Secular Humanism

[ChristineM]

Atheism is a worldview.
Worldview - Wikipedia

But does it include disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

[Kfox]

Atheism is a worldview.
Worldview - Wikipedia

What does it mean to have an atheist world-view? And is it possible for a person with an atheist world-view to have more in common with someone with a Christian world-view; than another person with an atheist world-view?

 

[LuisDantas]

My answers, that may or may not converge with @Shadow Wolf 's:

What does it mean to have an atheist world-view?

In itself, very little; the only certainty is that the person will not be presuming the existence of a deity when judging situations and forming goals.

It is not even certain that the person will have some significant measure of skepticism, nor that it will reject supernaturalism.

And is it possible for a person with an atheist world-view to have more in common with someone with a Christian world-view; than another person with an atheist world-view?

It certainly is, particularly if both persons are interested in ethics and the Christian does not emphasize supernaturalism but instead reaches his or her own conclusions.

 

[Kfox]

My answers, that may or may not converge with @Shadow Wolf 's:



In itself, very little; the only certainty is that the person will not be presuming the existence of a deity when judging situations and forming goals.

It is not even certain that the person will have some significant measure of skepticism, nor that it will reject supernaturalism.




It certainly is, particularly if both persons are interested in ethics and the Christian does not emphasize supernaturalism but instead reaches his or her own conclusions.

So why call it an atheist worldview, if it says practically nothing about the person? Atheism does not address his political positions, his economic positions, cultural, social, moral, the countless other positions and views the person might have?

 

[LuisDantas]

So why call it an atheist worldview, if it says practically nothing about the person? Atheism does not address his political positions, his economic positions, cultural, social, the countless other positions and views the person might have?

Fair question.

Mostly it is a matter of social context. You asked whether it is possible for atheists to have similar perspectives to those of Christians, not whether it is typical to be significantly close.

To be fair, while I agree that there is a variety of positions among atheists, I would think that Christians can be even more difficult to pin down. Some communities wear specific Christian identities on their sleeves, others treat it as a very personal matter, bordering on a secret.

The most theocratic a community is, the most sigificant the contrast with typical atheists will be, and the better characterized will a reasonably coherent and defined atheistic perspective be when it emerges.

 

[Kfox]

Fair question.

Mostly it is a matter of social context. You asked whether it is possible for atheists to have similar perspectives to those of Christians, not whether it is typical to be significantly close.

To be fair, while I agree that there is a variety of positions among atheists, I would think that Christians can be even more difficult to pin down. Some communities wear specific Christian identities on their sleeves, others treat it as a very personal matter, bordering on a secret.

The most theocratic a community is, the most sigificant the contrast with typical atheists will be, and the better characterized will a reasonably coherent and defined atheistic perspective be when it emerges.

But why call it an Atheist world-view, if atheism is only a small sliver of his outlook on life? Why not call it like a Hispanic world-view, socialist world-view, conservative, progressive, or the countless other views he has on life?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But does it include disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Of course, but that is a worldview.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What does it mean to have an atheist world-view? And is it possible for a person with an atheist world-view to have more in common with someone with a Christian world-view; than another person with an atheist world-view?

I would say that is possible. Such as, an atheist and Christian who both do volunteer work probably bith have a worldview that emphasizes helping and taking care of others as important, that we should give back to the community, or a shared goal in trying to make the world a better place.

 

[Kfox]

I would say that is possible. Such as, an atheist and Christian who both do volunteer work probably bith have a worldview that emphasizes helping and taking care of others as important, that we should give back to the community, or a shared goal in trying to make the world a better place.

So why call it an Atheist world-view if atheism has so little to do with his actual worldview?

 

[F1fan]

So why call it an atheist worldview, if it says practically nothing about the person? Atheism does not address his political positions, his economic positions, cultural, social, moral, the countless other positions and views the person might have?

