Secular Humanism

[PureX]

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.

I agree, because intuition is 'trained'. It's not just some random or unreasoned instinct. It's a very quick but often 'holistic' subconscious assessment, and judgment. And can sometimes even be superior to slow, conscious and deliberate assessments because it is so holistic in nature. Conscious deliberations tend to be quite linear.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree, because intuition is 'trained'. It's not just some random or unreasoned instinct. It's a very quick but often 'holistic' subconscious assessment, and judgment. And can sometimes even be superior to slow, conscious and deliberate assessments because it is so holistic in nature. Conscious deliberations tend to be quite linear.

Yes. Intuition is wonderful for coming up with hypotheses. Those hypotheses can then be tested for validity. Most of the time, they are wrong, but those few times they are correct are incredibly valuable for gaining understanding.

My point is that intuition is not knowledge. It is one important step in the way to knowledge. It is often, even usually, wrong. But it is also the source of all good ideas. For a special few, it is right a bit more often. Those few often are central to great growths in understanding. But the ideas of even the best need to be tested before they can be called understanding or knowledge.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Not quite true. It is because of objective evidence that both have been hypothesized. And, in the case of dark matter, there is a LOT of objective evidence pointing to its existence. What is missing is the determination of what dark matter is composed of in terms of elementary particles. But, using objective evidence, we can map out where dark matter is and test various alternative explanations (which have, up to now, all failed).

For dark energy, again, it is because of the objective evidence of accelerating expansion that Einstein's cosmological constant was revived at all. We are still very early in terms of looking at alternative explanations of the data so far, but all that we have is consistent with that cosmological constant (now called dark energy).

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.

The singularity is predicted based on models that have massive amounts of evidence in their favor. Those models have been extensively tested.

But, in this, you are correct. There are more inclusive models involving quantum gravity in which there is no 'singularity' (although there remains a very good approximation). The problem is that none of the quantum theories of gravity is currently testable (a technological issue, not a fundamental one).

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.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Our current theories are quite good at explaining how energy (and matter) behave. As for 'control', the only 'control' I can see as relevant here is the laws of physics. And yes, those laws, as far as we understand them, work quite well.

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

If you have a testable alternative, let someone know.

 

[Kfox]

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.

I've only noticed Christians using the term "world-view", but they are constantly directing that label onto other people who are not Christian. I was just curious why they do this; so I ask questions.

 

[ChristineM]

Of course, but that is a worldview.

Nope, is a view that gods don't exist

 

[Kfox]

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

A thread is only hijacked if other people participate. The original person I asked this question did not respond, but it seems everyone else chose to respond. What am I supposed to do; ignore them?

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

Yes! You gave me YOUR perspective of what a worldview is

Your last reply to me in that thread indicated that you might have finally figured it out……

It's nothing to figure out, I'm asking questions to understand different perspectives. You explained your perspective, but not everybody will agree with your view, so I ask questions to learn of other perspectives and views of this term

Yet, here you are on a thread about humanism and atheism in contrast to theism seemingly still perplexed.

Oh well.

If we weren't talking about worldview, this thread would probably be dead by now. I see no harm in allowing a thread to continue on a different subject; what's the harm in that? I mean; it's not like people who wanted to ask questions concerning the original subject are no longer allowed to ask,. they just quit asking those questions.

 

[Kfox]

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.

How is the detail of being an atheist and not being willing to pretend otherwise different than the detail of being a conservative and not willing to pretend otherwise; different from each other?

 

[Polymath257]

I've only noticed Christians using the term "world-view", but they are constantly directing that label onto other people who are not Christian. I was just curious why they do this; so I ask questions.

For the sake of argument, I used the definition given in the OP: a world view has an ontology, an epistemology, and an axiology.

As stated in the OP, atheism has none of those. But secular humanism does. It is also a statistical fact that most atheists in the west hold to the world view of secular humanism. Not all, certainly. And to hold the secular humanism world view is certainly not required to be an atheist.

I, for one, identify as a secular humanist as well as an atheist. I gave (some of) my reasons for secular humanism in post #94.

 

[Polymath257]

Atheism is a worldview.
Worldview - Wikipedia

By your own link, atheism is not a world view. It is NOT a "fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge, culture, and point of view". It is simply a lack of belief in deities.

In fact, the link you gave broadly agrees with the definition of world view given in the OP.

 

[PureX]

Yes. Intuition is wonderful for coming up with hypotheses. Those hypotheses can then be tested for validity. Most of the time, they are wrong,

Actually, most of the time our intuition functions as needed. It's why we trust in it as much and as often as we do.

My point is that intuition is not knowledge. It is one important step in the way to knowledge.

It's both. Intuition is an immediate unconscious probability and outcome assessment based on an array of our current knowledge that then produces new knowledge as it's being acted upon.

It is often, even usually, wrong.

No, it's really not. I don't know why you keep insisting that it is. We are all taking action based on our intuition most of the time. And it serves is very well to do so or we wouldn't do it. It's how we make quick decisions in the moment and under a given circumstance, which how most of our decisions are being made.

But it is also the source of all good ideas. For a special few, it is right a bit more often. Those few often are central to great growths in understanding. But the ideas of even the best need to be tested before they can be called understanding or knowledge.

I think you're confusing intuition with creative insight. Creative insight is when our brains connect disparate pieces of information in new ways that then provide us with a new way of understanding some aspect of our experience of being.

 

[LuisDantas]

How is the detail of being an atheist and not being willing to pretend otherwise different than the detail of being a conservative and not willing to pretend otherwise; different from each other?

Conservatism is inherently more structured and deliberate. It has or can easily develop whole ideologies to sustain its discourse.

