Video About Problems With Atheism

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Where and when it developed, where it gained popular acceptance, the fact that it hasn't developed organically anywhere else in the 200 years since it emerged in close to its current form, the significant overlap between aspects of the 2 belief systems, the fact that many of the areas that overlap are very rare in other belief systems, etc.

You haven't established that as a fact. You just claim it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Christianity emerged as a product of its society after all, why wouldn't Humanism be a product of its society? Are any ideologies not a product of their society?

Indeed: humanism was in large part a response to - and a rejection of - major aspects of Christianity. In that respect, humanism developed from Christianity, but only in the sense that, say, abolitionism developed from slavery or the temperance movement developed from drinking.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The Greek worldview was one of a natural inequality:

Whether as magistrate, priest or warrior, the citizen’s actions were deemed to incorporate a powerful rationality. His actions were proper responses to the claims of the city and its gods. Decisions by the assembly of citizens allowed for no independent review. The idea of individual rights was absent. Social subordinates were, after all, not deemed to be fully rational. No doubt women, merchants and slaves had important social functions, but their minds did not rise to the public sphere and its concerns. Instead, gossip, mercenary calculation and uncomplaining obedience were their respective lots.

We are encountering a conception of ‘reason’ very different from that of the modern world, for it ‘carried’ within it hierarchical assumptions about both the social and the physical world.
Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism - L Siendetop

Most of the things you credit to humanism significantly predate humanism.

What is 'rational' depends on your worldview. For the ancient Greeks it was rational to believe in the fundamental inequality of people.




Paul overturns the assumption of natural inequality by creating an inner link between the divine will and human agency. He conceives the idea that the two can, at least potentially, be fused within each person, thereby justifying the assumption of the moral equality of humans...

Now, the identity of individuals is no longer exhausted by the social roles they happen to occupy. A gap opens up between individuals and the roles they occupy. That gap marks the advent of the new freedom, freedom of conscience. But it also introduces moral obligations that follow from recognizing that all humans are children of God.

This rudimentary equality, along with a new, progressive, approach to history; universalism; humility as a virtue; etc. were a fundamental change in the way people looked at the world. The vehicle by which such ideas were spread was Christianity, and while in theory they could have come from another source, we only have one history to go by and there is no logical reason to believe they must necessarily occur as they are based on myth rather than objective fact.

Over time such views evolved and adapted and took on other influences, but the still remained as the foundation on which what you call 'rational ethics' were built. In most societies throughout history they would be considered decidedly irrational after all.

My objection here is the same as before: You're creating a connection between these two ideologies that just isn't there with claims and implications that Christianity generated idea X that humanism borrowed from it.


Humility as a virtue? That's hardly an element of humanism - go ahead and be arrogant. The affirmations of humanism don't address the matter at all.

Being humble is a manner of comporting oneself that opens doors in certain circumstances. In others, one benefits from being more self-promoting. Arrogance was charming in Muhammad Ali and Joe Namath. It's repulsive in Kanye West and Donald Trump, whom the vast majority of evangelical American Christians voted for. They didn't seem to consider humility a virtue, and neither do I.

Concerning the equality of all men being an idea we can thank Christianity for, if all men are equal there, it is in a very low and subordinate place. Man is a wretched creature, born spiritually sick, but equally sick compared to others. We all have sinned and need to beg for forgiveness - equally.

His world is a mess and a failure, place to be shunned. In the meantime, everybody must bow to a god - equally. Subjects must submit to kings, slaves to slavers, and wives to husbands.

And how is this sense of equality rendered in Christianity? Virtually every government of the Middle Ages, when the church held its greatest political influence, included a caste system of royalty, nobility, and commoners. The church famously has sided with heads of state attempting to concentrate and defend wealth, power, and privilege.

Fast forward to the introduction of humanist values to a Constitution, and you see the advent of the subject becoming citizen and sharing political power with other citizens (democracy), the rejection of kings and titles (egalitarianism), and guaranteed personal rights and freedoms.

You seem to want to credit the humanist reaction to the Christian model preceding it to Christianity. Yet these two conceptions of equality have about as much in common as the Genesis creation story and the Big Bang theory. Apologists claiming that the Bible anticipated science by positing a universe that had a beginning are doing what you are doing. They compare two sets of ideas, find one commonality among dozens of differences, and claim that there is a connection.

So what exactly is your thesis? That humanism can be found to contain an idea or two that resembles an analogous one in Christianity, and that this makes humanism an offshoot of Christianity and indebted to it for its philosophy? I've asked you this before and never gotten an answer to my recollection. Are you claiming that Christianity was a significant generative source of ideas for humanism, a trivial one, or that it merely had a permissive effect allowing humanism to form beside it?

Christianity's greatest effect on humanism as best I can see it was to serve as something to reject. It was a model of what not to do. The evidence for that lies in the significant degree of difference between the two, comments like Diderot's above, which have been expressed by others as well, and the ongoing struggle between humanists and the church.

