Secular Humanism

[Dao Hao Now]

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

To begin with, allow me to clarify, I do not identify as a Secular Humanist (I don’t necessarily disagree with their point of view…I just don’t go looking for a “group” I identify with);
I do identify as an atheist.
My point of view may differ from someone that does identify as Secular Humanist.

I’ll take a stab at your questions and you can determine if it’s valid for your purposes.

1. I agree that the “natural world” is all that exists.
The reason being: I accept the evidence that it exists, I have not yet encountered credible evidence that anything “beyond” it exists….
So I default to accepting what is known, until such time as credible evidence of anything else comes along.

2. Similar to #1, I accept that the universe exists…(I include this with “the natural world”), and have as of yet not encountered credible evidence that a deity exists… so see no reason or justification to assume one as a “creator” of it.

3. This is where I have a sticking point.
To the best of my knowledge Secular Humanists don’t claim that the “only” way to know things is through science and reasoning.
I personally do not claim that.

At the risk of seeming pedantic;
there is a difference between “allies itself with logic and science” (from your summation of Secular Humanist beliefs) and “the only way to know things is through science and reasoning.”
The latter being an often false accusation by those attempting to claim “scientism” on anyone who accepts science.

I would agree that the “best” way we have derived at gaining accurate, credible, objective knowledge about the known universe (the natural world) is through science which incorporates reasoning.

So if you are amenable to altering the question concerning your third point to:
3. “That the best way to know things is through science and reasoning”…..

I would “defend” that position by first clarifying that by “know things” I would be restricting those “things” to things which can be verified to exist — which would place them theoretically in the real world— and since science has historically been shown to be the most accurate and repeatedly verifiable way to gain knowledge and understanding of those “things” that therefore the best way to objectively “know” those things is through science.

I might also add that concerning more abstract “things” that reason and rationality remains a preferred way of “knowing things” where science in it’s strictest sense is not applicable, and that these “things” tend to be less objective, reliable, and repeatable, and therefore less universally agreed upon.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I do identify as a secular humanist, and have done for many years (most of my life, at almost 76).

That the natural world is all that exists seems obvious to me, because I have never observed anything not part of this world. (In this context, I am defining "world" as our universe, not merely Earth.) There is no evidence of any kind, that anyone has ever produced, that shows that there is anything that answers to the description "spiritual stuff." The humanist ontology tells us that it is not hard for humans to imagine a "spirit" that animates things, for the simple reason that when one of us dies, we still have (for a while, until they get stinky) all the physical stuff of which they were made, but "something seems to have abandoned them."

This same idea, when it was a strong tribal leader who died, led people to suppose that "if something left," it may be somehow contactable, and when under duress, try to gain access to the now-defunct leader's advice. Perhaps someone in the tribe, close in life to the late leader, might ask himself "what would Grog do" (like some nowadays ask "what would Jesus do"), and might get a fairly reasonable answer. How easy it would be, then, for the tribe to suppose that this represented a kind of contact with their dead leader.

But, in fact, nothing like this happens. Debunking most of the stories of "contacting the dead" is pretty trivial, really.

That the universe is self existing (needs no creation by a deity) is definitely harder. The question of "why is there something rather than nothing" has been perplexing many very great thinkers for a long, long time. But the answers that have most often been proposed -- that it is the work of some sorty of deity -- just immediately leads to the question "why is there a deity rather than no deity?" And this is a harder question, because the very idea of a "deity" implies not only existence, but a purpose (creation) and power (to create). That, to me, is a much, much harder thing to answer. Because, in the end, I tend to think that the old maxim "nothing is impossible" is quite correct -- if translated this way: "it is impossible that 'nothing' should exist."

And the fact is, it does seem, looking at what we know of (and the little I understand of) Quantum Mechanics, that "nothing" can and does regularly break down into "something" and "anti-something." If this happens often enough, even though most such pairings may rejoin and self-destruct into nothing again, some few might remain. And the rest just becomes physics.

That the only way to know things is through science and reasoning is, for me, the only rational supposition. The only other choice, when trying to understand something, is to ask for instruction -- to literally seek answers from some sort of "authority." And as far as I can see, reading the Bible, the Qur'an, the Granth Gury Sahib and other such sources, gives some very poor, and often very wrong, answers.

