Secular Humanism

[LuisDantas]

But why call it an Atheist world-view, if atheism is only a small sliver of his outlook on life? Why not call it like a Hispanic world-view, socialist world-view, conservative, progressive, or the countless other views he has on life?

You would have to consider specific, real cases. But it is plenty frequent enough for people to be pressured into conforming to Christian or otherwise theistic expectations and have to point out that it does not fit them because they turn out to be atheists.

 

[Kfox]

You would have to consider specific, real cases. But it is plenty frequent enough for people to be pressured into conforming to Christian or otherwise theistic expectations and have to point out that it does not fit them because they turn out to be atheists.

Your response does not address the question I asked. My question is why is it called an Atheist worldview instead of something else worldview?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Your response does not address the question I asked. My question is why is it called an Atheist worldview instead of something else worldview?

AGAIN, *I* never called Atheism a world view. In fact I explicitly, TWICE said it was NOT a world view, first in the opening post, and then in a post addressed specifically to you. I notice you never replied to the post to you. How come?

 

[Kfox]

I suggest they have one at a time, but many elements. Sometimes conflicting elements, like those Christians of the Nazi party who had no problem exterminating Jews.

So again; if Atheism represents a small part of who a person is, why name their worldview after that small part?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So again; if Atheism represents a small part of who a person is, why name their worldview after that small part?

Why do you keep saying that Atheism is a world view when you have been corrected on this multiple times?

 

[Kfox]

AGAIN, *I* never called Atheism a world view. In fact I explicitly, TWICE said it was NOT a world view, first in the opening post, and then in a post addressed specifically to you.

My question was directed to the person I was responding to before you entered the conversation. This person has a different viewpoint than you have.

I notice you never replied to the post to you. How come?

Which post number did I neglect to respond to? I would be more than happy to go back and reply to it.

 

[Kfox]

Why do you keep saying that Atheism is a world view when you have been corrected on this multiple times?

I never said it was a worldview.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I never said it was a worldview.

Are you saying that someone else is saying it is a world view? If you will tell me which post, I would love to correct them. Thanks.

 

[Kfox]

Are you saying that someone else is saying it is a world view? If you will tell me which post, I would love to correct them. Thanks.

Post #220

 

[Kfox]

Please go back and read the opening post again, more carefully. I specifically stated that atheism is not a worldview. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any God or gods. In order for something to be a worldview, it has to have a ontology, epistemology, and axiology. Atheism doesn't.

However, among explicit atheilsts, there is a world view that is common: secular humanism. Please read the original post. Better yet, watch the video I uploaded that inspired the thread -- its not long and it sources the points.

That question was directed at a different person than yourself. I was asking the question in the context of what HE believes; not what you believe.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That question was directed at a different person than yourself. I was asking the question in the context of what HE believes; not what you believe.

Got it. Sorry for my confusion. I will address them

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Atheism is a worldview.
Worldview - Wikipedia

Your quote from Wikipedia actually does NOT say either implicitly or explicitly that Atheism is a world view. The definition that Wiki uses states that a world view is an ontology. Atheism isn't. While it is more common for explicit Atheists to be naturalists, there are atheists who are dualists or immaterialists.

That's why the point of this thread is to discuss secular materialism, not atheism.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

I'm tired of your abuse. I gave the video that inspired my opening post, and if you watch the video, the Atheist who made it gives as his own sources several Secular Humanist manifestos. I won't be replying to you further. So don't bother continuing to gaslight me.

All I’ve done is point out where and how you have erred.
None of which you’ve addressed.

You asked for the defense of a position;
Now you are portraying that defense as abusing you?…….That’s rich!


You have continually said;

I gave my source for these tenets of secular humanism, meeting my obligation. Your beef is not with me, but with the Atheist who made the video.

Since he is not here to “defend” himself;

Yet you are taking everything he said as gospel and presenting it here as fact, (obviously without checking the cited sources for confirmation)
and seeking defense of the position he erroneously portrayed;
It falls to you to address, or at the very least concede the possibility of mistake, and proceeding with the discussion with the acknowledgment of the responders positions.

I pointed out where the author of the video erred.
At first he accurately portrays the humanist position (naturalist, aligned with science and reason, interested in improving the world)…..
Unfortunately, he later states that his conclusion rather sloppily described as including “science and reason are the only ways to obtain knowledge”.

I pointed out that he was making this statement for explanatory purposes.
As such, I’m willing to give him leeway with imprecise wording, so in this regard, I have no “beef with him”.

I also pointed the glaring category error that his entire premise is based on, using his own numbers.
Namely; that representing a mere 9% of atheist does not make Humanists a valid proxy for “atheists”.
This is plainly obvious.

