HUMANIANITY: THE RELIGION FOR EVERYONE

[AllanV]

Well, it is a religious movement, a movement within the religions and within our species generally, that I am simply trying to call attention to so that we can more consciously promote that movement.

It is not just another religion to compete with the others.

I became aware that many Church leaders have degrees in psychology and it is studied to "improve" their religions group culture.
Therefore no doubting you will come under their gaze and if you have anything useful it will be used.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

<yawn>

Again, believe as you wish. I am neither inspired nor bemused by your designer religion.
​

</yawn>

I understand.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I became aware that many Church leaders have degrees in psychology and it is studied to "improve" their religions group culture.
Therefore no doubting you will come under their gaze and if you have anything useful it will be used.

I believe that indeed the various religious organizations and leaders are increasingly using the findings of science in their study of ethics, and that is a good thing. We have a long way to go, though.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

There are those of us that will wait to see what others do, and those of us who actively do something. Early in the process, there is very little reward for those actively doing something, other than the wish to pay forward.
Participating in Humanianity

 

[Avi1001]

No. I don't understand what you are looking for. What would be an example of the kind of statement you are looking for?

You claim you have new ideas....but we have not seen anything new....how are your ideas different from modern humanist / atheist thinkers ? Dawkins, Chomsky, Hawkings....??? ..also...who are the humanist / atheist thinkers that you used to create your "handbook" ???....Please give specific examples...Not just your usual hand waving !!

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

You claim you have new ideas....but we have not seen anything new....how are your ideas different from modern humanist / atheist thinkers ? Dawkins, Chomsky, Hawkings....??? ..also...who are the humanist / atheist thinkers that you used to create your "handbook" ???....Please give specific examples...Not just your usual hand waving !!

When you say you have not seen anything new, I do not know how much you have studied. Your question implies that the answer can be in a few sentences, and I cannot agree. I do not know what you are referring to when you use the word "handbook."

The best I can answer is probably with the Introduction to Book1, given as a link below. I would have to add, however, that Book3 on the mind-body problem is, I believe, a significant contribution beyond what anyone else has come up with, though I do not claim to have read a lot of others' ideas about the problem.

In none of what I have written do I believe I have plagiarized, if that is what you are suggesting in talking about what I have "used."

You are asking me to put into a sentence or a few sentences what I have thought about and written about for decades. All of what I have written is free to everyone. Either you find it of interest or you don't. Maybe it is not worthy of interest. You and others can determine that, since that is not up to me to decide (though I obviously have an opinion).

The main thrust of what I am writing about is the importance and value of us working toward increasing agreement with regard to increasingly accurate beliefs in the context of having only very inadequate tools, basically language, which is highly ambiguous. Much of what I attempt to do is to overcome to as great an extent possible that ambiguity, by trying to make clear how I am using the words I am using.

FOR EVERYONE: Rational-Ethical Living | Introduction

 

[Salek Atesh]

Salaam Alecheem....Salek...I agree that Humananianism is really utilitarianism in disguise....actually, it is really....humanism !!!

I would disagree. Humanism is a belief set that is more than what Humanianity here is defined as. OP's Humanianity strives to be a simple set of ethical principles that he seems to hope everyone can agree with and unify around.

Although, I don't know if I'd personally agree with the notion. Humanianity seeks to maximize "goods" or JCAs in its own terms, and minimize "evils" or PSDEDs in its own terms. I've never thought the "greater good" idea was ultimately something to be embraced, as it could lead to sacrificing certain minorities for the utilitarian greater benefit of the rest of society.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

I would disagree. Humanism is a belief set that is more than what Humanianity here is defined as. OP's Humanianity strives to be a simple set of ethical principles that he seems to hope everyone can agree with and unify around.

But everything that is written would indicate the opposite. What you seem to be saying, I believe, is a an inaccurate portrayal of Humanianity. Humanianity is the continuing effort on the part of us all to develop a basic ethical philosophy for our species, with regard to all decision-making. I don't know why that would be called a simple set of principles for everyone hopefully to agree with. The Belief Manual is just a tool to aid in the study involved in working on that basic ethical process. As such, it is quite limited in its content, though its content will undoubtedly increase quite a bit over the next century or so.

And humanism is an example of Humanianity emerging. It is a rather Humanian development. Some definitions of "humanism" are more Humanian than others, though. (Some definitions are quite close, though, I will agree.)

