Secular Humanism

[Kfox]

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.

You asked if the claim that the natural world is all that exists is an affirmative statement, and if so where is the evidence.

I gave you the evidence that I find credible (nobody has found anything outside the natural world that exists) but I recognize you may not find that evidence credible. However if you do find it credible; mission accomplished. If not, then I ask you what type of evidence would you find credible.

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

I think it's important to note that he first defined the difference between implicit and explicit atheists, and was only considering the latter in the context of most also being Secular Humanists. Since explicit atheism requires a person to have given the topic some significant consideration, I'd strongly suggest that is a small minority of all people who don't hold a belief in any gods.

The other factor is that while it could well be true that many explicit atheists (at least in the developed world his research is likely limited to) will share similar wider worldviews which happen to align with the formal concepts of Secular Humanism but that certainly doesn't mean they specifically subscribe to (or indeed, are even aware of) that label.

For myself, I don't like labels at all, so while all of this could well be seen to describe my beliefs and worldview, I don't proactively identify with any of the terms. I'm going to try to answer your questions anyway, so make of that what you will.

1. That the natural world is all that exists

As I see it, "natural world" describes all that exists by definition, even things we don't (yet) know exist.

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

There is certainly no reason to say it needs a sentient creator (deity or otherwise). We don't know how the universe came to be, but we know it exists (probably, but lets not go there!)

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

You're trying to know something by asking for reasons that the only way to know things is reasoning? Seriously, I think that if you're taking a properly wide view of the fundamental concepts of science and reasoning (hypothesis, test, evidence) it is what everyone used to understand anything, even committed theists in the context of their beliefs.

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.

I don't think there is a whole lot of difference between what anyone thinks. Atheist, theists or anything else, we've all got a load more in common than most people given credence to. I also think that the differences in world view have more to do with cultural influences than fundamental beliefs, so a North American atheist will think more like a North American theist that the would with an African atheist (and all of the vice versa).

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I provided my source for my remarks on the assumptions of Secular Humanism.

And I provided a source fir my definitions.

 

[Nimos]

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

Yes and no.

They are making a claim that only the natural world exists and in that regard, they have the burden of proof. Yet, there is a "but" to this...

What alternatives have been presented to the natural world?

The obvious one is the supernatural, yet there is not even remotely any proof supporting this to be true. So should we even consider it an alternative? Imagine I claimed that there is a magic realm as well, that is neither divine nor natural, it is pure magic whatever that is.

My point is, that in order for someone to even disregard the claim "Only natural" they have to present a valid alternative for which no natural explanation could be valid. Not saying they have to disprove the "natural" explanation, but you can't simply throw in random words and explanations such as magic or divine or whatever you like to disregard something else for which we do have proof of, that is not valid.

 

[Nimos]

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.

There is a difference between what people adopt and what is demonstrably true, again people believe all kinds of things that are wrong, have nothing to do with religion, just talking generally. And besides, for them, these adopted beliefs hold no value.

"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.

Absolutely not.

"I don't believe you are correct when you say that vaccines are bad for people."
"I don't believe you are correct when you say that abortions are wrong."
(Obviously just examples, not saying these are your positions on these)

My disbelief in what you believe will make me oppose your beliefs and influence society in ways that I think are for the better. So disbelieves are just as valuable as beliefs are, especially if your beliefs are based on nothing demonstrable.

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.

Again that is nothing but a flaw in humans and again why the evidence and proof of one's beliefs are crucial. Because I agree with you that such things are very common. Yet if I present you with evidence that vaccines are good for human health and we go through all the data supporting it, and you ultimately do not care, that is an issue, hopefully you would agree to that? Yet, that is basically what atheists have to deal with daily, especially in highly religious societies, yet that is not considered absurd for some reason.

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.

Yes, but following the above. Do you agree that it is kind of absurd then that atheists in certain countries get killed or that people, in general, are told to behave according to certain interpretations of scriptures if no one knows if God(s) exists?

Are atheists being irrational here? What would you think about laws punishing people for criticizing or writing "mean" things about aliens?

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.

This is also why any rational scientist will always answer "I don't know" when asked what happened before the big bang, they can present theories, etc. But you will have no doubt that these are merely guesses.

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.

Exactly and this is where people potentially get scammed, fooled and misled. Whether it is worth something for the individual is irrelevant to whether it is objectively true or not, which is not what the OP is talking about.

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.

Something that isn't remotely verified isn't knowledge, whether we apply it or not in life. In many cases, these things you refer to are our common sense or simple ways of rationalizing what to do, and in many cases, it is not based on anything except our intuition, past experiences etc.

The reason we apply methods is to reduce the amount of mistakes we make. In everyday life, the most common one is critical thinking, but even that is not without flaws and in many cases, we simply don't have enough data to make the most rational decision. For instance, a choice you are making might depend on the choice of two others.