It's much like anyone's worldview that includes not believing in Santa Claus. We hear about Santa, we know about the ideas. Children believe in him. But we adults only assign meaning to Santa when they have to deal with those who believe in him, but otherwise they don't.

The same with atheists. We know what Christian and Muslims and Hindus believe, and we have to think about these ideas when we engage with those who believe, but otherwise these ideas are irrelevant.

 

[F1fan]

So why call it an Atheist world-view if atheism has so little to do with his actual worldview?

I don't claim to have an atheist world view. To say that atheists have an atheist world view would only mean that their world view has no religious elements.

 

[Dao Hao Now]

A very poor way to begin your post. I very clearly listed the three points that I invited Secular Humanists to discuss. I do not feel obliged to repeat myself.

Which you misrepresented.
No need to repeat yourself, I even included your three points in my post for easy reference;
and pointed out where they were a misrepresentation.

Not at all. I stated in the opening post that the ideas I stated were coming from that video. If you actually watch the video, he does indeed give various Secular Humanist manifestos as his sources.

Which again, I included in my post for easy reference;
Also explaining that upon actually looking into them, and not being able to find in them what you (and the author of the video) claim them to say.

I then asked you to point me to where you claim that they say….
“science and reason are the ONLY way to know things”
It doesn’t say that in;…
“A Secular Humanist Declaration”,…..
Or “The Amsterdam Declaration”,…..
Or “The Humanist Manifesto iii”……
Which are the three references pointed to in the video.
So once again, if you wish to be taken seriously,
point out precisely where in any one of those “tenets of Humanism” it actually says that.

You’ll notice that those who responded, that do in fact identify as secular humanists, all indicated that they don’t agree with your criteria, and/or supplied caveats to be excepted in order to nominally agree with them.
Yet, you discount their caveats and attempt to assert that they unconditionally accept your criteria.

If you are going to be an honest interlocutor, you must take into account what they actually say as opposed to attempting to pidgin-hole them into your presupposed conclusion and insist that they adhere to it.

You appear to be taking the video as gospel.



As to your assertion of a “very poor way to start a post”….
Perhaps go back and read what I actually said.
It was in response to your quote….

Which illustrates the one and only point that I myself want to make in this thread -- that while Atheists routinely rag on Theists for believing in something they cannot prove, they themselves have assumptions they cannot prove.

Having exposed your true intent here, you did not say “Humanists” you said “atheists”.

As I pointed out in my reply, here you claim “atheists” “have assumptions they cannot prove”
(see bolded emphasis [mine] in your quote above)

You ignored the part where I pointed out the obvious category error in the video which you are erroneously running with.

Again, I’ll remind you of your words:

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.

You correctly explain atheism to be;…
“simply the lack of belief in God/gods, no more, no less”….
Where in that description do you perceive “assumptions they cannot prove”?

My response of “which are what?”
Was clearly in response to — and included your quote…..your claim that “atheists have assumptions they cannot prove”.
To wit….

Which illustrates the one and only point that I myself want to make in this thread -- that while Atheists routinely rag on Theists for believing in something they cannot prove, they themselves have assumptions they cannot prove.

Which as pointed out above;
is not about Humanists, as you set up as proxy in your OP, but rather explicitly about atheists.

So would you like to take another stab at;
“What are the assumptions that atheists cannot prove”?
Which is the claim you make in your confessional post quoted above….
not the OP, where you attempt to cloak it as “Humanists”.



As to your assertion that….

Oh, they very much are synonymous.

You truncated my statement to:
“the natural world is all that exists”,
Is not synonymous with “ONLY the natural world exists”.
Once again ignoring what was actually said in an attempt to portray your pidgin-holed presupposition as what was said.
My actual statement to which you were replying was…

The problem is that only you have made that claim.
“Holding to naturalism” and agreeing that so far as is known “the natural world is all that exists”,
Is not synonymous with “ONLY the natural world exists”.

