Secular Humanism

[IndigoChild5559]

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!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(not again)

 

[Yerda]

Good thread.

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

I can't see any reason to think there's something that exists that isn't part of it.

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

Can you explain what you mean here?

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

I don't know that anyone really thinks this.

 

[Nakosis]

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

Sorry, I don't identify as a secular humanist.
I identify as a non-binary physicalist.

Though I am curious whether someone who does identify as a secular humanist sees these questions as relevant to their position.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Good thread.


I can't see any reason to think there's something that exists that isn't part of 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.

Can you explain what you mean here?

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 don't know that anyone really thinks this.

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.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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!

The natural world is all that exists as it stands right now, which leads to the need to approach the question scientifically particularly when you're asking a yes or no question.

Whch in this case would be either the natural world is all that exists, or the natural world is not all that exists.

Thus requiring an agnostic approach using science, which can answer the question eventually provided humans are around long enough as evidences and new information can be presented over time to settle the matter.

Professor Richard Dawkins would put that into the temporary agnostic category as science can approach this, leaving the question open until it's conclusions can be arrived at.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sorry, I don't identify as a secular humanist.
I identify as a non-binary physicalist.

Though I am curious whether someone who does identify as a secular humanist sees these questions as relevant to their position.

Please share what you mean by non-binary physicalist. At first glace, this appears to be another way of saying that you are a naturalist, but I don't want to assume.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The natural world is all that exists as it stands right now,

Can you please give your proof of this?

which leads to the need to approach the question scientifically particularly when you're asking a yes or no question, which in this case would be either the natural world is all that exists, or the natural world is not all that exists , thus requiring an agnostic approach using science which can answer the question eventually, provided humans are around long enough as evidences can be presented over time to settle the matter.

Professor Richard Dawkins would put that into the temporary agnostic category as science can approach this, leaving the question open until it's conclusions can be arrived at.

Are you saing that science and reason are the ONLY sources of obtaining knowledge? If so, can you give your reasons why you think this? Thanks

 

[Twilight Hue]

Can you please give your proof of this?

Are you saing that science and reason are the ONLY sources of obtaining knowledge? If so, can you give your reasons why you think this? Thanks

The proof and evidences are plainly clear and obvious in front of everyone. Everything runs through natural processes as it stands right now. Its pretty much a statement of the facts as things stand presently.

I can think of no better method than science that this can be approached. The scientific method alone will adequately explain why this is the case as it's already a proven and effective method for which our technology and advancement stands as a testament to the effectiveness of science.

All you have to do to dispute this, will be to adequately show me and point out anywhere what is not natural and what other methodology can supersede scientific methods that are already established.

 

[Nakosis]

Please share what you mean by non-binary physicalist. At first glace, this appears to be another way of saying that you are a naturalist, but I don't want to assume.

My view is the only thing that can affect the physical universe is the physical universe. That's not to make the claim that anything non-physical doesn't exist, but if it does, it can't affect the physical universe so there is no point worrying about it.

So I wouldn't make any of claims that are the basis of your 3 questions. IOW, the questions aren't relevant to my position.
Again, just curious to hear from someone who does find these questions relevant.

 

[Yerda]

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 is my defense of it. I don't see any reason to suppose there's anything other than the world I experience.

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.

Thanks. I don't think anyone has a firm grip on this. A secular humanist is within their rights to point out that no one can demonstrate any supernatural processes or explanations. No?

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.

We know things by learning them and we don't always learn by reading in textbooks, right?

There seems to be a lot to know in all sorts of places that aren't science and reasoning.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The proof and evidences are plainly clear and obvious in front of everyone. Everything runs through natural processes as it stands right now. Its pretty much a statement of the facts as things stand presently.

I can think of no better method than science that this can be approached. The scientific method alone will adequately explain why this is the case as it's already a proven and effective method for which our technology and advancement stands as a testament to the effectiveness of science.

All you have to do to dispute this, will be to adequately show me and point out anywhere what is not natural and what other methodology can supersede scientific methods that are already established.

I'm making no claim, so I have nothing I need to support. You are making more than one claim, and you have not provided any evidence. Your argument seems to be that its self apparent. Well, its not, or everyone would agree with you and they don't.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

My view is the only thing that can affect the physical universe is the physical universe. That's not to make the claim that anything non-physical doesn't exist, but if it does, it can't affect the physical universe so there is no point worrying about it.

So I wouldn't make any of claims that are the basis of your 3 questions. IOW, the questions aren't relevant to my position.
Again, just curious to hear from someone who does find these questions relevant.

Thank you for elaborating.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That is my defense of it. I don't see any reason to suppose there's anything other than the world I experience.

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

Thanks. I don't think anyone has a firm grip on this. A secular humanist is within their rights to point out that no one can demonstrate any supernatural processes or explanations. No?

They have to do MORE than that. They have to provide evidence for the positive statements they make.

We know things by learning them and we don't always learn by reading in textbooks, right?

There seems to be a lot to know in all sorts of places that aren't science and reasoning.

Such as?

 

[osgart]

defend your positions, specifically
1. That the natural world is all that exists

Not answerable. The natural world is the totality of what we can perceive and know.

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

That's a matter of belief. Belief with certainty is not knowledge, it is religion.

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

The ways of knowing are through science, logical reasoning, coupled with experience, some philosophy , and understanding. Humans are natural scientists when they are free from bad religion, and have good resources and information available to them. Math is a way of knowing within certain domains.

I would also add that a natural spirituality that works with virtues, and character values, that springs from our understanding of language, and our own inner experience is a path to knowledge. From there we can learn morality, and transcend our biological limitations.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'm making no claim, so I have nothing I need to support. You are making more than one claim, and you have not provided any evidence. Your argument seems to be that its self apparent. Well, its not, or everyone would agree with you and they don't.

How is it a claim?

I've made not one single claim here , other than showing the facts as it presently stands and approaching it scientifically , allowing any new information in to change things as long as such new information can be verified and established.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not answerable. The natural world is the totality of what we can perceive and know.

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

 

[IndigoChild5559]

How is it a claim?

I've made not one single claim here , other than showing the facts as it presently stands and approaching it scientifically , allowing any new information in to change things as long as such new information can be verified and established.

All positive statements are claims. If I say "Elephants exist," that is a claim. If I say, "The dodgers are the best baseball team" that is a claim. If I say, "The natural world is all that exists," that is a claim. If you say, "Everything runs through natural processes as it stands right now," that is a claim. Anytime we make positive statements such as these, the onus is on us to provide evidence when asked for it.

 

[Nakosis]

How is it a claim?

I've made not one single claim here , other than showing the facts as it presently stands and approaching it scientifically , allowing any new information in to change things as long as such new information can be verified and established.

If I may,
If you watch the video, the view is that most atheists share the same three positive views.
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

Making the claim that these 3 statements are true. If you agree they are true then you are making a positive claim about them.
So if you agree with these statements, you're being asked to justify your agreement.

Myself, even though an atheist, I don't explicitly agree with these statements. While I have other explicit positions, they are not being questioned here.

 

[osgart]

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

Not answerable.