In science when using the scientific method, the idea is to reduce the amount of uncertainties to control the experiment, so that as few unknowns are influencing the data, which include human errors, biases etc. But a lot of what is discovered in science isn't directly transferable to our behavior but will tell us something about the reality in which we live. In other cases, science might discover that a certain thing is dangerous and therefore we avoid it or do change our behavior. Climate change and Covid are good examples.

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?

if your behavior is dictated by something for which there is no evidence and you at the same time admit that your belief is unproven. And you still decide to vote for certain aborting laws or punish nonbelievers due to such belief, is that not to be deluded?

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

What if I did in fact have evidence for unicorns? then it is not silly. The only reason you call it silly is because of the word "unicorn". It could just as well be me claiming to have evidence of what happened before the Big bang.

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.

I don't think we understand or use the word knowledge the same.

When Im talking about knowledge, we could look at something like gravity being real, it doesn't matter what you might call it or whether we as such understand it. We both experience it and we can demonstrate it to be true. That is objective verifiable knowledge.

What you seem to refer to as knowledge, is a subjective experience. Explained with a simple example. The taste of an apple.

I might say that I like it and you that you don't. Neither of us can demonstrate that we are right and in fact, both of us could be, because of how we experience taste.

That is not knowledge as it is with gravity.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What alternatives have been presented to the natural world?

I listed the three possible beliefs in my opening post.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You asked if the claim that the natural world is all that exists is an affirmative statement, and if so where is the evidence.

I gave you the evidence that I find credible (nobody has found anything outside the natural world that exists) but I recognize you may not find that evidence credible. However if you do find it credible; mission accomplished. If not, then I ask you what type of evidence would you find credible.

Again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Thus, while I hear your argument, it is a known fallacy.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I certainly hope T Rex isn't living in my garage.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You can't say that the T-Rex, for instance, is extinct? Really?

You think that there's a non-negligible chance that we'll find living T-Rexes somewhere in the world?

I think it is extreme improbable. But not impossible. Beliefs such as these are pretty sensible, but only if they are red flagged as being possibly mistaken.

 

[Nimos]

I listed the three possible beliefs in my opening post.

What evidence is there for the spiritual world lets just take that one? First of all what is the definition of spiritual? And how do you demonstrate it?

Now as I wrote to someone else, let's say I claim that there is a magic realm that is neither divine nor natural. Is that valid just because I think it is, without even remotely presenting anything to prove it?

And then the next person makes up another word with another explanation of what they think this "realm" is and then we have to take that into account as well.

That is what I mean by presenting valid alternatives.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What evidence is there for the spiritual world lets just take that one? First of all what is the definition of spiritual? And how do you demonstrate it?

Now as I wrote to someone else, let's say I claim that there is a magic realm that is neither divine nor natural. Is that valid just because I think it is, without even remotely presenting anything to prove it?

And then the next person makes up another word with another explanation of what they think this "realm" is and then we have to take that into account as well.

That is what I mean by presenting valid alternatives.

I have not found proof for any of the three beliefs, not naturalism, not dualism, and not immaterialism.

 

[Nimos]

I have not found proof for any of the three beliefs, not naturalism, not dualism, and not immaterialism.

You do agree that nature (as we understand it) exists right? So at least that must give some evidence that naturalism at least is partly true.

 

[Polymath257]

Again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Thus, while I hear your argument, it is a known fallacy.

I would say that it is evidence of absence. And, if evidence of existence is expected, absence of evidence can be quite good evidence of absence.

As an example, one of the most important examples of absence of evidence was in the Michelson Morley experiment, where it was expected that evidence of how light is affected by the earths motion, but such was not detected. That ultimately lead to fundamental changes in physics and how we view the universe.

There is also the case where no evidence is possible, even in theory. In that case, absence and existence are indistinguishable. And that means that nonexistence becomes the preferred position ( think off the Loch Ness monster, for example).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it is extreme improbable.

... because the absence of evidence for living T-Rexes is evidence of the absence of living T-Rexes.

But not impossible.

Right: it's not proof of absence. Inductive reasoning is very useful, but it can't give perfect certainty.

Beliefs such as these are pretty sensible, but only if they are red flagged as being possibly mistaken.

The size of that red flag varies, though.

Humans are limited. We can't search absolutely everywhere, but it's a lot less likely that we'd miss, say, a giant land dinosaur than a deep-sea fish.

And by the same token, it's a lot less likely that we'd miss a god than a giant dinosaur.

 

[PureX]

I find your question to be a bit “loaded”, it assumes a consistency of what constitutes God where there is not. As an atheist I recognize there are countless things theists choose to call God, some exist, some do not. For those that do exist, the reason I am atheist towards those things is because I don’t call them God. (just because you might give “X” the label of God doesn’t mean I will give it that label) So to answer your question, the reason I choose not to call (example) Nature, the Sun, Halle Selassie, Kumari, or the countless other things/people theists have chosen to call “God” God, is because I don’t think they qualify to be called God. But to suggest my reason for not calling anything that exist God, to be some sort of a world view, I find that to be absurd.

