Secular Humanism

[Kfox]

It is self evident that nobody in the history of mankind has ever found any evidence of anything at all existing outside the realm of consciousness. And yet presumably, you believe that it does?

No, I'm saying it does not exist.

 

[PureX]

Dawkins, by his own words is not atheist but agnostic.

And it seems that only theists think atheists admire him. Most atheists i know just wish he'd get on with his job.

I just wish he'd shut up. But he get's paid to spout off, now, so he never shuts up. Like Tucker Carlson.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I just wish he'd shut up. But he get's paid to spout off, now, so he never shuts up. Like Tucker Carlson.

Your pathetic attempts at ad hominims are noted.

 

[LuisDantas]

I just don't get how creationists and adjacent groups don't realize how unreasonable and ethically dubious their episthemological incoherence is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

After this, do I get to have you defend a bunch of off-base points about how I think your worldview works?

Speaking as a secular humanist, none of the points you listed are intrinsic to secular humanism.

Humanism is mostly about ethical positions and values, especially acknowledging the innate worth of all people.

Yes, I think that everyone has an ethical obligation for their views to be properly informed, but this isn't really a secular humanism-specific thing.

 

[ChristineM]

I just wish he'd shut up. But he get's paid to spout off, now, so he never shuts up. Like Tucker Carlson.

I agree and your claim

Richard Dawkins is to atheism what Tucker Carlson is to 'news'.

Is complete nonsense, like all your other posts disparaging atheism

I would think most athletes think the same of him as you do

 

[ChristineM]

Not even that.

It's just disbelief of god claims, that's it. There's no implying of any possible or potential reasons or motivations for that disbelief inherent in the label "atheist".

People always try to make so much of that silly word. Really, the label shouldn't even exist.
It's like having a word for people who don't play soccer or who don't like star trek or who don't believe in voodoo.

It's completely meaningless.

My atheism is based on reading the bible and no evidence to show the bible was anything more than a fairy story.

Many of the atheist i know hold disbelief in god claims because there is no evidence.

I can live with that

 

[LuisDantas]

I just wish he'd shut up. But he get's paid to spout off, now, so he never shuts up. Like Tucker Carlson.

You really ought to value the results of your ability to communicate at least a bit more than this, PureX.

 

[PureX]

I just don't get how creationists and adjacent groups don't realize how unreasonable and ethically dubious their episthemological incoherence is.

I don't think they care. As they don't see it effecting their experience of life. Whereas they do see the religiosity they grew up in effecting their lives. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[PureX]

After this, do I get to have you defend a bunch of off-base points about how I think your worldview works?

Speaking as a secular humanist, none of the points you listed are intrinsic to secular humanism.

I agree. Many atheists are secular humanists, but not because they are atheists. Many theists are also secular humanists, but not because they are theists. Secular humanism is not a correlative of theology.

Humanism is mostly about ethical positions and values, especially acknowledging the innate worth of all people.

Values based on an appreciation of humanity. Sometimes God related, sometimes not.

Yes, I think that everyone has an ethical obligation for their views to be properly informed, but this isn't really a secular humanism-specific thing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I just wish he'd shut up. But he get's paid to spout off, now, so he never shuts up. Like Tucker Carlson.

I'm sure he gets media coverage somewhere and I assume that he still has his social media accounts, but it's sure seemed to me that, for about the last decade, to hear from Richard Dawkins, you really need to go out of your way to do it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My atheism is based on reading the bible ...

Curiouser and curiouser (if not ridiculous).

 

[Nimos]

1. That the natural world is all that exists

If anyone can present evidence for something other than the natural world, that would be considered a relevant alternative. The burden of proof is not on the humanists/naturalists to prove that ONLY the natural world exists, that is to make a fallacy, to shift the burden of proof.

It would be equal to demanding someone to prove that life, as we know it on Earth, can only exist in this form, which would mean that such a person would have to travel the whole Universe to prove their belief, that is not how things works.

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

This demand follows the same issue as the one above. You are basically requesting a non-believer to disprove deities for which they have made no claim.

We can all agree that the Universe exists, whether one is a believer in God(s) or not. The humanist/naturalist doesn't claim to know what caused the Universe, simply that they see no evidence for divine intervention.

I could just as well rephrase the question like this:
2. That the Universe was created by a deity (needs no simulation)

There is no way for you to prove that the whole deity thing is not simply part of a simulation and neither should you have to prove it, since you didn't make the claim and no evidence for such simulation has been presented.

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

We currently have no other ways of examining/testing things to check if they fit reality. We have lots of data showing that intuition and guessing are highly inaccurate ways and poor at obtaining knowledge.

Which alternatives exist that can compete with the scientific method?

 

[Polymath257]

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.

OK, I generally align with secular humanism. But I am going to take your questions in the reverse order.

The question for 3 is how we know things. I distinguish knowledge from opinion. Opinions can vary from person to person: I don't like tomatoes and someone else does. I want to live by mountains, others do not. These are matters of personal taste and preference. Knowledge, on the other hand, stays the same whether or not you like it. That means that to get to knowledge, you need to be careful about biases: confirmation bias is the one of the main ones.

So, to get to knowledge, you need to test your ideas. More specifically, you need to try to show that they are *wrong*. The more you *like* an idea, the more you should try to show it to be wrong. Doing so helps to minimize biases. Whatever is left we have have more confidence in. And, as we test the ideas in more and more general situations, that level of confidence graduates into what we call knowledge.

