Secular Humanism

[PearlSeeker]

What studies? What scenarios? What explanation was offered?

Unsubstantiated comments such as yours are simply unhelpful.

In the internet era you can easily see for yourself.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In the internet era you can easily see for yourself.

In an RF debate forum, we can (and should) ask you to substantiate your assertions, and you, of course, can dodge the request if necessary.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Which are what?

A very poor way to begin your post. I very clearly listed the three points that I invited Secular Humanists to discuss. I do not feel obliged to repeat myself.

“the natural world is all that exists”,
Is not synonymous with “ONLY the natural world exists”.

Oh, they very much are synonymous.

The attempt to pass the buck falls flat.

Not at all. I stated in the opening post that the ideas I stated were coming from that video. If you actually watch the video, he does indeed give various Secular Humanist manifestos as his sources.

 

[LuisDantas]

In the internet era you can easily see for yourself.

To say that intuition can be accurate is just not very helpful in and of itself. It barely even says anything whatsoever.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And the claim is not that the natural world is all that exists, but that there is insufficient evidence to believe otherwise.

That is not what the author of the video says, and his opinion is based on various Secular Humanist manifestos.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Studies show that intuition can be very accurate in some scenarios. Sometimes it's even more accurate than thinking it through.

Intuition very definitely is a helpful thing -- that it helps us survive is why it has been selected for. The point is not that its an adaptive trait. The point is that so often it bombs.

 

[PearlSeeker]

In an RF debate forum, we can (and should) ask you to substantiate your assertions, and you, of course, can dodge the request if necessary.

Fair enough. Some examples:

A body of research reveals that intuition can be not only faster than reflection but also more accurate.

We’re fairly good at judging people based on first impressions, thin slices of experience ranging from a glimpse of a photo to a five-minute interaction, and deliberation can be not only extraneous but intrusive. In one study of the ability she dubbed “thin slicing,” the late psychologist Nalini Ambady asked participants to watch silent 10-second video clips of professors and to rate the instructor’s overall effectiveness. Their ratings correlated strongly with students’ end-of-semester ratings. Another set of participants had to count backward from 1,000 by nines as they watched the clips, occupying their conscious working memory. Their ratings were just as accurate, demonstrating the intuitive nature of the social processing. Critically, another group was asked to spend a minute writing down reasons for their judgment, before giving the rating. Accuracy dropped dramatically. Ambady suspected that deliberation focused them on vivid but misleading cues, such as certain gestures or utterances, rather than letting the complex interplay of subtle signals form a holistic impression. She found similar interference when participants watched 15-second clips of pairs of people and judged whether they were strangers, friends, or dating partners.

Other research shows we’re better at detecting deception and sexual orientation from thin slices when we rely on intuition instead of reflection. “It’s as if you’re driving a stick shift,” says Judith Hall, a psychologist at Northeastern University, “and if you start thinking about it too much, you can’t remember what you’re doing. But if you go on automatic pilot, you’re fine. Much of our social life is like that.”

Sources:

8 Truths About Intuition

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/docum...&doi=c3e5eb6e36b08679ffb3b57bde59c3cb5e546962

Intuition very definitely is a helpful thing -- that it helps us survive is why it has been selected for. The point is not that its an adaptive trait. The point is that so often it bombs.

That's true but in some circumstances it goes a bomb. See above.

 

[Nimos]

What you're failing to grasp here is that what is "demonstrably true" is whatever works for people in their lives. And only they can decide that. Not you. Your life experience and understanding is not the ideal by which everyone else's should be measured. And yet this seems to be what you're doing, and suggesting everyone else must also do.

I think you misunderstand what I mean.

The truth of knowledge has nothing to do with whatever works in people's lives and that they can decide it. You could take something such as computers, medicine, planes or cars etc. they are demonstrable true, it's not for anyone to decide this, it is a fact. Whether they want to make use of them or not that is their choice.
Again you seem to refer to some subjective understanding of knowledge, and that knowledge is whatever people think it should be. Meaning that contradictive knowledge would be possible like we could have landed on the moon or we couldn't, both are equally true depending on who you ask. This is not how knowledge works.

You can't even write that drivel with a strait face. And none of it even matters. Because what you believe or don't believe is irrelevant to anyone else. All that matters is how you behave toward them.

It matters because our beliefs/lack of them are what drive us to do things and how we see the world.

I don't see how you can even argue against it, do you think that terrorists that blow themselves up do it for fun? or do you think that they are convinced that what they are doing is the right thing?

You think it's a flaw in humans that they don't accept your truth as their truth? Why should they? Why would they, even?

