Secular Humanism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope. Such a person would not be a naturalist. Nice try.

I love how sure you are when defining other people's worldviews. Between "secular humanist" and now "naturalist," you're 0 for 2.

 

[Polymath257]

The absence of evidence can only be considered evidence if the evidence expected is clearly defined, recognizable, and acsertainable. This is not even remotely true regarding the existence of anything we might consider "God", so that an absence of evidence in this instance isn't even remotely meaningful. In fact, to even expect or demand such incomprehensible evidence is completely absurd.

And that means that the term 'God' is not precisely enough defined to even ask the question of existence. Unless it is 'defined, recognizable, and ascertainable', the question is simply ill-posed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Actually, if anyone makes the positive claim that ONLY the natural world exists, then yes, they do indeed have a burden of proof.

That's not the claim. The claim is that the natural world is made up of everything that exists.

And this is an axiomatic definition, so it requires no proof. Asking for "proof" misses the point. Do you need proof that a perfect score in bowling is 300?

 

[Polymath257]

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?

It isn't hard to understand. The question is whether their beliefs are justified by the evidence.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

That would be negative evidence, ...

What do they call mansplaining to a man?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

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

You are more than welcome to set up a thread designed to discuss other world views. I would be glad to participate, although I think you may be surprised of my views, as I am an agnostic theist, not your typical theist. However, THIS thread is set up specifically to discuss the assumptions of secular humanism, so I would appreciate it if in THIS thread you would limit yourself to that.

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

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.

 

[PureX]

If that is the case, then it is not a position worth taking seriously, as it is based on nothing.

It's based on something. But you'd have to ask the theist or the atheist in situ, what. There are lots of other reasons that people adopt a given premise besides having proof. And we all do it all the time.

But disbelief in something is not demanding anything, it is merely a position that something isn't found to be convincing enough to believe in.

"Disbelief" is just meaningless gibberish. No one cares what your "not convinced enough to believe in". And it's no one's responsibility to convince you of anything, anyway.

Belief means that you take an active position that ought to be backed up by evidence, that would justify such belief.

That's what the Kangaroo court judges all say: "It's your job to convince me even though I have no intention if ever being convinced!" They try to run that game of everyone. It's just annoying and exhausting.

"I don't know" is simply that enough knowledge or evidence is insufficient to hold either position.

I agree. But "I don't know" is not theism, nor atheism. In fact most theists AND atheists will readily admit that they do not know if God exists or not. How could they? Only the "true believer" actually believe that they can know.

No, it doesn't.

That is like saying that because you can't see beyond the wall of your house, nothing or anything could happen beyond it.

It's more like saying that because we cannot see beyond the parameters of physical existence as we know them, we have no idea what might lay beyond. And of course that is logically quite true.

That is not how logic works.

It works exactly like that.

Ultimately if someone claims that more is going on than what we see, there is nothing wrong with that, but until evidence for it is presented, then it is not worth much.

I must surmise that it's worth something to them. And they must feel that it could be worth something to me, too, as they are bothering to share it with me. That doesn't mean I have to accept it. But it also doesn't meat they're crazy.

This needs to be verifiable to be counted as knowledge, otherwise, you might get fooled by misunderstandings, lies, misinterpretations, etc.

All knowledge is verified by the fact that it functions as knowledge when we apply it to our experience of life. And we do get "fooled" all the time. ALL of us. Because our knowledge is always being limited by our circumstances. And they are always changing.

If you claim something is proved then you should also be able to document it so it could be verified.

Who is claiming that God is "proved" that isn't self-deluded? And why would we listen to someone that is clearly self-deluded? Unless we want to be self-deluded, too?

Whereas I can claim that unicorns don't exist, it ought to not have any meaning for anyone, except as a statement.

It would just be more nonsense. And should be taken as such.

Whereas if I said that I have proof of unicorns, it would be a completely different story.

Again, this is all just nonsense based on lack of thought and silly incomplete statements pretending to be anvils.

Humans make mistakes all the time, poor judgment calls, and bad at remembering things all of which can influence our intuition. Just take something like UFO, lots of people are convinced that these are alien spaceships. If we should hold intuition at the same level as verified demonstrable knowledge, we should be investing a lot of money and time in defense systems and how to deal with these aliens that abduct people. That would be the sensible thing to do.


Verifiable knowledge

The problem here is that you seem to imagine that "knowledge" is a single uniform experience of reality that we all must share. And it's not that, at all. "Knowledge" is just OUR experience of reality. It doesn't have to be shared to be what it is. Or to be valid.