If humanism is the child of Christianity, there ought to be affinities and family resemblances there more robust than a slight overlap. Instead, we see humanists rejecting the Christian model:

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." - Diderot

 

[Augustus]

You haven't established that as a fact. You just claim it.

You've already stated your view that Humanism must necessarily appear in any intelligent species.

In another thread you refused to accept a 4th C Christian theologian reasoning against slavery directly from scripture as being anything to do with Christianity. It was simply 'rational ethics'.

This is a closed system. It's just our nature to be Humanists eventually and everything that gets us there is simply 'humanist values' or 'rational ethics'.

There is about as much chance of you accepting any Christian influence as there is of persuading a creationist that God didn't create the world.

reject the claim that humanism is a byproduct of Christianity, and claiming instead that humanism is radically different from Christianity,

Except it is not radically different, that the evidence shows the many of the core aspects of Humanism can be found in Christian theology. On the other hand, they cannot be found in Greek/Roman philosophy which Humanists tend to consider the major influence. Religion to them is simply a regression, a kind of error.

The process of change covers 2000 years (and before that there is another process of the evolution of ideas that led to Christianity). These ideas did not emerge fully formed, like all philosophies they evolve over time with diverse influences. They were not universally accepted either, ideas develop in radically different ways at the same time, and it is easy to find examples of completely contradictory stances in different Christian worldviews. Effects were not necessarily even intended, ideas take on a life of their own once released.

When we discussed this before you considered any mention of non-Christian society irrelevant though which makes the topic impossible to discuss.

That doesn't ring true, and evidence contradicts it.

Where in Christianity do we find the idea that we have a right to the pursuit of happiness according to the individual conscience?

Augustine of Hippo summarised Paul's theology as “Once for all, then, a short precept is given thee: Love, and do what thou wilt... let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good.”

If a Christian supports the idea of church-state separation, he's embodying a humanist ideal. The church is still working assiduously to penetrate that wall where it can, and most Christians are anticipating an afterlife presided over by a god. There won't be much church-state separation there.

I can't discuss the evolution of this idea without mentioning non-Christian societies so I won't bother.

Secularisation was often a violent and tyrannical process though as a result of 'rational ethics' being applied, why should it be considered a product of 'Humanist values'?

Ideas develop in numerous different directions, and this was equally true about things purportedly based on 'Enlightenment Values' that are supposedly the font of all goodness.

Where is the biblical support for the idea that we should have guaranteed rights such as freedom of worship

Tertullian, 2nd Century:

We worship the one God . . . There are others whom you regard as gods; we know them to be demons. Nevertheless, it is a basic human right that everyone should be free to worship according to his own con- victions. No one is either harmed or helped by another man’s religion. Religion must be practised freely, not by coercion; even animals for sac- ri ce must be offered with a willing heart. So even if you compel us to sacrifice, you will not be providing your gods with any worthwhile service. They will not want sacrifices from unwilling offerers – unless they are perverse, which God is not

Or democracy. God doesn't hold elections or count hands. If a Christian supports a democratic form of government, he got that idea from humanist ethics, not his Bible.

The Greeks had democracy and it was far from Humanist.

The rise of science is a good example. As you and others have noted, it happened in the Christian West. Most if not all early scientists were devout Christians. Neither of these facts makes Christianity the source of the scientific revolution. Newton wasn't doing Christianity when he developed calculus, the laws of motion and of universal gravitation, optics. He was helping to pioneer a new way of thinking about and investigating reality

Reality premised on a particular worldview influenced by Christianity which they frequently acknowledged in their own words. There is no single 'source' of the scientific revolution, but numerous influences which influenced the cultural environment at the time. There are also some unintended consequences linked to Christianity (church translation of Greek philosophical texts, integration of these into theological education, the university system itself).

Newton on his natural philosophy:

You can compare this to 'irrelevant' non-Christian societies (China for example) to see why it is important and not just pure coincidence. The problem is that the modern Western worldview is so fundamentally ingrained in people's thought processes that the culturally conditioned is often mistaken for the natural.

I believe that I just demonstrated how alien the two ideologies are to one another and many fundamental ways in which they are antithetical. That doesn't go away by noting that a humanism has a notion of humanity, equality, or a universal belief system as does Christianity.

Again, I can't discuss this meaningfully recourse to non-Christian societies.

Along with the idea that rights are bestowed on the individual and progressive history, the things you mentioned are pretty much the core concepts of Humanism though when combined with Greek rationalism.

Strangely enough, all are rare in historical societies and all are found in Christian theology. You see this as pure coincidence, and I don't believe ideologies give birth to themselves. So we get stuck.

 

[Augustus]

Humility as a virtue? That's hardly an element of humanism - go ahead and be arrogant. The affirmations of humanism don't address the matter at all.

To clarify: This is in contrast to honour or power based society which are incompatible with Humanism. You'll find one of these views in most historical societies. It isn't about someone being a bit arrogant, but a fundamental aspect of culture that governs social interaction.