It is not my truth.

We are talking about knowledge that has been demonstrated to be true. It doesn't matter who demonstrated it, whether it was you, me or someone else, if the method used is solid. That is why science has to be repeatable by others, so if you disagree you have the option to recreate their experiment and point out mistakes in their finding.
How do you think these things work?

What you decide is significant evidence is your own concern. Why should I care? I can decide that for myself? What is valid or significant evidence according to your life experience is not likely to be of equal significance to mine. So it only makes sense that I would decide this for myself.

That is selective nonsense you are arguing for, I honestly don't get it.

Do you think the people who believe Earth is flat, are just as correct as those that don't? From what you are writing here, the flat earthers should be just as right as "normal" people, because it is in their full right to choose the evidence that they want.

That is not how evidence works. Evidence has to support whatever claim you are making and if they don't they are not evidence for it.

And you seem to be assuming that your interpretation of reality and truth should be the ideal by which everyone else's is judged. You think your 'evidence' and logic rules. While everyone else's is flawed. So why would you be surprised and revolted when other people think the same way about their own concepts of reality and truth?

It has nothing to do with me.
You wrote yourself, that no one knows whether God is real or not. I agree with you on that. It is also a fact that certain countries are highly governed by religious rules that rely on God being real.

And I simply asked you, given what you said yourself, whether that isn't absurd? I haven't said anything trying to convince you. Except if you disagree with me that certain countries are highly influenced by religious rules.

I think a lot of people are stupid and arrogant. And cause each other a lot of harm because of it.

That didn't even remotely answer my question. "Are atheists being irrational here?" unless what you mean is that atheists are in the wrong here? Again I'll refer to what I pointed out just above.

Not the scientism crowd, though. They all think they know how the universe began, and that it was a spontaneous accident of physics.

Sorry, you have to give me some sources then, I have never heard or seen a scientist even remotely claiming that they know. If you are talking about some random guy on the internet, I don't care. In the same way as I don't care about people claiming the Earth is flat, some people are so far off that they are not worth taking seriously. So if these are the type of people you refer to, there is absolutely no reason to take them seriously.

We can never know what is "absolutely true". And thinking that we can is the first "scam" that we perpetrate on ourselves.

I agree. But that doesn't mean that anything flies. I don't want to sound arrogant, but you seem to have a very misinformed understanding of how science works.

Watch this, don't get fooled by it being presented kind of silly.

Knowledge is the result of personal experience. Theories aren't knowledge. Theories are just theories. When we apply the theories, and get results, then it's knowledge, right or wrong.

Again, please watch the video above.

Theories in common are just theories. Scientific theory (completely different from the common use of the word theory) is based on knowledge.

Yes, intuition is an excellent method of determining a course of action in the moment. It serves is very well most of the time.

Yes, but not for knowledge. Again watch the video.

Everyone thinks critically. But we don't all do it the same way, or via the same criteria. So we don't all arrive at the same conclusions. You don't seem to be grasping the inevitable significance of this in relation to your fellow humans.

That is why being good at critical thinking is crucial for all humans. It is something that should be taken much more seriously, kind of like a skill in my opinion.

That's exactly what I just said.

YOU defined God out of existence for yourself, and now you're claiming everyone else's God isn't real as a result.

What does that say about you?

I haven't claimed that any God isn't real, simply that there is no evidence for them. You said that no one could prove the existence of God. I said I disagreed with you earlier, if such God is intervening then we should be able to observe it.

 

[LuisDantas]

It's a bit like being against rabbits after reading Lewis Carroll.

Not at all.

Christianity and later Islam and others (to a certain degree the Bahai Faith) made atheism relevant and necessary because they make such a big deal of belief in the literal existence of their gods.

Once the big deal is made we have to either challenge it or conform to the expectation.

 

[danieldemol]

Which illustrates the one and only point that I myself want to make in this thread -- that while Atheists routinely rag on Theists for believing in something they cannot prove, they themselves have assumptions they cannot prove.

I'm not denying that occurs, but it seems to me to be more often the case that Atheists rag on Theists for believing in something non-axiomatic for which they cannot provide reliable evidence (as opposed to absolute proof).

It is my view that one cannot absolutely prove for example that the natural world exists, yet it seems axiomatic that it does exist and there is some evidence for it in the sense that there is no known evidence which is not consistent with the natural world existing. By comparison the assumption that the natural world is not all that exists is not axiomatic and I don't know of any reliable evidence that is not consistent with it being all that exists.