 

[Polymath257]

And yet, there is is, spelled out in the OP. A worldview complete with ontology, epistemology, and axiology. Just mislabeled as "secular humanism".

No, the OP makes a clear distinction between atheism (which is not a world view) and secular humanism (which is). Not all atheists are secular humanists, even if most are.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And yet, there is is, spelled out in the OP. A worldview complete with ontology, epistemology, and axiology. Just mislabeled as "secular humanism".

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God/gods, no more, no less. This lacks the necessary elements (ontology, epistimology, and axiology) of a world view.

Although it is quite common for Atheists to be secular humanists, especially in the West, it is not always the case. For example, in the far east, a person may not believe in God/gods, but still be a dualist rather than a naturalist because they believe that abstractions exist.

Although I tried really hard to sum up the video, I of course cannot relay all that it said. I strongly recommend that you watch the video that inspired this thread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

THIS thread is set up specifically to discuss the assumptions of secular humanism,

The assumptions or your assertions?

I accept the definitions offered by the Cambridge Dictionary, i.e.,

• secular: not having any connection with religion
• secular humanism: a set of beliefs that emphasize the importance of reason and of people rather than religion

Secular humanism can be embraced by theist and atheist alike.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

A possibility - but again, how would I know? So, more agnostic atheist than purely atheist.

You may in fact be an agnostic (a form of soft atheism). That's fine. But clearly you are not a secular humanist. Thanks for replying.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Despite millions of people searching, nobody in the history of mankind has ever found any empirical evidence of anything existing outside the material /natural world. Now for me, that is sufficient evidence, though I doubt that would be sufficient for you, that's why I ask what type of evidence YOU would find convincing.

I have made no positive claim that I need to support.

Again, you are welcome to provide those things that YOU consider evidence, and we can then discuss whether they do in fact prove your point, or whether i.e. you are using a logical fallacy. But I cannot reply to proofs you have not mentioned. I can't read your mind.

 

[Polymath257]

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

Actually, there is. It just means you won't ever get a proof. To be a proof means it is recognizable.

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.

Which means the belief is equally absurd. If it is impossible to re4ach beyond the natural world to get a proof, that simply means there is no proof.

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.

No, that is incorrect. As described in the OP, a lack of belief in God characterizes atheism. Going beyond and stating the belief that there is no God is 'strong atheism'. Most atheists are NOT strong atheists in this sense.

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

Only if you are not interested in learning how the world works beyond your own desires.

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.

If it is evidence, the link can be presented and tested. If those are impossible, it is simply not evidence.

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.

It is trivially easy to test this. Ask a number of people what their intuition says about something and then test to see whether they are correct.

Yes, we engage in intuition regularly. But that doesn't mean it is accurate. And, in fact, in many situations it is demonstrably wildly inaccurate.

At achieving what?

Obtaining knowledge?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I disagree that this is something that necessarily is included in secular humanism.

I provided the source for these tenets of secular humanism, meeting my obligation. If you disagree with that, your beef is not with me but with the Atheist who created the video. If you watch the video for yourself, he himself gives his sources for his remarks, various manifestos of secular humanism.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

An example of different kind of knowledge is nonverbal communication. It's often intuitive.

Thank you for your reply. I agree that we humans do often follow our intuition. I certainly do. But these sorts of intuition have a high rate of error. For example, humans are notorious for intuiting the existence of agency when none exists. In my own view, any view based on intuition needs to be red flagged as a possible error.

 

[ChristineM]

Actually, if anyone makes the positive claim that ONLY the natural world exists, then yes, they do indeed have a burden of proof.

I don't play football. Do i need to prove that i don't play football?

I don't collect stamps, do i need to prove that I don't indulge in philately

 

[PureX]

No, the OP makes a clear distinction between atheism (which is not a world view) and secular humanism (which is). Not all atheists are secular humanists, even if most are.

Atheism is a worldview (a concept of reality), it's just not the same worldview as secular humanism.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I love how sure you are when defining other people's worldviews. Between "secular humanist" and now "naturalist," you're 0 for 2.

I provided the source for my remarks, meeting my obligation. Your beef is not with me, but with the Atheist who uploaded the video. If you watch the video, he himself gives his sources, which are various manifestos of secular humanism.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That's not the claim. The claim is that the natural world is made up of everything that exists.

I provided the source for my definition of naturalism, meeting my obligation. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the author of the video.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I provided the source for my remarks, meeting my obligation. Your beef is not with me, but with the Atheist who uploaded the video. If you watch the video, he himself gives his sources, which are various manifestos of secular humanism.

I see you skipped over my question again:

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