Princeps Eugenius
Active Member
Thats why its about morality. Some religions command to kill the unbelievers. Which would be a crime against humanity and thus the religions becomes un-humanist.
-
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!
Humanist Quiz
- Thread starter Sees
- Start date
Sees
Dragonslayer
It's definitely biased but reflects the org that put it together, which is cool with me. Was the better quiz of the 3 or 4 I looked at.
Secular Humanism is a valid idea in my opinion - for people who are irreligious to have some sort of identity, fellowship, etc. in regards to addressing the type of things we look at in comparative religion.
If nothing else, to foster some moral positions with more substance and value than outright moral relativism.
Secular Humanism is a valid idea in my opinion - for people who are irreligious to have some sort of identity, fellowship, etc. in regards to addressing the type of things we look at in comparative religion.
If nothing else, to foster some moral positions with more substance and value than outright moral relativism.
62%.
No. Secular Humanism is a by-product of Christianity. You can see this in the concept of "human rights" which are derived from "natural law". The natural law tradition originates and overlaps with Christianity, so it is "secular" only in so far as it has forgotten about god but relies heavily on the belief in a soul, a universal human "essence", or "human nature". it is "humanist" in so far as this conception of the soul and therefore of man is assumed to be universal.
it cannot therefore cliam to be an objective morality based on science because, by virtue of basing it's cliam to being universal on "human nature", it means that this human nature is the result of subjective experience and not objective evidence. it is really a form of Christianity, without God.
The definition of "humanity" reflects Eurocentric, Christian and even white supremacist values by which the "humanity" of european conquerers is imposed upon other peoples to "civilise them" and then proceeds to declare white, european, christianity as the face of humanity. it is not representative of the diversity of mankind, and the protestations of the equality of peoples occur only under the conception of "natural law", i.e. once people have been turned into good "civilised" europeans who play by the rules.
For "secular" humanism to be the "proper" humanism, it has cliam to express the universal essence of man or "human nature", whilst simultaneously divorced from the history as to how it became universal, i.e. by conquest, colonialism, religious wars, etc. What we call "humanism" is very much a product of the last three or four hundred years, and is not an "eternal" law of man either. Secular Humanism is "liberal" only in so far as it is the product of the collective amnesia of the coercion and violence by which those liberal values were established, both in europe through centuries of christian religious wars and persecutions to develop "secularism", and around the world by european conquest.
No. Secular Humanism is a by-product of Christianity. You can see this in the concept of "human rights" which are derived from "natural law". The natural law tradition originates and overlaps with Christianity, so it is "secular" only in so far as it has forgotten about god but relies heavily on the belief in a soul, a universal human "essence", or "human nature". it is "humanist" in so far as this conception of the soul and therefore of man is assumed to be universal.
it cannot therefore cliam to be an objective morality based on science because, by virtue of basing it's cliam to being universal on "human nature", it means that this human nature is the result of subjective experience and not objective evidence. it is really a form of Christianity, without God.
The definition of "humanity" reflects Eurocentric, Christian and even white supremacist values by which the "humanity" of european conquerers is imposed upon other peoples to "civilise them" and then proceeds to declare white, european, christianity as the face of humanity. it is not representative of the diversity of mankind, and the protestations of the equality of peoples occur only under the conception of "natural law", i.e. once people have been turned into good "civilised" europeans who play by the rules.
For "secular" humanism to be the "proper" humanism, it has cliam to express the universal essence of man or "human nature", whilst simultaneously divorced from the history as to how it became universal, i.e. by conquest, colonialism, religious wars, etc. What we call "humanism" is very much a product of the last three or four hundred years, and is not an "eternal" law of man either. Secular Humanism is "liberal" only in so far as it is the product of the collective amnesia of the coercion and violence by which those liberal values were established, both in europe through centuries of christian religious wars and persecutions to develop "secularism", and around the world by european conquest.
Last edited:
Altfish
Veteran Member
I'm too busy to reply fully now but find this very difficult to comprehend!
Could you define "Natural Law"?
How does Humanism rely on a "Soul"? I'm a Humanist and certainly don't have a clue what a 'soul' is.
What do you mean by..."the universal essence of man or "human nature"".
I don't think anyone (apart from you) has claimed that Humanism is "an "eternal" law of man .."
Humanism is forward looking and accepts mistakes of the past and tries to address them. Have you read the Amsterdam Declaration?
Jumi
Well-Known Member
No you're not the only one. I know there are many who believe in God but don't think life has meaning.
Princeps Eugenius
Active Member
I think once you get married and have children you will find a purpose. Thats how most of the people i know have found it.
No, because that will all pass away too. A purpose for me has to go beyond death and actually lead to something ultimate, it can't be temporary.
Princeps Eugenius
Active Member
Like heaven or hell? And that is what youre saying now, but once you have children your entire view will totally change because the children will stay alive and you will pass away before them.
Last edited:
Yes I have read the Amsterdam Declaration:
"Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction."
