Secular Humanism

[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]

Because Atheism is NOT a "cognitive orientation." It does NOT encompass the whole of a person's knowledge, culture and point of view. It is NOT a philosophy. It does NOT have postulates, themes, values, emotions, or ethics.

Atheism is simply the lack of any belief in God/gods. Nothing more. Nothing less.

At this point, all you are doing is repeating yourself. You do not appear to be responding to anything anyone else says. (Yes, I see that I'm not the only one who has corrected you on this.) Thus, I choose to simply move on. You can have the last word if you wish, but I won't be replying further.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Because Atheism is NOT a "cognitive orientation." It does NOT encompass the whole of a person's knowledge, culture and point of view. It is NOT a philosophy. It does NOT have postulates, themes, values, emotions, or ethics.

Atheism is simply the lack of any belief in God/gods. Nothing more. Nothing less.

At this point, all you are doing is repeating yourself. You do not appear to be responding to anything anyone else says. (Yes, I see that I'm not the only one who has corrected you on this.) Thus, I choose to simply move on. You can have the last word if you wish, but I won't be replying further.

I would agree that atheism, per se, doesn't constitute a world-view. However, lacking a belief in god(s) can lead one to other philosophical perspectives -- for example secular humanism, or existentialism, etc. And these I would say are definitely world-views. Secular humanism provides a cosmic outlook—a world-view in the broadest sense—grounding our lives in the context of our universe and relying on methods demonstrated by science.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I would agree that atheism, per se, doesn't constitute a world-view. However, lacking a belief in god(s) can lead one to other philosophical perspectives -- for example secular humanism, or existentialism, etc. And these I would say are definitely world-views. Secular humanism provides a cosmic outlook—a world-view in the broadest sense—grounding our lives in the context of our universe and relying on methods demonstrated by science.

I tend to agree with you.

 

[ChristineM]

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 one mention disbelief in gods, all it's saying is there is no convincing evidence that gods exist.

 

[Kfox]

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.

Isn't worldview about everything? Because it seems secular humanism is only about a small part of how a person feels about things; so though it might be a part of a worldview, how do you conclude it is sufficient to be the entirety of someone's worldview?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Isn't worldview about everything? Because it seems secular humanism is only about a small part of how a person feels about things; so though it might be a part of a worldview, how do you conclude it is sufficient to be the entirety of someone's worldview?

According to the author of the video, a world view must have an ontology, an epistemology, and an axiology. So long as an ideology has those three things, it would be considered a world view.

 

[joelr]

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.

I am a secular humanist but naturalism is sometimes misunderstood. The natural world is an emergent approximation of the underlying quantum reality. Even there in that world exists some wu-wu that we do not understand at all. Like what governs probabilities? Or information. Spacetime, even time is a mystery.
There may exist a metaphysical realm or an immaterial realm but it does not have to do with spirits or souls in any way. There are mysteries in physics that we need to understand if we even can. But ghosts and spirits don't yet have evidence, a god/universal mind also doesn't have evidence so those are not likely.

The soul leaving the body to return to it's eternal home is a Greek concept that the NT embraced. It's likely as mythic as any Greek fiction.

Most likely is naturalism just includes much more than we can understand.

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.

Well I was acknowledging we have intuition but it can be shown that it isn't reliable. So we cannot pick and choose what intuition is grounded in reality or is a composite idea.

 

[Kfox]

According to the author of the video, a world view must have an ontology, an epistemology, and an axiology. So long as an ideology has those three things, it would be considered a world view.

Atheism is not an ideology, it's the default position concerning one subject. And if you are gonna claim atheism has an epistemology, an axiology, and an ontology, what are they?

 

[Polymath257]

Atheism is not an ideology, it's the default position concerning one subject. And if you are gonna claim atheism has an epistemology, an axiology, and an ontology, what are they?

That is the point of the OP! Atheism is not a world view. Secular humanism is.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

This thread has been inspired by the follow YouTube video on the types of Atheism:

The author states that Atheism is not a world view, but that most Atheists do in fact have a common world view called Secular Humanism.

To be a worldview, something has to have the following three things:
1. An ontology, which means an understanding of what is the nature of reality. For example, some people (we call them naturalists) believe that the world is made up of only physical stuff. Others believe the world is made up of a combination of both physical stuff and spiritual stuff (dualism). A third group believes that only spiritual stuff is really really real, that the physical stuff is an illusion (immaterialism).