The key difference between seeking knowledge through science and reasoning, versus some revelation by authority, is that as we learn more, science and reasoning are open to review and amendment -- authority almost never is.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Well the first mistake on that list in regards to what atheists think, is there are no pre-concluded claims whatsoever because if there were such closed ended conclusions , an atheist would essentially be exactly the same as a theist except in reverse.

Particularly if it is going to use science. I find one and two contradicts number three on that list for which it is already assumed atheists consider those as closed ended claims, end of story stuff, which is not exactly as true as the questions haven't yet been determined as being conclusive although it can certianly support the argument , but not yet close it.

I found that out myself when debating agnosticism and had my *** handed to me in another forum, but I'm glad it happened and I happily conceded my argument in view at the time that I was making such closed ended claims myself, just like a theist, but didn't take into consideration that you need to have an agnostic approach on things that are not yet concluded, for which agnosticism doesn't imply there is a bit of a belief on behalf of a person who is agnostic, but rather the agnostic is approaching it through science, to which requires an open venue to new information until the issue is adequately concluded one way or another.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not answerable.

It sounds like this is your way of saying you are in fact making that positive statement, but have no evidence.

Which is the interesting point of the thread. Atheists relentlessly rag on Theists for believing something they cannot prove, and then turn out to do the identical thing.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I do identify as a secular humanist, and have done for many years (most of my life, at almost 76).

Wonderful reply, btw. Thanks for contributing.

That the natural world is all that exists seems obvious to me,

But it is not obvious to everyone. A Theist would say "It's obvious there is a God." Sorry, but this just is not an argument.

because I have never observed anything not part of this world.

There is a saying "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

That the only way to know things is through science and reasoning is, for me, the only rational supposition.

Trust me, I am so sympathetic. I put science and reasoning on a pretty high pedestal.

That does not release either one of us from supplying the evidence for this claim if asked.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

To begin with, allow me to clarify, I do not identify as a Secular Humanist (I don’t necessarily disagree with their point of view…I just don’t go looking for a “group” I identify with);
I do identify as an atheist.
My point of view may differ from someone that does identify as Secular Humanist.

Thank you for your wonderful answer.

I’ll take a stab at your questions and you can determine if it’s valid for your purposes.

1. I agree that the “natural world” is all that exists.
The reason being: I accept the evidence that it exists, I have not yet encountered credible evidence that anything “beyond” it exists….
So I default to accepting what is known, until such time as credible evidence of anything else comes along.

One of the things I am finding myself repeating over and over again in this thread is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It sounds like this is your way of saying you are in fact making that positive statement, but have no evidence.

Which is the interesting point of the thread. Atheists relentlessly rag on Theists for believing something they cannot prove, and then turn out to do the identical thing.

Sometimes, you know, "proof" must eventually be nothing more than the "preponderance of the evidence." In that case, I am very much in favour of asking both sides (atheists and theists) to provide their best actual evidence (which does not include "hear-say"). I've been told -- in most religions -- of "miracles." I've never seen one, I've never seen convincing evidence of one occurring. So what should I make of the likelihood that miracles "used to occur, but God doesn't do them anymore" over the (to me more likely) "miracles were an invention meant to convince people to believe something?"

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Sometimes, you know, "proof" must eventually be nothing more than the "preponderance of the evidence." In that case, I am very much in favour of asking both sides (atheists and theists) to provide their best actual evidence (which does not include "hear-say"). I've been told -- in most religions -- of "miracles." I've never seen one, I've never seen convincing evidence of one occurring. So what should I make of the likelihood that miracles "used to occur, but God doesn't do them anymore" over the (to me more likely) "miracles were an invention meant to convince people to believe something?"

There is no proof for any of the three ontological views, so no one has a preponderance of the evidence.

 

[icehorse]

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 fall into the SH category. My answers are:

1- We don't know for sure.
2 - We don't know for sure.
3 - Absolutely NOT that restrictive.

 

[Yerda]

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

Yes.

