally don't magically appear out of nowhere, they are adaptions, combinations and reapplications of existing beliefs. Modern Secular Humanism is the result of a long process with multiple influences

The idea that "Enlightenment Values" = Humanism is a bit of a whitewashing of the Enlightenment, all kinds of ideologies and beliefs emerged.

Science and reason are value neutral, which is why the Enlightenment gave birth to (what would later become) Secular Humanism, alongside the Reign of Terror, scientific racism and Marxist Communism.

Interesting choice of quote though seeing as many during the Reign of Terror took that pretty much literally. Thought you'd prefer to focus on the Humanist side of the Enlightenment.

Who then? Show me the scripture that condemns slavery.

Since when has religion been purely a narrow literal reading of scripture? Religions constantly adapt and evolve. Christianity itself started as a Hellenised form of Judaism, and its theology has been significantly influenced by Greek philosophy such as Neoplatonism

The religious input in the abolitionist movement was based on the idea that due to the act of creation, all humans had intrinsic value. Human rights grew out of this concept, as does the concept of Humanity featured in Humanism.

Most belief systems had no concept of "Humanity" or universal human value.

Slavery is antithetical to humanism. If you support the idea of owning people, scourging them with whips, stealing their labor, freedom and dignity, and selling their wives and children, you are not of the same ideology I am

My point was that when someone is discussing the religious beliefs of a specific group of people, the religious beliefs of those outside that group are irrelevant.

It's like saying Secular Humanism can't be good because The Reign of Terror was based on "Enlightenment Values"

I'm discussing positive history, the history of European thought, not normative theology or blanket apologetics. I just consider the Humanist apologetics to be highly biased and excessively self-congratulatory

Please feel free to demonstrate that then.

People like Erasmus and Descartes, movements like the Quakers.

What Humanist ideas do you view as being original?

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?

I was meaning the human race, not individual humans.

I'd also say it is rational and evidence based. Not hopelessly optimistic rather than pessimistic.

Humanists believe in incremental moral progress, most pre-modern belief systems don't. Many believe bad religions/ideologies corrupt our nature, rather than accepting that violence and cruelty is simply part of our collective nature.

We are what we have proved ourselves to be time and time again. A species with significant flaws that makes the same mistakes again and again and again. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this will ever change.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It Aint Necessarily So said: Maybe you can explain to us what the failures of materialism are, then go on to enumerate the successes of supernaturalism.

Only if you can quote where I claim anything about the supernatural. That "natural" means physical is simply a foundational belief of physicalism, a presumption.

So then your answer is "No"? That's acceptable.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I partially credit it, yes. It is liberal Christian ethics and teleology fused with Greek rationalism.

I just see rational skepticism fused with empiricism.

Ideas generally don't magically appear out of nowhere, they are adaptions, combinations and reapplications of existing beliefs. Modern Secular Humanism is the result of a long process with multiple influences

It's reaction against fideism.

The idea that "Enlightenment Values" = Humanism is a bit of a whitewashing of the Enlightenment, all kinds of ideologies and beliefs emerged.

Humanism is a distillation of Enlightenment values.

Science and reason are value neutral, which is why the Enlightenment gave birth to (what would later become) Secular Humanism, alongside the Reign of Terror, scientific racism and Marxist Communism.

Secualar humanism is not value neutral, and it repudiates violent and bigoted idelogies.

Since when has religion been purely a narrow literal reading of scripture?

Pretty much until secular pursuits like science challenged its dogma.

Religions constantly adapt and evolve. Christianity itself started as a Hellenised form of Judaism, and its theology has been significantly influenced by Greek philosophy such as Neoplatonism

And now it's being modified by science and rational ethics, two humanist programs.

The religious input in the abolitionist movement was based on the idea that due to the act of creation, all humans had intrinsic value. Human rights grew out of this concept, as does the concept of Humanity featured in Humanism.

I don't see Christianity in that.

Where is the value of a human being in an ideology that has no problem with its god tossing a conscious entity into a lake of fire for failing to believe and worship?

It's like saying Secular Humanism can't be good because The Reign of Terror was based on "Enlightenment Values"

Except that it wasn't. Humanism repudiates such atrocities.

What Humanist ideas do you view as being original?

I haven't thought about which were original and which were not. Why would that matter?

We are what we have proved ourselves to be time and time again. A species with significant flaws that makes the same mistakes again and again and again. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this will ever change.

We have proved ourselves capable of learning and growing. We are also living among those with no interest in such things. Humanists are presently confronting them.

 

[1137]

It Aint Necessarily So said: Maybe you can explain to us what the failures of materialism are, then go on to enumerate the successes of supernaturalism.



So then your answer is "No"? That's acceptable.

Actually I said only if you quoted me, but hey at least you know it's a straw man. The biggest issues are:

1. Self existence is axiomatic, it can't be rejected.

2. While the brain effects the mind the reverse is also true (two way causality)

3. The brain and mind clearly have different properties (property dualism)

4. There is no suggested mechanism by which consciousness arises from the brain.

 

[Augustus]

I just see rational skepticism fused with empiricism.

Beliefs shared by many in the French Revolution.

It's reaction against fideism.

Do you think every religious person was a literalist automaton? Religious views evolve constantly, it's mainly antitheists that see them as reified.