Atheism is not comparable; it is basically a matter of refusing to encourage misunderstandings and misconceptions.

You would need something adjacent in order to make the attempt; perhaps actual ethical values such as skepticism or rationality, or political values such as laicism and protection of religious freedom.

In practice, most organized atheistic movements are made necessary as a defense against theocratic movements, superstitions going out of hand, or simple negationism and obscurantism.

There is considerable if perhaps understandable confusion between those motivations and atheism proper, which is arguably not motivational at all.

 

[Polymath257]

Actually, most of the time our intuition functions as needed. It's why we trust in it as much and as often as we do.

Yes, most of the time we are in situations where intuition works decently well.

It's both. Intuition is an immediate unconscious probability and outcome assessment based on an array of our current knowledge that then produces new knowledge as it's being acted upon.

No, it does not produce new *knowledge*. It produces new hypotheses. There is a huge difference.

No, it's really not. I don't know why you keep insisting that it is. We are all taking action based on our intuition most of the time. And it serves is very well to do so or we wouldn't do it. It's how we make quick decisions in the moment and under a given circumstance, which how most of our decisions are being made.

It serves for situations that are similar to situations we have already been in. In a situation NOT like those we have been in, intuition fails miserably most of the time.

I think you're confusing intuition with creative insight. Creative insight is when our brains connect disparate pieces of information in new ways that then provide us with a new way of understanding some aspect of our experience of being.

In that case, intuition is even less useful for new and unusual situations (although I do fail to see the difference between intuition and creative insight). Intuition needs to be trained. Outside of that training, it tends to fail badly.

 

[F1fan]

I've only noticed Christians using the term "world-view", but they are constantly directing that label onto other people who are not Christian. I was just curious why they do this; so I ask questions.

My own take on Christians who are in the moderate to conservative spectrum is that they feel entitled to claiming Truth, and that any alternative view is competition. And part of their strategy in this competition of ideas and Truth is misrepresenting others, and categorizing them as something that can be more easily criticized. Sometimes this effort is absurd and self-defeating. Look at how some Theists will assert that atheism is a religion. Well if atheism is a religion, and it is wrong, then religions can be wrong. And that would include Christianity as a religion being potentially wrong and open for skepticism. And guess what? Christianity gets tons of critique and criticism, and that gets validated by their claim that atheism is a religion and wrong. Then it comes down to how well Christians, and even those of other religions, can defend what they claim is Truth. The history tells us: not very well.

 

[PureX]

Yes, most of the time we are in situations where intuition works decently well.

No, it does not produce new *knowledge*. It produces new hypotheses. There is a huge difference.

The moment we act on it, which is immediately, knowledge is returned. "Theories" require contemplation. That doesn't happen with intuition.

It serves for situations that are similar to situations we have already been in. In a situation NOT like those we have been in, intuition fails miserably most of the time.

Yes, but ALL situations are "similar", and not.

In that case, intuition is even less useful for new and unusual situations (although I do fail to see the difference between intuition and creative insight). Intuition needs to be trained. Outside of that training, it tends to fail badly.

I can see that you really want to diminish intuition for some reason. So I'll leave you to it.

 

[Polymath257]

The moment we act on it, which is immediately, knowledge is returned.

And that knowledge can be (and often is) that the intuition was wrong.

"Theories" require contemplation. That doesn't happen with intuition.

Exactly. That's why intuition doesn't give knowledge.

Yes, but ALL situations are "similar", and not.

No, they are not. Intuition is good for social situations and in professional ones if properly trained. But the mere fact that it requires training shows that it isn't always reliable.

I can see that you really want to diminish intuition for some reason. So I'll leave you to it.

And you seem to want it to be central in a way that seems very strange to me.

Like I said, intuition is crucial for arriving at new hypotheses. It is the 'hunch' that is the beginning of the process of acquiring knowledge. But it is not the end of that process. To get to the end requires testing and verification that the intuition was correct.

Intuition is important, as all beginnings are. But to say it alone gives knowledge is, from my own experience, simply wrong.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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.

Explain how this meams atheism isn't a worldview (this is from the article).
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]

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Nope, is a view that gods don't exist

Which is a worldview.

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]

The view that gods don't exist is worldview. It's not like the "not collecting stamps isn't a hobby," this is holding a viewpoint that rejects, dismisses amd disbelieves in things and instead sees nature at work where a theist may see a god at work.

 

[Polymath257]

Explain how this meams atheism isn't a worldview (this is from the article).
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]

Atheism (the lack of belief in deities) is not a cognitive orientation, does not encompass the whole of the individual or society's knowledge, culture, or point of view. It does NOT include fundamental existential or normative postulates or themes, values, emotions, or ethics.

Atheism is simply an answer of 'no' to one particular question: "Do you believe in any deity?"

 

[Polymath257]

Which is a worldview.

The view that gods don't exist is worldview. It's not like the "not collecting stamps isn't a hobby," this is holding a viewpoint that rejects, dismisses amd disbelieves in things and instead sees nature at work where a theist may see a god at work.

Not necessarily. You seem to be confusing a world view like secular humanism with atheism.

Atheism does NOT require stating that gods don't exist. It is simply saying that whatever evidence has been given isn't convincing. Again, it is simply an answer of 'no' to the question 'Do you believe in any deities?'. The reason(s) why there is no belief can be many and varied.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Explain how this meams atheism isn't a worldview (this is from the article).
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]

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any God/gods. It is not a philosophy, or worldview. Although atheists can certainly have their own ethics, Atheism makes no statement on ethics.

According to the video I provided, a worldview must have three things: an ontology, an epistemology, and an axiology. Atheism has none of these.