Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
So you should especially appreciate the Humanianity concept and the Humanian Belief Manual. And continuing sharing and comparing of beliefs to achieve ever-increasing improvement of them.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Humanianity: The Religion for Humanity??
- Thread starter Bill Van Fleet
- Start date
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Morals that apply to everyone
siti
Well-Known Member
I dunno...perhaps we should do exactly that so we can understand Buddhism from the perspective of a Buddhist who doesn't call their Buddhism a religion? I think that might be more informative than simply accepting the generalized consensus view of the largely uninformed 'congregation' of non-Buddhists! Which thought brings me to another concern: how to ensure that the moral consensus that will form the beliefs of humanianism doesn't end up indicating the "lowest common denominator" rather than the "highest ethical principle"? If the "Belief Manual" is composed of only those beliefs (existential and ethical) that get the most votes, is there not a danger that the democratic process ultimately abandons moral excellence as a realistic target (on the grounds that for most of us it isn't a realistic target) and ends up with a grotesque compromise that is a faint parody of what was intended - the tyranny of the majority. My God I sound like a Republican but I hope you can see what I am asking here - what prevents the ethical consensus from gravitating to "dog eat dog" individualism or stifling moral collectivism? The problem I reckon is that most people don't care to be "enlightened" or "empathetic" - the latter certainly not beyond their "tribal" boundaries (but see below on that).
Another question - why are you defending religion and demonizing tribalism? Surely tribalism is - in reality - a more innate aspect of human nature? Surely tribalism has its positive (as well as negative) aspects? And surely it was tribalism that gave birth to religion - does it make sense to value the child but not the parent that gave birth to the child? I am not being argumentative for the sake of it - religion and tribalism are deep-seated aspects of human life - even today - and we need to be quite circumspect (I think) in how we analyze and value (or devalue) their contribution to both our current status as a species and our "shared human experience".
siti
Well-Known Member
OK - so that's universal - in what sense are they objective? And can you give an example of a "universal objective moral"?
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Innocent people do not deserve to be murdered. Murder is wrong.
siti
Well-Known Member
OK - but in what sense is that 'objective'? Is it not really just a matter of consensus? And what is "murder"? Surely the definition has changed over the millennia?
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Murder is taking an innocent life with no justification for doing so. The victims of a murder suffer irreparable loss. A life is deprived that in no way deserves to lose their life. A civil life has been deprived that never did any grave and serious crimes. Even some grave and serious crimes still do not deserve the deprivation of life, because they have taken no lives themselves; theft for example, embezzlement. All this is murder, and will always be so, and it was always so even if denied the meaning and the word murder, murder has always been murder.
siti
Well-Known Member
Innocent...justification...victim...suffer...these are all based on value judgements - I don't see how any of that can be genuinely "objective". I get what you mean, "murder is wrong" might be a universal moral principle - and certainly one that I (and probably most other people) agree with 100% in principle - but that doesn't make it objective - it makes it consensual - and the boundaries of 'murder' are very difficult to define. If I neglect to check the brake fluid in my car and an "innocent" life is snuffed out as a result of the ensuing accident, is that murder?
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
No because it lacks intent.
siti
Well-Known Member
Yes OK - but surely that's just based on the modern legal definition isn't it? And surely intent is not amenable to objective determination? Anyway, I think I have made my point - I don't want to appear to be "trolling" - I'm not - just trying to illustrate the difficulty I have with the notion of "objective morals".
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I tend to consider value judgments true and factual when undeniable. Now i could deny what is considered undeniable by many. But i hold that there is a truth of innocence, as well as degrees of innocence.
Its a fact that john never harmed anyone, nor deprived life of anyone, why should john ever have his life deprived of him so long as he maintains his peaceful life of actions.
stvdv
Veteran Member
Your intentions are good, that is the best we can do. In this context I find it strange you use probable revise when finding a mistake in Humanianity [I definitely revise (if still possible), but I guess that is what you meant also, reading from you that Religions have many flaws; you don't want Humanianity to start of like that].
IMHO I gave you a wonderful solution and example how to solve "The Best Religion" issue. And Asked you what you think of that solution. You did not answer that question. You don't not think it was lovely, humane and wonderful how the writer of this scripture solved this "hot item"?