He does not recognize change unless it is a self-consciously induced change, and consequently he falls easily into the error of identifying the customary and the traditional with the changeless. This is aptly illustrated by the rationalist attitude towards a tradition of ideas. There is, of course, no question either of retaining or improving such a tradition, for both these involve an attitude of submission. It must be destroyed. And to fill its place the Rationalist puts something of his own making - an ideology, the formalized abridgment of the supposed substratum of rational truth contained in the tradition. (Michael Oakeshott - Rationalism and Politics)

Humanism is a distillation of Enlightenment values.

You could say that. Unless you are totally biased and refuse to accept people at their word (Euler, Descartes, Newton, Smith, etc.) you have to acknowledge the role their religious views played in their beliefs and motivations and thus contributed to the Enlightenment.

Why do you believe modern science emerged in Europe if you believe the prevailing beliefs were actually antithetical to this happening? Why not one of these other regions which had different belief systems that didn't have such 'repressive' cultures?

Secualar humanism is not value neutral, and it repudiates violent and bigoted idelogies.

Where did its ethics come from though and why are they identical to liberal Christian ethics of the same time and place?

Pretty much until secular pursuits like science challenged its dogma.

Again, unless you are saying they are liars, many Enlightenment thinkers including pivotal figures such as Descartes, Newton, Euler, Newton and Smith did not see science and rational philosophy as a 'secular pursuit'. Not to mention key pre-Enlightenment figures like Erasmus, Bacon and Galileo.

Christianity is a massively diverse tradition which has played a role much oppression as well as many of the ideas you hold most dear. Is it really that surprising that the most dominant influence on European culture for close to 2 millennia has been a significant influence on modern European thought?

And now it's being modified by science and rational ethics, two humanist programs.

It's been modified by countless things that predate Secular Humanism. Small h humanism included, although that was not primarily a secular philosophy.

I don't see Christianity in that.

Where is the value of a human being in an ideology that has no problem with its god tossing a conscious entity into a lake of fire for failing to believe and worship?

That you don't see it is absolutely irrelevant, we aren't talking about your views, but the views of specific, real people who publicly stated their views.

Don't you see some intellectual dishonesty in arguing that people were wrong about their own views just because they don't match your facile and preconceived beliefs about what Christianity normatively should be?

We have proved ourselves capable of learning and growing. We are also living among those with no interest in such things. Humanists are presently confronting them.

There's always been 'good people' confronting 'bad people', sometimes they win other times they lose.

I didn't see much moral growth in the 20th C. It was one of the most murderous centuries ever despite purportedly being the most 'secular' and 'rational'.

I'll stick with the evidence over the fantasy.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Actually I said only if you quoted me, but hey at least you know it's a straw man. The biggest issues are:

1. Self existence is axiomatic, it can't be rejected.

2. While the brain effects the mind the reverse is also true (two way causality)

3. The brain and mind clearly have different properties (property dualism)

4. There is no suggested mechanism by which consciousness arises from the brain.

What? Was this intended for me?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You could say that. Unless you are totally biased and refuse to accept people at their word (Euler, Descartes, Newton, Smith, etc.) you have to acknowledge the role their religious views played in their beliefs and motivations and thus contributed to the Enlightenment.

Unsupported claim.

Why do you believe modern science emerged in Europe if you believe the prevailing beliefs were actually antithetical to this happening? Why not one of these other regions which had different belief systems that didn't have such 'repressive' cultures?

Because of Jesus?

Where did its ethics come from though and why are they identical to liberal Christian ethics of the same time and place?

What liberal Christian ethics? Is there a history book I can look at to see what they were?

Again, unless you are saying they are liars, many Enlightenment thinkers including pivotal figures such as Descartes, Newton, Euler, Newton and Smith did not see science and rational philosophy as a 'secular pursuit'. Not to mention key pre-Enlightenment figures like Erasmus, Bacon and Galileo.

Why would that be relevant?

Don't you see some intellectual dishonesty in arguing that people were wrong about their own views just because they don't match your facile and preconceived beliefs about what Christianity normatively should be?

Why is it intellectually dishonest to disagree?[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[Thumper]

Actually I said only if you quoted me, but hey at least you know it's a straw man. The biggest issues are:

1. Self existence is axiomatic, it can't be rejected.

2. While the brain effects the mind the reverse is also true (two way causality)

3. The brain and mind clearly have different properties (property dualism)

4. There is no suggested mechanism by which consciousness arises from the brain.

You're knowledge here is way out of date. You should look at some of the work by V.S. Ramachandran, Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition and Distinguished Professor with the Psychology Department and Neurosciences Program at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Biology at the Salk Institute.

 

[Ingledsva]

I love the Power of Myth, great book, I own it.

I love reading Joseph Campbell. I have many of his works, and my local library has video of some of his very interesting lectures.

*

 

[1137]

What? Was this intended for me?

Hahahaha, that's the most laughable dodge I've seen thus far. Kudos.

You're knowledge here is way out of date. You should look at some of the work by V.S. Ramachandran, Director of the Center for Brain and Cognition and Distinguished Professor with the Psychology Department and Neurosciences Program at the University of California, San Diego, and Adjunct Professor of Biology at the Salk Institute.

I'm familiar with him actually. Have you considered, well, considering the opposing position and looking into it?

 

[Thumper]

...I'm familiar with him actually. Have you considered, well, considering the opposing position and looking into it?

Yep. The only thing missing is any observable and measurable evidence.