Although, I don't know if I'd personally agree with the notion. Humanianity seeks to maximize "goods" or JCAs in its own terms, and minimize "evils" or PSDEDs in its own terms. I've never thought the "greater good" idea was ultimately something to be embraced, as it could lead to sacrificing certain minorities for the utilitarian greater benefit of the rest of society.

And sacrificing minorities for the sake of others would be antithetical to Humanianity. Taking just one part of the REUEP misrepresents it. I notice that is what some people do, for instance, making it into utilitarianism.

 

[Avi1001]

Hi Salek...it's amazing....you are doing a better job of representing humanianitarianism than Bill.......however, what you describe is totally consistent with humanism....except the part about...sacrificing minorities....when you say "sacrifice"......errrr......what exactly are you referring to????

Bill...do you agree with "sacrificing" minorities ??

I would disagree. Humanism is a belief set that is more than what Humanianity here is defined as. OP's Humanianity strives to be a simple set of ethical principles that he seems to hope everyone can agree with and unify around.

Although, I don't know if I'd personally agree with the notion. Humanianity seeks to maximize "goods" or JCAs in its own terms, and minimize "evils" or PSDEDs in its own terms. I've never thought the "greater good" idea was ultimately something to be embraced, as it could lead to sacrificing certain minorities for the utilitarian greater benefit of the rest of society.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Hi Salek...it's amazing....you are doing a better job of representing humanianitarianism than Bill.......however, what you describe is totally consistent with humanism....except the part about...sacrificing minorities....when you say "sacrifice"......errrr......what exactly are you referring to????

Bill...do you agree with "sacrificing" minorities ??

No, I am committed to doing that which will promote not only the survival of our species but also as much JCA as possible and as little PSDED as possible, for everyone, now and in the future.

And I am curious. You seem to be ridiculing the name of Humanianity. What is your reason for doing that? Are you trying to make a helpful point, a suggestion for improvement?

 

[Salek Atesh]

Hi Salek...it's amazing....you are doing a better job of representing humanianitarianism than Bill.......however, what you describe is totally consistent with humanism....except the part about...sacrificing minorities....when you say "sacrifice"......errrr......what exactly are you referring to????

It's an unfortunate extension of utilitarian thought that sometimes occurs. That being maximizing as much benefit for humanity while minimizing as much harm as possible sounds like a good idea (and often is), but sometimes it is taken too far. Sometimes it leads to people rationalizing and coming to the conclusion that doing a certain amount of harm to a minority of people can extract a greater benefit for the majority of people, thus making such an act consistent with utilitarian/humanian thought, yet with disastrous results from the perspective of that minority that is harmed for the greater benefit of all.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

You seem to be ridiculing the name of Humanianity.

It is a bit of a mouthful. How about "Humanity"?

 

[Avi1001]

Very good, Salek....you have identified one of the problems of a utilitarian approach...you will have to explain this to Bill...it will be difficult for him to grasp.

I am now prepared to give a preliminary diagnosis of Bill...he is a bit Asperger...with a touch of bipolar...but no worries...there are now some meds for these conditions...so Bill will improve...after we get him medicated...

It's an unfortunate extension of utilitarian thought that sometimes occurs. That being maximizing as much benefit for humanity while minimizing as much harm as possible sounds like a good idea (and often is), but sometimes it is taken too far. Sometimes it leads to people rationalizing and coming to the conclusion that doing a certain amount of harm to a minority of people can extract a greater benefit for the majority of people, thus making such an act consistent with utilitarian/humanian thought, yet with disastrous results from the perspective of that minority that is harmed for the greater benefit of all.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

It's an unfortunate extension of utilitarian thought that sometimes occurs. That being maximizing as much benefit for humanity while minimizing as much harm as possible sounds like a good idea (and often is), but sometimes it is taken too far. Sometimes it leads to people rationalizing and coming to the conclusion that doing a certain amount of harm to a minority of people can extract a greater benefit for the majority of people, thus making such an act consistent with utilitarian/humanian thought, yet with disastrous results from the perspective of that minority that is harmed for the greater benefit of all.

I agree.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

It is a bit of a mouthful. How about "Humanity"?

This should help explain:

HUMANIANITY: The Religion for Everyone | Name and Identity

 

[Rick O'Shez]

This should help explain:
HUMANIANITY: The Religion for Everyone | Name and Identity

I had a look but I still think "Humanity" would be better. It's a lot catchier, and I think gives a good feel for what you are trying to do. I can't even pronounce HUMANIANITY, and I can't spell it without copying.

