Secular Humanism

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

That's a duck.

You proposed the idea that "there is no proof for any of the three ontological views, so no one has a preponderance of the evidence," I asked you to define what you mean. Of course, if you'd rather not, because it is inconsistent with your hidden agenda, that's fine. But I'm not going to do the work for you.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

So! When someone says to you, in rebuttal, "I can find a reason to believe in a Midas Touch," would you not then expect him to demonstrate that reason? Or would you just give up and say, "Oh, okay, I guess it must be true."?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So! When someone says to you, in rebuttal, "I can find a reason to believe in a Midas Touch," would you not then expect him to demonstrate that reason? Or would you just give up and say, "Oh, okay, I guess it must be true."?

Yes, that's a positive claim, so I would expect them to provide evidence, to tell me what that reason is.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

No. It's not a claim. It's established fact as it stands at present.

Prove it wrong.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not answerable.

It's a yes or no question so it is answerable.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

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."

Yes, well unfortunately that is a quote people often use erroneously.
Absence of evidence can, and not uncommonly is, used as evidence of the absence of something when testing for something that should have evidence where it not absent.

This is a famous quote from Carl Sagan.
Its importance relies on the highlight of the logical fallacy where a hypothesis is assumed to be true or false before being scientifically and satisfactorily investigated.
In Sagan's words, the expression is a critique of the "impatience with ambiguity" exhibited by appeals to ignorance.
Despite what the expression may seem to imply, a lack of evidence can be informative, and thus evidence.

If you come across a freshly dead deer in the middle of a snow covered meadow, and there are no footprints other than that of the deers…..
the absence of wolf tracts is evidence that it wasn’t killed by wolves.
Absence of expected evidence is in this case, in fact, evidence of absence.

When testing new medicines, they go through extensive testing to determine side effects.
If properly and adequately tested, the lack of side effects discovered is evidence of the drug being safe.
Absence of evidence of side effects during testing…..is evidence of harmful effects being absent and that the drug can be considered safe.
It may not be absolutely conclusive, should new evidence be discovered, the determination could be subject to change.

You’ll note I said:

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.

This is not an appeal to ignorance…”an impatience with ambiguity”.

There have been multiple claims and hypotheses in the past which have been posited that have not withstood the rigors of scientific testing and analysis.

Science doesn’t claim absolute certainty…
It’s claim is of the best current understanding after extensive testing and analysis.

Since many have claimed things that should have evidence to support it, yet when specifically tested for have failed to discover that evidence….that fact is evidence that what they tested for is absent.
It may not amount to “proof” and may not necessarily be conclusive evidence…but it is evidence against the proposal.

If something is proposed and is subsequently tested for and no verifiable evidence is found or even hinted at beyond assumption or subjective unverified hearsay, it is rational to discount that proposal until such time that verifiable evidence is brought to light.

If it were proposed that wolves killed the deer yet there are no wolf prints in the snow and no sign of wolves nearby, it is rational to conclude that wolves did not kill the deer.

Without any preconceived proposition of how the deer died, there would be no reason, without signs of wolves nearby and not finding wolf prints in the snow, to consider that it might have been wolves that killed deer, despite the fact that wolves are known to exist and to kill deer.
There would be evidence and therefore reason to conclude that it was not wolves that killed the deer.
It might well have died of old age, disease, poisoning, freezing, gun shot, brain aneurysm, any number of things…
Each could be tested for and where lack of signs (absence of evidence) that might support any given hypothesis are found that hypothesis can be reliably discounted (evidence of absence) of that being the cause of death.

Where #2 is concerned I said;

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.

This is more akin to finding a dead deer in the snowy meadow with no prints in the snow, and not considering or concluding that Bigfoot may have killed the deer;… it would necessitate establishing that Bigfoot existed (and that Bigfoots kill deer) before it would be rational to even consider that as a possibility.

No reason to consider Bigfoot killed the deer…
No reason to consider a god created the universe.

 

[Kfox]

.If you are a secular humanist, I am interested to see you defend your positions, specifically

I don’t call myself a secular humanist, whatever rules and laws that are applied to them is probably not something I apply to myself; I’m more of a skeptic.

1. That the natural world is all that exists

I call the natural world that which is real; that which exists outside you your imagination. Some people speak of a spiritual world, but I can’t tell the difference between the spiritual world vs the imaginary world.

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

I can see that the Universe exists, I see no evidence of anything I call a deity; so I don’t go around assuming that which I see no evidence of.

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

I think reasoning and science are the best systems of learning about things. If someone can come up with a better way, I would be more than happy to explore it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No. It's not a claim. It's established fact as it stands at present.

Prove it wrong.

The obligation is not on me to prove it wrong. The obligation is on you to prove it right.

 

[Bear Wild]

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!

Excellent presentation of to me is at the heart of comparing religions. Science is a method of discovery and does not represent a world veiw or relationship to the world even if it is the influence the persons world view. This also allows for better understanding of where people are arguing from in a debate.

 

[Kfox]

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

There is plenty of evidence that I find convincing, but what evidence would you find convincing?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

1. It's what we know for sure and definitely does exist. But is it all that exists? I don't actually know. I have felt things, but is it real or a trick of the brain? I'm simply forced to say I don't know.

2. I don't believe this is necessarily true either. I have no problem with the idea of a Creator. I just don't accept this entity, if it exists, is necessarily a god.

3. This I don't believe or accept at all. Many things we know by feelings and emotions. Chance discovery and reasons unknown. Conversation and asking questions. There are many ways to know things.
However, science is the best method we have thusbfar conceived for gathering and evaluating objective, emperical information about the natural world.