I'm not a secular humanist because I feel as though more than nature exists, but that feeling is not reliable evidence in my opinion so I believe the evidence is still consistent with it being all that exists even though I intuitively feel differently. I see no harm in that, but wouldn't endeavour to make a false equivalence between the one who rejects such (reliable) evidence free belief with one who accepts evidence free belief of a non-axiomatic nature

 

[RestlessSoul]

That is, you and I are different people with our own separate takes on everything we know through our senses, instincts, emotions and thoughts.


Hit me with your best shot to demonstrate that my perception of the universe is not unique to me ─ and that instead there's only one consciousness and that my consciousness is merely an undetached fragment of it.


I don't see how any of that is relevant to your thesis about one grand consciousness.

Nor do I hold the cosmological views of the ancients with contempt. Instead I wonder how primitive our own perceptions will seem in another three thousand years, assuming any humans are still around then.

I doubt I can persuade you of anything, best shot or not. But I invite you to abandon for a moment, your own primitive perceptions, and consider the following perspective;

That which I call “I” is nothing but a temporary convergence of diverse phenomena, fleeting , illusory, insubstantial. I am not an entity, but rather an unfolding of events in time; and since time has no substance, nor do the events arranged within it.

Then consider that your thoughts, your fears, your desires, your volition are not your own, and do not originate with you; for if they were your own, you would have control over them, and clearly you do not. The more you try to control them, the more they control you. They, like the “I” that defines itself in terms of those thoughts and fears and desires, are mere ephemera, bubbles on the river of time. And only by letting go of those ephemera, can we begin to access the real Self, the uncritical transcendent awareness that is the essence of our being.

You will of course demand evidence; you have only to look within yourself to find it. But you must learn to silence the chattering monkeys of your mind, which you can do easily enough through regular meditation.

 

[blü 2]

I doubt I can persuade you of anything, best shot or not. But I invite you to abandon for a moment, your own primitive perceptions, and consider the following perspective;

That which I call “I” is nothing but a temporary convergence of diverse phenomena, fleeting , illusory, insubstantial. I am not an entity, but rather an unfolding of events in time; and since time has no substance, nor do the events arranged within it.

Then consider that your thoughts, your fears, your desires, your volition are not your own, and do not originate with you; for if they were your own, you would have control over them, and clearly you do not. The more you try to control them, the more they control you. They, like the “I” that defines itself in terms of those thoughts and fears and desires, are mere ephemera, bubbles on the river of time. And only by letting go of those ephemera, can we begin to access the real Self, the uncritical transcendent awareness that is the essence of our being.

You will of course demand evidence; you have only to look within yourself to find it. But you must learn to silence the chattering monkeys of your mind, which you can do easily enough through regular meditation.

Your exposition seems to require a dualistic view ─ that "I" am not only the sum of my working parts and their operations, but also a further undescribed element which is uninfluenced by my working parts and their operations, and has opinions, perceptions, and insights of its own in a manner entirely undescribed ─ undescribed as to how it gains those perceptions and insights and forms those opinions, undescribed as to how it communicates with the working parts and their operations, and more broadly undescribed because nothing of the kind has ever been observed in brain research.

Please correct me if you're not arguing for dualism.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Your exposition seems to require a dualistic view ─ that "I" am not only the sum of my working parts and their operations, but also a further undescribed element which is uninfluenced by my working parts and their operations, and has opinions, perceptions, and insights of its own in a manner entirely undescribed ─ undescribed as to how it gains those perceptions and insights and forms those opinions, undescribed as to how it communicates with the working parts and their operations, and more broadly undescribed because nothing of the kind has ever been observed in brain research.

Please correct me if you're not arguing for dualism.

Dualism? No, not really. I’m a philosophical Monist, in my view nothing is separate, everything is one. Albeit the unity manifests as plurality, and that’s how we experience reality - as a bunch of discrete entities interacting separately - the whole always has priority over the parts.

Perceptions, insights and opinions are a function of this illusion of separation. But I suppose the illusion creates it’s own reality; so we are incomplete, and alienated from our true divine nature, for as long as we see the world as something separate from ourselves.

Something like that, anyway; it doesn’t do to overthink what’s right in front of and within us, lest we get snared in the briars of abstraction.

 

[Polymath257]

Fair enough. Some examples:


Sources:

8 Truths About Intuition

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/docum...&doi=c3e5eb6e36b08679ffb3b57bde59c3cb5e546962


That's true but in some circumstances it goes a bomb. See above.

So, intuition is not always reliable or even better than thinking about things deeply.

It is good for certain social situations where you have to judge another person quickly. People have a tendency to get too attached to their intuitions. Intuition can be improved with practice. Moral intuitions are flexible.