PS I am one of those people who always gives a full response on feedback forms.

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Very good, Salek....you have identified one of the problems of a utilitarian approach...you will have to explain this to Bill...it will be difficult for him to grasp.

I am now prepared to give a preliminary diagnosis of Bill...he is a bit Asperger...with a touch of bipolar...but no worries...there are now some meds for these conditions...so Bill will improve...after we get him medicated...

I am here looking for sharing and comparing of ideas with the ultimate goal of contributing something positive to our world. I am trying to improve my own ideas and ability to communicate and also trying to advocate for something I think will be valuable. Your responses seem to indicate either that my ideas are not worthwhile or are wrong, but I can't grasp what your primary effort is. Do you believe I am doing something wrong by posting here? Or do you believe that I should never have tried to develop the website I have worked on? Or do you believe that what I am proposing will have a harmful effect? Can you help me to understand better what you believe to be the problem with what I am doing? I value feedback, but I need to be able to understand what it is. Thanks!

 

[Avi1001]

Bill...I think you are confused......you claim to be starting a "new religion"...but from everything I can see.....it is humanism.

You told us you have a Ph.D. in Psychology....but you do not give us any psychological insights.....I asked you to compare your "new religion" with other great psychologists and philosophers views and you respond with simplistic answers.

Please review my comments / criticisms and respond using more sophisticated and rigorous answers....I am a scientist and engineer...read that as...no bs !

I am here looking for sharing and comparing of ideas with the ultimate goal of contributing something positive to our world. I am trying to improve my own ideas and ability to communicate and also trying to advocate for something I think will be valuable. Your responses seem to indicate either that my ideas are not worthwhile or are wrong, but I can't grasp what your primary effort is. Do you believe I am doing something wrong by posting here? Or do you believe that I should never have tried to develop the website I have worked on? Or do you believe that what I am proposing will have a harmful effect? Can you help me to understand better what you believe to be the problem with what I am doing? I value feedback, but I need to be able to understand what it is. Thanks!

 

[Bill Van Fleet]

Bill...I think you are confused......you claim to be starting a "new religion"...but from everything I can see.....it is humanism.

You told us you have a Ph.D. in Psychology....but you do not give us any psychological insights.....I asked you to compare your "new religion" with other great psychologists and philosophers views and you respond with simplistic answers.

Please review my comments / criticisms and respond using more sophisticated and rigorous answers....I am a scientist and engineer...read that as...no bs !

I am a psychiatrist, not psychologist. I have just retired. I don't claim to be starting a new religion that is apart from all other religions. I claim to be calling attention to a movement within Religion, and within our species, to which I have given a label. If you are truly interested in my ideas on anger prevention, child rearing, and belief management, you may be interested in those chapters in Book1. If you are interested in my ideas regarding the mind-body problem (and free-will vs. determinism problem), you may be interested in Book3. My ideas more specifically about Humanianity are in Book2. Any sentence or paragraph is going to be somewhat "simplistic." All of these are available (free), readable online, at:
FOR EVERYONE: Rational-Ethical Living & Rational-Ethical Religion

My effort in those books was to present an orderly, understandable description of this phenomenon that I believe is occurring, that I believe will require some intensive study to understand fully. Any brief presentation in just a few sentences will result in highly predictable misunderstanding and misrepresentation due in part to stereotyping.

On the other hand, reading the orderly presentation of the ideas allows for identification of the first sentence that seems incorrect or unclear in the context in which it is written. I know that not many people will wish to undertake that effort, and you may not wish to. You being a scientist and engineer certainly enables you to understand that a sentence or two does not accomplish a satisfactory presentation of a complex set of ideas.

I have attempted to answer your questions to the best of my ability. I do not know exactly what you mean by "bs," other than that you obviously do not have a high opinion regarding the quality of answers. Perhaps you could try asking another question, or taking one of my answers to one of your questions and asking a further question about it (quoting the original question and my answer to it). I will try to respond appropriately and to the best of my ability.

 

[oldbadger]

It turns out that I should have posted this here. (I posted this under Science And Religion, where it also belongs.)
.

...... begging your pardon, but if humanianity is for all, then why have you posted this in a DIR, which excludes some?