If "morality is an intrinsic part of human nature" it follows that our understanding of human nature defines our sense of what is moral. This is, very roughly, what Natural Law means:
"Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature, and universally cognizable through human reason. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, being determined by nature, is universal."
Here's Wikipedia on Human Nature:
Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling and acting—which humans tend to have naturally, independently of the influence of culture. The questions of what these characteristics are, how fixed they are, and what causes them are amongst the oldest and most important questions in western philosophy.
i) "which humans tend to have 'naturally' independently of the influence of culture"
In treating the question of our humanity independent of the influence of culture, we are treating them as seperate questions. This is crucial to the cliam that "humanism" is universal and not the product of a particular culture. By doing so, we can cliam that certian characteristics are universal, irrespective as to whether they are recognised within the actual laws of the state. But, if we were to treat this in reference to human history and looked at the origin of these ideas, we find that they are...
ii) "the most important questions in western philosophy".
As the Natural Law article demonstrates, the question of what is "natural law" goes back to Ancient Greece with Plato and Aristocle. Natural Law is, through Thomas Aquinas, the basis of the Roman Catholic Churches understanding of morality and law.
iii) "how fixed they are"
The reason this matters is because when "natural law" is held in seperation from man-made laws, as a characteristic of "human nature" is necessarily follows that it is not only universal in the world today, but is universal for all human beings, including both future and past generations. This all hinges on treating "natural law" as independent of a given culture.
So, why is there a seperation between "natural law" and "actual laws" governing a state? The reason is because the concept of natural law is based on a form of philosophical dualism: "The Catholic Church understands human beings to consist of body and mind, the physical and the non-physical (or soul perhaps), and that the two are inextricably linked." It is the fact that "natural law" rests on the "non-physical" which means it exists indepndently not simply of whether a person agrees with it or not or acts according to it, but entirely of the person themselves. This "non-physical" dimension of natural law, therefore seeks to define "human characteristics" without reference to the physical person. i.e. the soul.
Assume for a moment, there is no soul and that a person is only physical entity. it follows that there is no "natural law" that can exist independent of a given culture. The fact that natural law has its origins in western philosophy, means that in order for it to become universal- it had to express itself physically by the actions of men through the course of human history. So How does a western idea become universal?
By Force.
"Humanism" is part of the West's "civilising mission" to re-make humanity in it's own image. To conquer and annilate all cultures that do not conform with this "natural law" so that western culture becomes universal. What does not fit with "human nature" is "unnatural" and "inhuman" and not worthy of existence because it is not "moral". The physical annihiliation of said cultures may contradict the non-physical "laws of nature" but that does not prevent them from happening when the West is convinced of it's "humanity", that we are the "good guys" or when "god is on our side". The "non-physical" morality of natural law over-rides the physical existence of it's opponents.In order to defend "human rights" or to assert "freedom and democracy" around the world, we wage endless wars to make sure that everyone else complies with our concept of morality. This is true of the 19th century and remains true in the 21st century, because the "morality" rests on the assertion of a non-physical entity and therefore has no obligation to correspond to what we actually do. This is how, no matter how many genocides, wars, persecutions, dictatorships, human rights abuses we commit, we always are the "good guys" because what is "good" has nothing to do with the physical realities of life on earth, or our actions, or their consequences. Natural law is God, and we can worship our "humanity" because it is the image of our perfection irrespective of who we actually are and what we do.
Humanism is hypocrisy; it is not secular, it's not moral, and it is most definetely not universal.
Sees
Dragonslayer
Booo...tough it out, my good man!
Will have to grant you an imaginary score in the meantime...
No, not necessarily like Heaven or Hell. Yes, I will probably feel as if it is meaningful, but it won't actually be objectively meaningful and it will still be temporary. I don't want life just to have meaning for me, but for all of humanity. I am but a drop in the ocean.
Sees
Dragonslayer
Yes I have read the Amsterdam Declaration:
"Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. Humanists have a duty of care to all humanity including future generations. Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others, needing no external sanction."
If "morality is an intrinsic part of human nature" it follows that our understanding of human nature defines our sense of what is moral. This is, very roughly, what Natural Law means:
"Natural law is a philosophy that certain rights or values are inherent by virtue of human nature, and universally cognizable through human reason. Historically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze both social and personal human nature to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The law of nature, being determined by nature, is universal."
Here's Wikipedia on Human Nature:
Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics—including ways of thinking, feeling and acting—which humans tend to have naturally, independently of the influence of culture. The questions of what these characteristics are, how fixed they are, and what causes them are amongst the oldest and most important questions in western philosophy.
i) "which humans tend to have 'naturally' independently of the influence of culture"
In treating the question of our humanity independent of the influence of culture, we are treating them as seperate questions. This is crucial to the cliam that "humanism" is universal and not the product of a particular culture. By doing so, we can cliam that certian characteristics are universal, irrespective as to whether they are recognised within the actual laws of the state. But, if we were to treat this in reference to human history and looked at the origin of these ideas, we find that they are...
ii) "the most important questions in western philosophy".