What I get out of that is that intuition is good for snap decisions where time of of the essence. And that is almost certainly why it evolved at all.

But it is *very* poor when it comes to how the world works outside of the range of contexts it is trained for.

Yes, you *can* build up intuition and it is a good thing to do. For example, a professional mathematicians intuition about what mathematical results are likely is going to be developed by a long period of training and so will often be reliable. But, the intuitions of a beginning math student will generally be quite poor.

Don't use untrained intuition to make predictions about quantum mechanics, cosmology, or many other things about the universe.

Now, more to the point of this thread: is intuition reasonably reliable when it comes to matters of religion, specifically about the existence of deities? Since such questions are *far* from the daily experience of most people (maybe all), it would seem very unlikely, right?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Don't use untrained intuition to make predictions about quantum mechanics, cosmology, or many other things about the universe.

Einstein in an interview:

"I believe in intuition and inspiration. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that tbelr conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong."

"Then you trust more to your Imagmation than to your knowledge?"

"I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

Source: http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/what_life_means_to_einstein.pdf

Now, more to the point of this thread: is intuition reasonably reliable when it comes to matters of religion, specifically about the existence of deities? Since such questions are *far* from the daily experience of most people (maybe all), it would seem very unlikely, right?

It depends. Some things are more reasonable to suspect than others. For example the Mastermind of the universe seems more probable than a turtle with the flat world on its back.

 

[PureX]

So, intuition is not always reliable or even better than thinking about things deeply.

Intuition is an excellent means of determining a curse of action IN THE MOMENT. It is often very fast and very accurate exactly when we need to make a determination very quickly.

When it fails, it tends to do so in hindsight. But that is NOT the circumstance for which it's intended. So of course it's not going to be as reliable in that context. When we HAVE the benefit of hindsight, deliberate and conscious consideration will be the better method of making a course determination.

 

[blü 2]

Dualism? No, not really. I’m a philosophical Monist, in my view nothing is separate, everything is one. Albeit the unity manifests as plurality, and that’s how we experience reality - as a bunch of discrete entities interacting separately - the whole always has priority over the parts.

Perceptions, insights and opinions are a function of this illusion of separation. But I suppose the illusion creates it’s own reality; so we are incomplete, and alienated from our true divine nature, for as long as we see the world as something separate from ourselves.

Something like that, anyway; it doesn’t do to overthink what’s right in front of and within us, lest we get snared in the briars of abstraction.

I'd say the argument for a divine nature was the usual dualist position, since the existence of the living human body seems hard to dispute.

My own view is that nothing we observe requires us to postulate a supernatural / "immaterial" element, whether called a soul, anima, spirit or whatever. And the more we understand about the workings of the human brain, the further we draw away from any justification for such a postulation.

I'd further point out that no objective test can distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary.

Still, if supernatural views suit you, and don't stop you being a good person, perhaps no harm is done.

 

[Polymath257]

Einstein in an interview:

"I believe in intuition and inspiration. I sometimes feel that I am right. I do not know that I am. When two expeditions of scientists, financed by the Royal Academy went forth to test my theory of relativity, I was convinced that tbelr conclusions would tally with my hypothesis. I was not surprised when the eclipse of May 29, 1919, confirmed my intuitions. I would have been surprised if I had been wrong."

"Then you trust more to your Imagmation than to your knowledge?"

"I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."

Source: http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/what_life_means_to_einstein.pdf

And it should also be pointed out that Einstein's intuition about quantum mechanics in relation to the EPR 'paradox' was simply wrong. Einstein did have incredible physical intuition, trained after a lot of thought and hard work.

It depends. Some things are more reasonable to suspect than others. For example the Mastermind of the universe seems more probable than a turtle with the flat world on its back.

I see them as about equally credible.

 

[Polymath257]

Intuition is an excellent means of determining a curse of action IN THE MOMENT. It is often very fast and very accurate exactly when we need to make a determination very quickly.

When it fails, it tends to do so in hindsight. But that is NOT the circumstance for which it's intended. So of course it's not going to be as reliable in that context. When we HAVE the benefit of hindsight, deliberate and conscious consideration will be the better method of making a course determination.

I would say that when we have the benefit of time, deliberate and conscious consideration will b often be better. And, we can use hindsight when intuition fails to train *new* intuitions that are more accurate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wrong, again.

No, it's not.

Atheism is a worldview.
Worldview - Wikipedia

A worldview or a world-view or Weltanschauung is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge, culture, and point of view.[1] A worldview can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.[2]