 

[Bear Wild]

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!

I know you asked for secular humanist but here is my response from a different perspective.

1. Nature is the ultimate reality and there is no supernatural, but half of nature cannot be understood by the scientific or rational method. The numinous beings and what I call the gods and goddesses were created and are within nature. Soul and spirit exist and the world is animate.

2. We know things though reason and the scientific method, but we also know things that are experiential and not through reason.

3. The concepts of good and bad or right and wrong are relative to each other and not absolute. The world is creative and destructive. One cannot exist without the other. It a yin and yang kind of thing.

It seems I am not a classic secular humanist; I am definitely animistic.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There is plenty of evidence that I find convincing, but what evidence would you find convincing?

Go ahead and share your evidence.

 

[Nakosis]

I know you asked for secular humanist but here is my response from a different perspective.

1. Nature is the ultimate reality and there is no supernatural, but half of nature cannot be understood by the scientific or rational method. The numinous beings and what I call the gods and goddesses were created and are within nature. Soul and spirit exist and the world is animate.

2. We know things though reason and the scientific method, but we also know things that are experiential and not through reason.

3. The concepts of good and bad or right and wrong are relative to each other and not absolute. The world is creative and destructive. One cannot exist without the other. It a yin and yang kind of thing.

It seems I am not a classic secular humanist; I am definitely animistic.

I suspect there is a problem with the survey used. The questions of most surveys are designed to channel the responders into a limited number of categories. An assumption is made by the researcher that a majority of responders will fall into one of a limited number of categories. The questions are designed to do exactly that. So you can then say, "Look, a majority of responders fall into this specific category".

The causality here is less the actual view of the responders and more the result of the design of the survey.

Often the questions on these surveys aren't relevant to my views but you are forced into answering in order to participate. Sure you may have a large number of responders but the result was predicated by the design of the survey.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

Many things which are “plainly clear and obvious” have been found to be illusory. For example, it’s plainly clear and obvious that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west; only we know this to be a false perception. On the other hand, it is far from plainly clear and obvious that a prosaic steel girder is really a whirling mass of sub atomic particles which are themselves, upon examination, not particles at all, but rather fluctuations in the energy of the vacuum.

In other words, it is always necessary to look beyond the surface of what is “plainly clear and obvious”, to arrive at an understanding of what is going all around us (and within us).

 

[PearlSeeker]

Such as?

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

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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 disagree that this is something that necessarily is included in secular humanism.
I consider myself a secular humanist and I don't make that claim.
At best, I would say that the natural world is all that seems to exist. For all practical intents and purposes, I live my life as if that is all that exists.
And I defend that position by simply pointing out that we only have evidence of the natural world. In fact, it seems to me that it's not even clear what anything "beyond" that would even be...

But I'm open minded. Show me the verifiable evidence and I'll happily change my mind. Until then... why would I?

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

Same as above. My secular humanism does not, at all, hinge on such a presupposition. Not even remotely.
While certainly an interesting question, I actually couldn't care less who the universe exists or originated. I don't see how the answer to such a question is remotely related to secular humans, or how secular humanism someone "depends" on the answer of such a question.

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

I wouldn't say that it is the "only" way to know. I'm not comfortable with the word "only" in such a sentence, because it implies that I have knowledge of, and explored, all other methods - including those I don't even know about.

So instead, I'll say it like this: science is the most reliable method I know of to obtain reliable knowledge.
And I defend that by presenting the impeccable track record of succes by scientific inquiry as evidence.
I know of not other method with at least an equal track record.

However again, I'm open minded and if someone can demonstrate a method to me that has at least equally good results, I'm all ears.
Until then: meh.

 

[blü 2]

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

My view is based on three assumptions. They're assumptions because I can't demonstrate they're correct without first assuming they are correcf. (I got that idea from Descartes, who noted that if you want to argue that reason is a valid tool, then you can't use reason to justify your argument.)

I assume that ─

A world exists external to the self,​

​

My senses are capable of informing me of that world, and​

​

Reason is a valid tool.​

I find justification for making these assumptions in various ways, one of which is that I haven't met anyone who doesn't share them (sometimes while asserting they don't share them). Anyone who posts on RF, for example, demonstrates that they also share the first two assumptions, and anyone who wants to present an orderly and relevant argument demonstrates at a basic level their accord with the third,

On the basis of my education and experience, I take reality to be the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses. It shows no sign of being a living entity. And it remains the case that no objective test can distinguish the supernatural from the imaginary.

There is no reason to think that a purposeful and intelligent being brought the universe into being. No religion offers a useful 'how' in their stories of the creation of the universe ─ indeed they're not even looking, Only science is looking.

But there are other ways of knowing things other than by science and reasoning. Admiration of Sophocles, Dante, Shakespeare, Heaney, doesn't have to be organized into an essay to be something you have, and know you have ─ though of course you can, and likely will, apply reasoned arguments in support of what you already know without them. Falling in love has many parallels, and the fact that when one falls in love, one's responding to the body's hormones, and that those responses have evolved under the imperatives of evolution, surviving long enough to breed, may feel entirely irrelevant. As all living things act out, you don't have to know why, you just have to do.

 

[PureX]

Atheists aren't secular humanists, they're just secularists.

Some theists and some atheists are humanists, and some are not. So these or not correlative.

Atheism is a 'worldview'. And is based on held but unproven beliefs abut truth and reality just as theism is.

 

[Kfox]

Go ahead and share your evidence.

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.