But this process of being skeptical and testing ideas is *precisely* the scientific method, which includes the use of reason. That is why I say that the only way to *know* things is through the scientific method.

Now, there are a great many important ideas that do not qualify as knowledge: ideas about right and wrong, ideas about art and the best way to live, which goals we have. These are NOT, in my mind, questions about knowledge, but rather are matters of opinion. But they are still vital questions for living life. Discussing them is an interesting and important part of life. But it is figuring out an opinion and not determining knowledge.

Next, I will address the first question. The main issue here is what is meant by the term 'natural world'. And, as far as I can see, it is *precisely* those things that can be observed and tested. In other words, they are precisely those things we can have *knowledge* about. In particular, to 'exist' means that the presence of something can be tested for, at least in principle. In other words, only the 'natural world' actually 'exists'.

Classically, there is an issue with abstract ideas: do they 'exist' or not? For example, do mathematical 'objects' exist? In the sense above, I would say that they do not. There is a technical use of the term 'exists' in math and logic, but it is quite different than what is used in discussing the real world (as opposed to formal systems).

More precisely, I think that everything supervenes (in the philosophical sense) upon the physical: if anything changes, it is because something physical has changed.

Finally, question 2. I don't know precisely what it means to be 'self-existing'. That requires a notion of causality that I don't see as relevant to the universe as a whole (as opposed to events *within* the universe). I think that the universe of spacetime 'simply exists'. It is not caused (because causes require time and time is part of the universe). The question of why there is something as opposed to nothing is, I think, a non-issue. Causality simply doesn't apply here. And we know that something does, in fact, exist.

 

[Kfox]

And yet there it is, a worldview, right there in the OP, complete with ontology, epistemology, and axiology. Just mislabeled "secular humanism".

The OP lists 3 things required in order to have a worldview. Just because someone is an atheist doesn't mean they have all 3 of those things. To admit you don't know is a perfectly reasonable response to any question you don't have an answer for.

 

[PureX]

If anyone can present evidence for something other than the natural world, that would be considered a relevant alternative. The burden of proof is not on the humanists/naturalists to prove that ONLY the natural world exists, that is to make a fallacy, to shift the burden of proof.

There is no burden of proof when we cannot recognize such proof even if it were present.

It would be equal to demanding someone to prove that life, as we know it on Earth, can only exist in this form, which would mean that such a person would have to travel the whole Universe to prove their belief, that is not how things works.

Actually one would have to reach beyond the "natural world" to obtain such proof. And then be able to recognize what they found there as being proof. This is an absurd demand which is why demanding it is absurd.

This demand follows the same issue as the one above. You are basically requesting a non-believer to disprove deities for which they have made no claim.

Disbelief is a claimed position. "I don't know" is not claiming a position. Belief and disbelief face the same problem, though, when it comes to either of them demanding proof of the other's validity. As the demand is equally absurd either way.

We can all agree that the Universe exists, whether one is a believer in God(s) or not. The humanist/naturalist doesn't claim to know what caused the Universe, simply that they see no evidence for divine intervention.

What we see is irrelevant, as we clearly do not see all that is, or could be. So not seeing something logically indicates nothing.

I could just as well rephrase the question like this:
2. That the Universe was created by a deity (needs no simulation)

There is no way for you to prove that the whole deity thing is not simply part of a simulation and neither should you have to prove it, since you didn't make the claim and no evidence for such simulation has been presented.

The evidence is everywhere, and nowhere, depending on the perspective of assessment. And so it is of no significance either way. Claiming it doesn't exist is exactly as valid as claiming that everything is proof.

We currently have no other ways of examining/testing things to check if they fit reality. We have lots of data showing that intuition and guessing are highly inaccurate ways and poor at obtaining knowledge.

That's just biased nonsense. Intuition is extremely accurate which is why we all engage in it constantly. And you can't prove otherwise by any other means.

Which alternatives exist that can compete with the scientific method?

At achieving what?

 

[F1fan]

Have you ever heard the expression "the absence of evidence is not evidence of abense" ???

If you've never heard anyone else refer to gods existing would you have any reason to assume they do exist from what is observed around us< and with a modern education that includes science?

If modern people are going to consider gods as a reasonable assumption, and something that has to be proven as not being possible, then they are ignoring that proving negatives are illogical. We have to prove that things exist, and that includes gods. We have to realize that our gods beliefs come from social influence and social learning as a tradition of belief. These beliefs get conditioned in our thinking and becomes a sort of operating software, unless you are willing to be skeptical at an early age.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you ever heard the expression "the absence of evidence is not evidence of abense" ???

Yeah - it's wrong.

The absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It's just not absolute proof of absence.

How do you think they determine whether a species is extinct?

 

[PureX]

To admit you don't know is a perfectly reasonable response to any question you don't have an answer for.

Yes, but it has nothing to do with theism or atheism. Both will freely admit they don't know. So the question is why do they choose their respective stance on god's existence, anyway?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you agree with the affirmative statement that the natural world is all that exists? If so, do you have evidence of it?

In naturalism, eveything that exists is defined as "natural."

You're trying to misrepresent a disagreement about standards of evidence as a disagreement about inherent assumptions in one's worldview.

There's nothing stopping a naturalist from believing in, say, a god. If they dumud, they'd just declare that god part of "nature."

The reason naturalists don't accept your beliefs isn't because they're naturalists; it's because the justification for your beliefs is too crappy for them to accept.