We can agree that having a good reason to belive something is a good reason to believe something, yes?

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

Why?

Such as?

Literature, music, history, being a thing in the world etc

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

It would be a claim except for the caveat to which I previously stated, " as it stands right now" so it is a statement of fact "as it stands" but not a conclusion of the facts, as I have no evidence to conclusively close the matter. If I did I would be making a claim , but instead rather pointed out the fact that the universe runs through natural processes.

That's why I say I made no claims, but have given the statement of the "facts as it stands right now" which is a valid well established fact, (not a claim) but the difference is this fact is one that is open to new information which may accommodate the fact itself provided the new information is properly verified and established.

A good example to get a better understanding of what I am saying would be the issue over Pluto being a planet. It was rightly claimed Pluto was factually a planet until new information arrived, to where that fact was altered and realigned with the new information to where Pluto is not a planet anymore but a dwarf planet.

And like the status of planet, the natural processes of the universe will always be the natural process of the universe as that is firmly a fact. But yet a fact that can be altered and realigned in the event of new information coming in that can redefine natural processes along with the new information.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I fall into the SH category. My answers are:

1- We don't know for sure.
2 - We don't know for sure.
3 - Absolutely NOT that restrictive.

Thank you for your response. Definitely the most rational reply yet.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes.

We can agree that having a good reason to belive something is a good reason to believe something, yes?

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.

Why?

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?

Literature, music, history, being a thing in the world etc

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

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It would be a claim except for the caveat to which I previously stated, " as it stands right now"

Nice try.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Nice try.

No it wasn't a try. I was being direct here.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

There is no proof for any of the three ontological views, so no one has a preponderance of the evidence.

Define what you mean by "proof" and by "evidence."

While you're doing it, try to answer these simple questions:

1. When you go online and look at your bank statement, and it says you have $5,000 in your savings account, do you consider that means that you actually do have that amount? Would you consider your statement "proof" or "evidence" (or both)?
2. Your friend tells you he witnessed a murder on Main Street today, but the news doesn't mention it. Where would you look for either proof or evidence of your friend's statement?
3. Your ex-spouse says, "the cheque's in the mail." Two weeks later, no cheque. Discuss the ideas of "proof" and "evidence" in deciding whether your ex-spouse is lying or telling the truth.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No it wasn't a try. I was being direct here.

You assume that if make a claim and add the qualifier "as it stands right now" that it somehow releases you from your obligation to defend your positive claim. You are mistaken. Direct. But mistaken.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Define what you mean by "proof" and by "evidence."

While you're doing it, try to answer these simple questions:

1. When you go online and look at your bank statement, and it says you have $5,000 in your savings account, do you consider that means that you actually do have that amount? Would you consider your statement "proof" or "evidence" (or both)?
2. Your friend tells you he witnessed a murder on Main Street today, but the news doesn't mention it. Where would you look for either proof or evidence of your friend's statement?
3. Your ex-spouse says, "the cheque's in the mail." Two weeks later, no cheque. Discuss the ideas of "proof" and "evidence" in deciding whether your ex-spouse is lying or telling the truth.

Please submit what YOU think is evidence. Then I can reply as to why I either agree that it is or believe that it is not. This thread really isn't about me. It's meant to elicit responses from secular humanists as to the reasons why they believe what they believe, and whether they aren't doing the same thing that Theists do.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

One of the things I am finding myself repeating over and over again in this thread is that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Nor is it proof of anything -- or nothing.

But consider -- we have no evidence for the existence of the "Midas touch," which can turn anything one touches into gold. Does that imply, to you, that there might (or must) be such a thing?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Nor is it proof of anything -- or nothing.

But consider -- we have no evidence for the existence of the "Midas touch," which can turn anything one touches into gold. Does that imply, to you, that there might (or must) be such a thing?

Good question. My answer? We cannot prove there is no such thing as a Midas touch. The best we can do is illustrate that we cannot identify any possible natural way that it could happen, nor can we provide examples of it. Thus, it is problematic to state "there is no such thing as Midas touch."

However, it is perfectly fine to say, "I find no reason to believe in a Midas touch," which makes no positive claim.