I agree it is "not done" to attack the other. When attacked though, then it is my duty to defend myself and then "doing so cleverly" is the perfect way IMO.
[I am the Aikido type, never attack first, always defend, but like all marshal arts they are also clever]
Note: This is Rule 8 on RF: "The Best Religion" is in this context offensive to Christians, Muslims etc. so it's not correct to put in a title IMHO. That is why I advised to take it out of the title, and place it as text somewhere, where you can elaborate and word it friendly and respectful.
Stating opinions as a definitive matter of fact (i.e., without "I believe/feel/think" language, and/or without references) may be moderated as preaching.
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/rf-rules.170244/
The RF rules are made because Religious people otherwise feel irritated and angered. You are not the type to anger others. Good to see you realize it is poor judgment but strange to read that you decide to hold on to it after I explained it so well. If you can't change it yourself, I would fully understand, but stating you are not willing to change I do not understand. IMHO this is the only point that is really essential to change. The rest is of minor importance [would be only important if you want to reach many, which you don't intend]
Last edited:
I find King Solomon's words have proven true that man has dominated man to man's hurt or man's injury.
Or, as Jeremiah observed that man can't direct his step, so we need someone to step in for us.
To me, that is where the teachings of Christ enter into the picture because his teachings need No overhaul.
That means man's carousel ride of hurt or injury is coming to an abrupt end because man can't successfully govern himself.
I find ' degrees of innocence ' is what a person could put forth as when Jesus instructed to be innocent as doves.
So, there would be ' degrees of innocence ' between those judged as righteous and those judged as un-righteous.
Neither is classed as wicked, so they have varying degrees of innocence.
As for john ' blessed are the peacemakers or the peaceable people ......( peaceful life of actions )
Since everywhere on Earth we find there are people with a ' spiritual need ' so then I agree that religion is extremely important to our species. As to 'keep on improving', how can the Golden Rule be improved, besides Christ's new commandment to have the same self-sacrificing love for other as he has. In other words, to now love others 'more' than self.
stvdv
Veteran Member
The best way to improve IMHO:
"Hurt Never, Help Ever"
Skip all other text around
Problem is too much text
So people don't see the core
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
My point is just that Buddhism is in general thought of as one of the world's major world religions, despite not necessarily having as a part of it what would be expected by people in Abrahamic theistic religions. Whether Buddhists would like to change that idea would be another topic. This had to do with whether "Religion" necessarily implied a belief in a God or things like that, and I believe that it does not.
I believe that our religions have always been primarily for the purpose of working on how to do the right thing, how to be a "good" person, what we should think, feel, and do in order live optimally, and that would be a basic ethical philosophy, a set of ethical principles, rules of conduct, and more specific ethical beliefs (whatever we have voluntary control over) to live optimally. Such beliefs of course vary from (sub-)culture to (sub-)culture. And that is what Humanianity is about, but with the implied culture being that of our species in general, and the recognition that there is almost no such recognized and agreed upon culture currently, with very unfortunate consequences. This is an effort to promote bringing that about more rapidly.
First, I of course am curious as to why you refer to Humanianity as "humanianism." I have had the experience a number of times of people obviously changing the spelling of the word as a way of indicating some negative feeling about the concept, just as if someone referred to Christianity as "christianism." So I don't know how to interpret that misspelling, i.e., what the message, if any, is.
Regarding your basic question, though, which is a good one, I think it contains some ambiguity and/or inaccuracy regarding the nature of Humanianity. I don't believe that I have ever indicated that I expect there to be a "moral consensus." I see us as hopefully coming to increasing agreement regarding our general ethical principles. The Humanian Ultimate Ethical Principle is just a statement that it seems to me most of us want and would agree to given enough thought, though I could be wrong.
(Do you have in mind a better principle, that is as clear or clearer with regard to meaning and that would be generally agreed-upon by most people? I explained how I came to the formulation of the HUEP in Book2, https://humanianity.com/homorationalis/hr203.html, keeping in mind that at that time I was using "REUEP" instead of "HUEP.")
This is a significant misunderstanding of what the Humanian Belief Manual is, how it works, and what its purpose is. It does not consist of the beliefs that get the most votes. I contains proposed beliefs that may be different or opposite from each other. The voting is not a procedural decision-making process to arrive at an authoritarian text; it is simply a way of giving feedback as to how much agreement there currently is regarding each of the proposed beliefs, as useful information as people continue to discuss and think about the proposed beliefs. There is no requirement to "obey" the Belief Manual. It is just a tool for study.