As the Natural Law article demonstrates, the question of what is "natural law" goes back to Ancient Greece with Plato and Aristocle. Natural Law is, through Thomas Aquinas, the basis of the Roman Catholic Churches understanding of morality and law.
iii) "how fixed they are"
The reason this matters is because when "natural law" is held in seperation from man-made laws, as a characteristic of "human nature" is necessarily follows that it is not only universal in the world today, but is universal for all human beings, including both future and past generations. This all hinges on treating "natural law" as independent of a given culture.
So, why is there a seperation between "natural law" and "actual laws" governing a state? The reason is because the concept of natural law is based on a form of philosophical dualism: "The Catholic Church understands human beings to consist of body and mind, the physical and the non-physical (or soul perhaps), and that the two are inextricably linked." It is the fact that "natural law" rests on the "non-physical" which means it exists indepndently not simply of whether a person agrees with it or not or acts according to it, but entirely of the person themselves. This "non-physical" dimension of natural law, therefore seeks to define "human characteristics" without reference to the physical person. i.e. the soul.
Assume for a moment, there is no soul and that a person is only physical entity. it follows that there is no "natural law" that can exist independent of a given culture. The fact that natural law has its origins in western philosophy, means that in order for it to become universal- it had to express itself physically by the actions of men through the course of human history. So How does a western idea become universal?
By Force.
In order to defend "human rights" or to assert "freedom and democracy" around the world, we wage endless wars to make sure that everyone else complies with our concept of morality. This is true of the 19th century and remains true in the 21st century, because the "morality" rests on the assertion of a non-physical entity and therefore has no obligation to correspond to what we actually do. This is how, no matter how many genocides, wars, persecutions, dictatorships, human rights abuses we commit, we always are the "good guys" because what is "good" has nothing to do with the physical realities of life on earth, or our actions, or their consequences. Natural law is God, and we can worship our "humanity" because it is the image of our perfection irrespective of who we actually are and what we do.
Humanism is hypocrisy; it is not secular, it's not moral, and it is most definetely not universal.
Come to think of it, I have noticed the idea of "democracy for everybody, everywhere" in a few Humanist sources.
Princeps Eugenius
Active Member
Thats why when somebody loves you you dont feel that way. But you dont want that.
I dont know how more objective an existence can get if you know that a god has created humanity and placed it in this world for them to experience life. Also ive noticed that i cant connect to you at all. No matter what i ask you you always reply in the negative. Quite fascinating really. Just an aside.
It's not about existence, it's about the meaning behind our existence and just because Ahuramazda created us I still don't know what the purpose of his creating us is. It seems like you're essentially saying life is its own meaning, which is an interesting concept but not one I agree with.
It's not just you, I'm just a bit of a nihilist overall.
Augustus
…
With a 'best fit' type answer it told me I was 89% humanist which annoyed me. So I went back and if there wasn't an answer I was willing to use I chose a clearly non-humanist one instead so as not to be forced into defaulting to humanism despite disagreeing with their answer.
This made me 49% humanist which is a better number.
Augustus
…
Humanism (of the type advanced by the type of 'humanist associations' who made the quiz) is inherently contradictory.
As the Amsterdam Declaration states 'Humanism is rational' yet it also proposes that 'Humanists believe that morality is an intrinsic part of human nature based on understanding and a concern for others'.
Pretty much the entirety of human history would seem to suggest that, outside of a narrow context, 'understanding and concern for others' is absolutely not an intrinsic part of human nature. Violence and the desire to bend others to our will, on the other hand, very much is.
Also, "Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere." is perhaps amongst the least rational statements you could make. Not only is there zero evidence for the statement, there is a mountain of evidence to show us that no single ideology is, ever has been, and thus likely never will be universal. The perpetual diversity of human culture and society is one of the most obvious facts that can be gleaned from even the most superficial examinations of history.
Humanism grew out of the Western religious tradition and becomes untenable when its clear religious borrowings are secularised and 'rationalised'.
The idea that humans are somehow special amongst the animals is only justifiable through creation mythology, yet is central to humanism. Even the word 'humanity' is a fiction, we don't talk about porcinity, caninity or equinity as being meaningful constructs.
The teleological view of history based on 'progress' is also a borrowing from the religious roots of modern humanism. Salvation through Christ becomes salvation through knowledge and humanism. (Salvation through knowledge is another religious borrowing, this time from the Gnostics).
Humanism is a subjective faith-based ideology, as religion is.
Many 'rational' humanists seem to be unable to work this out and often sneer at the 'primitive irrationality' of religious people who need to be shown the light of salvation that only the humanist shines.
The 'Amsterdam Declaration' type Humanism is arguably less rational than expecting humanity to be saved by Jesus getting a piggyback from Thor and decapitating Satan by using his halo like a Shaolin flying guillotine. At least this view doesn't have to ignore reams of evidence to the contrary to assert its truthfulness.