So we have my actual quote:
“Holding to naturalism” and agreeing that so far as is known “the natural world is all that exists”.
Is not synonymous with “ONLY the natural world exists”.

VS

Your spuriously edited presentation of my quote:
“the natural world is all that exists”,
Is not synonymous with “ONLY the natural world exists”.

They’re very different aren’t they.

Granted the “the natural world is all that exists”
was presented in the video.
(and subsequently in your OP)
This was the author of the video’s interpretation for explanatory purposes;
not from a debate perspective where it might be considered a positive claim.

Unfortunately, it’s not portrayed that way in the three references listed in the video.
(If you claim it is….refer us to exactly where within any of the three listed references it does)

Nor was it accepted by the self identifying secular humanists that have responded, who stipulated it as not representing their views.
Nor by those atheists who don’t identify as Humanists (like myself)….
All of which explained the rationale for why….
That the best current understanding for how the universe works relies on known, or at least predictably understood, natural physical laws and processes.

As @Nimos explained to you;

If anyone can present evidence for something other than the natural world, that would be considered a relevant alternative. The burden of proof is not on the humanists/naturalists to prove that ONLY the natural world exists, that is to make a fallacy, to shift the burden of proof.

Since, as stated above, the best current understanding for how the universe works relies on known, or at least predictably understood natural laws and processes…..
the addition of the concept of “only the natural law exists” alludes to something “other than the natural world” existing.
Before that could be logically and rationally accepted, it would require that it is demonstrated to exist;
Therefore the “burden of proof” would be on those proposing that it does exist.
Not on those with a proven methodology that shows no requirement that “something other than the natural world exists”, or has any effect on the known natural world.

Should any reliable or valid evidence that “something other” exists come along, then science would of course accept it; but until then there is no logical or rational reason to do so.

 

[Kfox]

It's much like anyone's worldview that includes not believing in Santa Claus. We hear about Santa, we know about the ideas. Children believe in him. But we adults only assign meaning to Santa when they have to deal with those who believe in him, but otherwise they don't.

The same with atheists. We know what Christian and Muslims and Hindus believe, and we have to think about these ideas when we engage with those who believe, but otherwise these ideas are irrelevant.

Would it be fair to say each person has hundreds of different world-views?

 

[Dao Hao Now]

Would it be fair to say each person has hundreds of different world-views?

You already have two threads going covering your confusion about worldviews.
Let’s not try to hijack this one and turn it into a third.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Which you misrepresented.

I'm tired of your abuse. I gave the video that inspired my opening post, and if you watch the video, the Atheist who made it gives as his own sources several Secular Humanist manifestos. I won't be replying to you further. So don't bother continuing to gaslight me.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Would it be fair to say each person has hundreds of different world-views?

No that would not be fair or accurate. The video describes a world view as having three elements: ontology, epistemology, and axiology. Whatever choices a person makes regarding those three things seems to be what forms their world view.

 

[Kfox]

No that would not be fair or accurate. The video describes a world view as having three elements: ontology, epistemology, and axiology. Whatever choices a person makes regarding those three things seems to be what forms their world view.

So how can a default position like atheism be a world view?

 

[F1fan]

Would it be fair to say each person has hundreds of different world-views?

I suggest they have one at a time, but many elements. Sometimes conflicting elements, like those Christians of the Nazi party who had no problem exterminating Jews.

 

[Kfox]

You already have two threads going covering your confusion about worldviews.
Let’s not try to hijack this one and turn it into a third.

If you don't like my questions, stop responding to me.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So how can a default position like atheism be a world view?

Please go back and read the opening post again, more carefully. I specifically stated that atheism is not a worldview. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any God or gods. In order for something to be a worldview, it has to have a ontology, epistemology, and axiology. Atheism doesn't.

However, among explicit atheilsts, there is a world view that is common: secular humanism. Please read the original post. Better yet, watch the video I uploaded that inspired the thread -- its not long and it sources the points.