The Belief Manual may actually never take off and become the widely used tool that I hope it will. But if it does, it should be the stimulus for much discussion and thought, with increasingly satisfactory clarification of those principles that are most likely to be based upon accurate existential beliefs (which may change over time, of course) and upon logical consistency with the HUEP (or something like it) and those existential beliefs.
Yes, I agree with you. But I am not "defending religion and demonizing tribalism." There is good and bad in both. But just because something is bred deeply into us by evolution does not mean that it fosters the good life for all of us (as defined in the HUEP). Suffering promotes the survival of the species, but that does not mean that we humans cannot ethically modify such tendencies so as to have much better lives for everyone. Yes, tribalism and other tendencies within us have their positive and negative aspects. But that doesn't mean that we can't do better than the way we naturally do, through ethical modification. I recommend you read the following to get a clearer idea as to what is intended.
https://humanianity.com/humanianity/humhome.php?_menu=2#d1
I hope I have answered to some extent the complicated questions and issues you have raised, and look forward to further dialogue and resulting clarification of issues.
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
Well... You announce that Humanianity is "The Religion For Humanity".
But the fine print says, "Humanianity isn't an organized religion or even an organization".
So, I think you need to do away with the false advertising and figure out if you are capable of being something more than a philosophical discussion group.
I'm sorry I am too lazy to read this, but it looks really cool!
Bill Van Fleet
Active Member
Yes, I agree that that's what I meant. Also, I make it clear that Humanianity is not being presented as a religion to compete or take the place of other religions, but instead a movement within all religions and within our species itself, the movement being as described. I have indeed worried about the title "Humanianity: The Religion For Humanity," because "The Religion" makes it sound like it is competing. But on the other hand, the concept implies that all the religions are improving in such a way that there will be increasing similarity among them as time goes on, such that that coming together may be conceptualized as a final state of agreement, all the specific religions currently simply being religious traditions, analogous to the many ways of becoming a, say, doctor, with their individual, unique life and learning experiences.
I'm sorry, but I obviously overlooked this and cannot remember it. Perhaps you could re-post it, and I will try to respond. Or, if it refers to the post on the Golden Rule, I would say that we need a huge number of ethical principles and rules of conduct to guide us through the complex situations we find ourselves in. I would say that the Golden Rule is a good ethical rule of conduct that is consistent with the HUEP, and that there are complex, lower-level rules of conduct that are consistent with it and with many of our accurate existential beliefs.
Or maybe you are referring to "The Most Important Religion" subtitle, and if so, please see below.
Yes, of course, and you are offering another ethical rule of conduct that clarifies and modifies the one I gave that was referring only to situations in which attack was not necessary for self-defense. And of course it could get more complicated than that, and would depend upon the predicted consequences of doing so.
I understand. It actually said, "The Most Important Religion," but what you say probably still would apply. But the subtitle was meant to convey something specific in addition to stirring up interest, and whether the results were more positive or negative I do not know. But certainly it could be a mistake, and even though the book is not published, it is usual that once a book is out there, it can't be changed without producing a "revised edition." In my mind, I cannot yet convince myself that the trouble involved would be worth it or result in a better outcome. I will continue to think about it. I can't imagine it having a destructive effect on the psychological state of mind of someone, however. On the other hand, these days it increases slightly the risk to me, as you, I assume, know.
Again, I can't imagine that I am actually hurting someone, even if it is a mistake. And I cannot bring myself to imagine or understand how anyone could fail to assume that I was expressing my opinion. What else would someone conclude (that might cause them significant psychological pain or other injury)? But I'm glad you brought it up for me to think about more.
And I am still wondering what in the world is wrong with preaching? I still can't come to a different opinion than that blocking such free speech would be for any reason other than disapproving of the person expressing the specific opinion being expressed. This is becoming, or has become, a real political issue. There are many who believe that "the left" has gone too far in this direction, in a way that is exceedingly dangerous. Should the speaker here say, "Now all of this is just my opinion, so don't get offended, please"?
IMHO (regarding everything above)