2. An epistimology, meaning how we can know things. So for example, can we learn things only through reason and scientific method, or can we also learn things from a divinely revealed text?

3. An axiology, or values. What is good and what is bad, right and wrong.

Secular humanism, the world view held by many (though not all) Atheists holds to naturalism, allies itself with logic and science, and wants to make the world a better place.

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
2. That the universe is self existing (needs no creation by a deity)
3. That the only way to know things is through science and reasoning

I'm not going to include the axiology question, because generally speaking, there isn't a whole lot of difference between what atheists think and what theists think. For example, both want to help those in need and refrain from harming others.

Okay, folks. Go for it!

I don't really identify as a secular humanist but would question what you mean by claim 1 (the natural world is all that exists), and 3 (the only way to know things is through science and reasoning).

By natural world, do you mean the physical world? As far as claim 3 goes, I don't think it's possible to know that we are conscious without firsthand experience of it. I don't think physical science can ever tell us why consciousness exists in the universe; it can only tell us about the physical correlates of consciousness.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And if you are gonna claim atheism has an epistemology, an axiology, and an ontology, what are they?

There must be something seriously wrong with you. I have repeatedly stated to you that Atheism does NOT have an epistimology, ontology, or axiology, which is why it is NOT a world view. And you keep replying as if I have not clarified this to you.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am a secular humanist but naturalism is sometimes misunderstood. The natural world is an emergent approximation of the underlying quantum reality. Even there in that world exists some wu-wu that we do not understand at all. Like what governs probabilities? Or information. Spacetime, even time is a mystery.
There may exist a metaphysical realm or an immaterial realm but it does not have to do with spirits or souls in any way. There are mysteries in physics that we need to understand if we even can. But ghosts and spirits don't yet have evidence, a god/universal mind also doesn't have evidence so those are not likely.

The soul leaving the body to return to it's eternal home is a Greek concept that the NT embraced. It's likely as mythic as any Greek fiction.

Most likely is naturalism just includes much more than we can understand.

Thank you for your clarification. Now, could you please share with us your evidences that no spiritual world exists?

 

[joelr]

Thank you for your clarification. Now, could you please share with us your evidences that no spiritual world exists?

Because that is a strawman, here are some things I actually did say,
-some wu exists that we do not understand
-there MAY be an immaterial realm but it doesn't have to do with spirits or souls in any way
-ghosts and spirits don't have evidence
-the soul leaving the body and returning to it's eternal home in Heaven is a Greek Hellenistic myth adopted by Hebrews in the NT
-naturalism probably includes all possible realities we just don't understand physics beyond a point


"Spiritual" has many definitions, here you ask about a specific spirit realm. There is no evidence to support a spirit realm. Personal experiences, NDE, experiences during deep meditation, can be reproduced to a decent degree by manipulating brain states. Experiments with oxygen have shown this. We cannot conclude that these experiences are external, they may still depend on the brain.

When you get to ideas like a "soul", there is just no evidence. There is however evidence that this was not a common belief, as the Old Testament demonstrates and we see the common ideas about a soul appear in Greek religion and import into Christian and Islamic thought.

Further evidence about a spirit world is no person has claimed to go to any spirit realm and return with evidence. With all these religions and cults claiming deep spiritual experiences, some where drugs are involved, some with fasting and deep meditation, someone should return with some basic information that was new.
Like the earth revolves around the sun, the universe is expanding, we are made of atoms, tiny organisms cause illness, or anything that wasn't known until science discovered it. But it's always about peace and love, which we already know about and actually conflicts with many messages in the Bible and Quran where the most important thing is worship the correct god.

Some Vedic wisdom is similar to some concepts in physics but it isn't impossible they are just general insights that happen to match physics. No one ever said energy and mass were equivalent. Just that reality is an illusion and things are interconnected. Things a mind could come to without supernatural help.

So it's a lack of evidence.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

-there MAY be an immaterial realm but it doesn't have to do with spirits or souls in any way

Then according to the man who made the video, you are not a naturalist, and therefore not a secular humanist. I appreciate your participation, but really was looking for people that meet the criteria laid out in the opening post. Be well.

 

[joelr]

Then according to the man who made the video, you are not a naturalist, and therefore not a secular humanist. I appreciate your participation, but really was looking for people that meet the criteria laid out in the opening post. Be well.

I am a secular humanist. I don't define it by a guy in a video.

Secular humanism is a philosophy, belief system or life stance that embraces human reason, logic, secular ethics, and philosophical naturalism, while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision making.