He even stated his reason for doing so is because most atheists do not make a positive claim, but for his research purpose he required one to counterpose a religious worldview.

This is “a beef” I have with the video….
But, he did not post it here, and he is not here to defend it…..
You did post it, so you should be able to either defend it or acknowledge the error.




My challenge to you was not based on the video.
It was based on your statement in post #116…
I’m not clear how you see this as gaslighting when I’m using your own quotes.

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.

Which you apparently are unable or unwilling to address.

Apparently you seek defense of positions from others….
Yet are not up to defending your own.
Ever hear the ol’ saying….
“If you can’t stand the heat……”?

 

[F1fan]

So again; if Atheism represents a small part of who a person is, why name their worldview after that small part?

Hell if I know. I haven't seen any atheists label themselves that way. I have no idea who did in this thread.

I'm not aware of any atheists who are really interested in defining their own worldview.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

If you don't like my questions, stop responding to me.

My only response to you within this thread was to remind you it is a common courtesy not to hijack a thread.

I answered you exhaustively in one of your other two threads titled “Worldview”.

Your last reply to me in that thread indicated that you might have finally figured it out……
Yet, here you are on a thread about humanism and atheism in contrast to theism seemingly still perplexed.

Oh well.

 

[LuisDantas]

Your response does not address the question I asked. My question is why is it called an Atheist worldview instead of something else worldview?

I think I was clear enough: because it is the detail of being an atheist and not being willing to pretend otherwise that makes the difference.

 

[joelr]

If you are a secular humanist, I am interested to see you defend your positions, specifically
1. That the natural world is all that exists

Materialism and idealisim are not the only choices.
Materialism is something of an illusion emerging from the quantum realm where some mysteries exist, such as what is the information and probability at the base of the quantum realm made from? Or is it an emergent property?

None of this suggests any spirit world exists. A consciousness may just be a quantum phenomenon. QM is still a part of the natural world, it just isn't deterministic it's probabilistic. So nature may explore all possibilities that are somewhat probable. There may be other modes of existence as well. None of it needs be spiritual.

2. That the universe is self existing (needs no creation by a deity)

The universe is probabilistic, it can happen and eventually did. Why are things probabilistic, we don't know. It doesn't "need" a deity. We think the 4 fundamental forces were unified in the early big bang and split during the symmetry breaking of the expansion. We don't know what was before this or the cause for this so there is more to learn. No need for a God in the gap here.

3. That the only way to know things is through science and reasoning

We know things through intuition. If you stub your toe you may not know what you stubbed it on but you know you have an experience of pain.
The same chemicals could fire and create the illusion on the pain, making it less reliable. Intuition told us the earth was the center of the solar system and even reality. That is wrong. It didn't tell us about things we cannot see, that determinism is just classical reality and quantum reality is behind it or there are levels to infinity.
So intuition is an evolutionary tool, not a window into metaphysics. Intuition of a God could be us taking human consciousness and combining it with the concept of a fundamental reality that cannot be sub-divided. Which is a composite idea. Intuition can tell us we are having an experience. Doesn't mean it can tell us deism is real.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Materialism and idealisim are not the only choices.

Indeed. I gave three choices: naturalism, dualism, and immaterialism. According to the author of the video, secular humanists embrace naturalism. If you are a secular humanist, I invite you to share what you think your evidences are for this view. If you are not a naturalist, I'm fine with that, but I would ask you to discuss your views on some other thread.

We know things through intuition.

Again, you are promoting a view that is not that of secular humanism, according to the author of the video. And again, I'm fine with you holding the views you hold. But since you do NOT hold to the view that science and reason are the only acceptable ways to know anything, I would ask that you discuss your view on some other thread. Nothing personal at all. I'm just trying to keep the thread focused-- the thread is explicitly set up to only have secular humanists discuss their views. Notice I am not discussing my own views? That is because I am not a secular humanist either.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

Yes. A lot of experience in a field enhances intuition and it's accuracy.

I see them as about equally credible.

For Einstein gods of the religions were childish superstitions but he said that he believes "in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists".

"Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

" The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

 

[PureX]

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.

No objective test can establish the existence or purpose of dark matter or energy, either, and yet scientists are still imagining that they must exist.

No objective test can establish the existence of a "singularity" prior to the Big Bang, and yet lots of scientists imagine that it must have existed in some inexplicable form.

No objective test can explain why or even how energy behaves as it does, and does not behave as it doesn't. And yet so far as we can tell, this control is and has remained absolutely consistent in a universe where little else does.

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

Or perhaps this kind of materialist bravado is getting ahead of itself.