Of course it’s a world view. And according to it, those things you say other people call God aren’t. So clearly you have an idea of what should and shouldn’t correctly be identified as God. How else could you claim they are wrong?

 

[Kfox]

Again, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Thus, while I hear your argument, it is a known fallacy.

I disagree! For ME, in this case the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. After all it is I who decides what I find to be credible not you, or anyone else. So again; care to answer my question? If you don't agree on what I determine to be credible evidence, give me an example of something you would find to be credible evidence so I can know how to answer your question.

 

[PureX]

No, I said precisely what I meant. There is a difference between being 'not reasonable to believe' and being 'reasonable to not believe'. I meant the latter.

The only difference is that the latter is nonsensical gibberish.

But we can know things beyond any reasonable doubt.

That is not certainty, and so still requires a degree of trust from us. And that is what needs to be acknowledged.

No, belief carries no such requirement.

Of course it does. Otherwise the word is meaningless, and we wouldn’t use it. We would just say we “know”, or we “trust”.

I can believe in dark matter even if the issue isn't 100% settled.

Not if you’re being honest or logical, you can’t.

I find the evidence convincing. That is not blind presumption.

No one cares about that but you. The rest of us still know that you can’t know that what you are believing to be so, is so. We all know that you belief is not honest or logical. And the same goes for God belief (of the belief that gods don’t exist). We can presume, hope, trust, surmise, and act as if, but we still can’t know it to be so.

No, atheism is simply not having a belief in deities. it *is* about unbelief. Why you think such is BS is beyond me.

It’s sad that you can’t see why that’s just meaningless gibberish. Or why so many atheists can’t admit to it.

And no, we cannot discuss this honestly until you grasp that it really is about a lack of belief.

So be it.

 

[blü 2]

I don’t think I share your view about the world external to the self, and would argue there are a multitude of philosophical and theological perspectives which don’t either.

Where do you think I am, if not in the world external to you?

Simply put, as a philosophical Monist, I consider the self to be integral to the world, and the distinction between the one and the other to be an illusory function of subjective perspective. Though we probably mean something entirely different by the word ‘self’.

The self I speak of is the same concept of self-awareness as in phrases like Cogito ergo sum, or the utter centrality of being oneself in one's own conscious thought, and being the one who reacts to particular perceptions and particular ideas.

Even if I were to imagine I was instead part of some single all-encompassing "consciousness", it would still be "I" who thought that.

we are in the world and the world is in us, and that our perception of the universe is predicated on the illusion of otherness, separation, etc.

Perception doesn't seem illusory to me. Since you're posting here, it doesn't seem illusory to you either. And I can imagine I am a microorganism, an owl, the earth, the solar system, the universe, but no one will be thinking that for me ─ it will still be "I" on the engine.

 

[Yerda]

Yes, that would be a good reason to believe something. But what we have here is a set of three things that secular humanists believe that do NOT have evidence or rational argument.

Some secular humanists definitely don't believe the first one. The ones that do are being rational if they are correct about two things; a physical world exists, they have no good evidence of anything that isn't a physical world. That isn't to say they would be correct, they might be, but they might not be.

Regarding the second point, gods might exist (imo) and I'm sure many secular humanists would admit it is at least possible, if unlikely. If you happen to reject the existence of gods, however, you can't really avoid the conclusion that the universe can exist without gods creating it. You could characterise a persons reasoning like so:

The universe apparently exists,
Gods apparently don't,
Things that don't exist don't create things,
Therefore gods didn't create the universe,

This isn't an unreasonable one if the evidence of your experience supports it. How certain you can be of the premises and conclusion might depend on a lot of things, but the argument holds logically.

The third strikes me as obviously false and I expect is not held by the majority of secular humanists. Though I could be wrong.

What do you mean why? Do you think you can say any old thing you want, and when someone asks you why you say that, that you have no obligation to answer?

You can say any old thing you believe to be true, sure. I don't personally expect people to answer my challenge to them unless they are doing the same to me. That works fine in my experience.

All wonderful thing. But literature and music are not evidence for anything. History, at its best, is connected with science and reason.

The statement was:

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

We know what apples taste like without science or reasoning. We know what it is to be jealous or cold or sore. We can learn things about the world through literature and we can experience all sorts of music that we come to know as melodies and harmonies etc. I don't believe a secular humanist would be obligated to dispute this.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You do agree that nature (as we understand it) exists right? So at least that must give some evidence that naturalism at least is partly true.

I have not stated my own personal views in this thread. I really intend it to be for those who identify as secular humanists to give their reasons for their views.