I said it's probable that the strange wu in QM can be understood as a realm of the natural world. But the natural world as we know it is not all there is. Quantum mechanics breaks down to information but has no physical counterpart. We are not sure if the wavefunction has a physical counterpart or is pure information. Which is odd. There may be an infinite amount of other realms.

But the specific supernatural realm people speak on has no evidence and seems to be a fiction. But I cannot ignore possibilities? If you are looking for some box version of secular humanists who strictly say the natural world is all there is that's fine.
I don't see the point of ignoring the fact that we don't know what is beyond the boundaries of science? It's probably not Zeus and the Greek pantheon or other fictive ideas.

 

[gnostic]

This thread has been inspired by the follow YouTube video on the types of Atheism:

The author states that Atheism is not a world view, but that most Atheists do in fact have a common world view called Secular Humanism.

To be a worldview, something has to have the following three things:
1. An ontology, which means an understanding of what is the nature of reality. For example, some people (we call them naturalists) believe that the world is made up of only physical stuff. Others believe the world is made up of a combination of both physical stuff and spiritual stuff (dualism). A third group believes that only spiritual stuff is really really real, that the physical stuff is an illusion (immaterialism).

2. An epistimology, meaning how we can know things. So for example, can we learn things only through reason and scientific method, or can we also learn things from a divinely revealed text?

3. An axiology, or values. What is good and what is bad, right and wrong.

Secular humanism, the world view held by many (though not all) Atheists holds to naturalism, allies itself with logic and science, and wants to make the world a better place.

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
2. That the universe is self existing (needs no creation by a deity)
3. That the only way to know things is through science and reasoning

I'm not going to include the axiology question, because generally speaking, there isn't a whole lot of difference between what atheists think and what theists think. For example, both want to help those in need and refrain from harming others.

Okay, folks. Go for it!

A secular humanist makes the positive claim that only the natural world exists. Thus, he is obligated to give the reasons for this belief. Any time we make any positive statement, the onus is on us to defend it.

That the existence of the universe is not dependent on supernatural explanations, that the natural processes are all that is needed to understand its origin and existence.

I have met many people who believe this, and I count myself among them. I do not believe that religious texts or "looking within" are reliable sources of knowledge. If someone wants to prove something to me, they have to do it using science or reason.

Secular Humanism does posit for explanations of the natural world over the supernatural. but it isn’t just about naturalism.

It would also posit for human reasoning and logic, over religions that of divine reasoning and the “God did it” superstitions.

But it is just about naturalism over supernaturalism.

Secular Humanism is also about humans can be moral and ethical through human reasoning, without the morality and ethics that come from religious dogma, religious customs & superstitions.

 

[endlessvoid2018]

I would say my stance on secular humanism, since I believe in it and would consider myself one to a degree, is more concerned with human flourishing, morality and equality for me than anything else. I take it at face value and treat it as if that the natural world is all that is, without necessarily claiming that. I don't believe there is any gods, and even if I did, that they are clearly not going to come down and do anything for us.
So in that regard, I think what's important to me is treating others with respect, tolerance, understanding, and keeping society/politics/the church and state separate. This life, and again I'm not claiming to know this, may very well be the only one that we get, so I think it's important that we
all try to get along and make the world better for everyone, since we are all here on this planet together, and there clearly isn't anything supernatural helping us in any way that we have evidence for.

I identify as agnostic/atheist/humanist

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

My intuition says that @PearlSeeker pulled that stuff out of their butt.

... which I guess means that regardless of whether @PearlSeeker is correct or not, I'm probably right.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What does it mean to have an atheist world-view?

It means that a person holds a worldview that doesn't include any gods.

And is it possible for a person with an atheist world-view to have more in common with someone with a Christian world-view; than another person with an atheist world-view?

Of course. This is the point made by every atheist freethinker in every "Stalin was an atheist!!1!" thread.

 

[Kfox]

It means that a person holds a worldview that doesn't include any gods.

Let’s say (for example) my views includes socialism, pacifism, and a who bunch of other “isms” that I find good, but does not include theism Why pick the one ism that describe the negative (rather than all the other isms that describe the positive), and call that my worldview? IOW why not call it a socialist worldview, or pacifist worldview etc.?

Of course. This is the point made by every atheist freethinker in every "Stalin was an atheist!!1!" thread.

But if atheism is such a non-issue concerning my views, why make it the center point of my world view? Why not pick something that is far more important to me than imaginary creatures that rarely cross my mind, to be the name of my world view?