You don't, for example, advocate murdering your sister for bringing shame on the family. You don't advocate that might makes right.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Over time both have influenced each other. Neither exists in a vacuum and values are dynamic and negotiated.

You just keep asserting this. Where I show multiple examples of humanism informing Christianity in specific, self-evident, and undeniable ways, your is the vacuum argument: If the two traditions evolved in the same time and place, Christianity informed humanism.

Humanism influenced nothing before it existed though and the numerous features it shares with with Christianity that are uncommon in most historical societies certainly didn't appear in Humanism first.

What numerous features? That they both have a concept of equality and humility? How about a concept of green? Humanist and Christians both have that. And it didn't arise in a vacuum.

Humanism has its roots in the West in ancient Greece and has been evolving ever since, albeit with a period of relative hibernation during the Age of Faith. Christianity wasn't even a twinkle in Judaism's eye when Thales and subsequent pre-Socratic philosophers began speculating that natural events were not punishments from capricious, which led to free speculation about reality.

Thales (624 BC - 546 BC) suggested that everything was a form of water, which was the only substance he knew of capable of existing as solid, liquid and gas. What is significant was his willingness to try to explain the workings of nature without invoking the supernatural or appealing to the ancients and their dicta. The more profound implication was that man might be capable of understanding nature, which might operate according to comprehensible rules that he might discover.

You wanted to attribute that idea to Christianity.

Will I find an answer addressing the elements of my argument ahead?

meek probably meant something more like gentle,

I'm taking God (or whoever is speaking as a god) at his word. Blessed are the meek. An absolutely horrible idea, one so horrible even non-Christians are trying to change it to mean something other than what the words say. Jesus couldn't possibly have meant that, right?

The purpose of the Sermon on the Mount is very clear, and very useful to those wanting to exploit others and have them not rise up. It instructs us to be happy in our poverty, to be meek, to turn the other cheek when stricken, to not expect any reward or justice in this world, and just stand down to receive a slice of pie in the sky later for a life of door-mattery now.

That's what meek means there.

People that care about you don't give you advice like that. People that want to exploit you do.

And cui bono?

"How can you have order in a state without religion? For, when one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." - Napoleon Bonaparte

"If you want to control a population and keep them passive ... give them a god to worship" - Noam Chomsky

Constantine understood that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You've already stated your view that Humanism must necessarily appear in any intelligent species.

I expect humanism - or alienism if on another planet - is the inevitable path that cultural evolution will take. Given time, intelligence, and a moral faculty, all intelligent creatures will eventually discover the same things that man has. We have no need of gods, we benefit optimally by cooperating, and that nature is best understood by applying reason to observation.

That doesn't mean that humanism will prevail as the dominant cultural ideology. It's taking a beating in America now, and may well be supplanted by the insect ethics of the self-appointed masters of the universe:

"Those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior." Leo Strauss, founder of the neocon movement

People like that may well prevail, but the eventual arrival of the humanist orientation seems like it was inevitable to me, and once elucidated, will not be forgotten.

I realize that shows like Star Trek and Star Wars are fiction, but they each embody the idea that there may be countless biologies - morphologies and physiologies - countless languages, and untold diversity in other areas (fashion, cuisine, etc), but there will be only one science - one physics with its law of universal gravitation and one chemistry with its periodic table of elements.. Their discovery are inevitable given time, and once they exist, they aren't going away for as long as the species that discovered them continues to survive.

I see humanism in the same way. An ideology based on rational skepticism, empiricism, and reciprocal empathy will eventually be conceived and where possible implemented.

In another thread you refused to accept a 4th C Christian theologian reasoning against slavery directly from scripture as being anything to do with Christianity. It was simply 'rational ethics'.

What scripture is that, and why did the millions of Christians that read it before him most for centuries thereafter miss that piece of Christianity?

Please try to keep in mind that just because a Christian does it doesn't mean that it is due to his Christianity. If somebody arrived at such a notion in the fourth century, he did it by using the humanist method - reason applied to compassion - not the Christian method - ethics from a book accepted as by faith as timeless, objectively real, immutable, authoritative, and non-negotiable.

That is the Christian idea of how moral truth is ascertained. Vary from it, and you are leaving Christianity behind. Apply reason to empathy and come up with a new value, and you're in the humanists' world.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

This is a closed system. It's just our nature to be Humanists eventually and everything that gets us there is simply 'humanist values' or 'rational ethics'.

There is about as much chance of you accepting any Christian influence as there is of persuading a creationist that God didn't create the world.



Except it is not radically different, that the evidence shows the many of the core aspects of Humanism can be found in Christian theology. On the other hand, they cannot be found in Greek/Roman philosophy which Humanists tend to consider the major influence. Religion to them is simply a regression, a kind of error.

The process of change covers 2000 years (and before that there is another process of the evolution of ideas that led to Christianity). These ideas did not emerge fully formed, like all philosophies they evolve over time with diverse influences. They were not universally accepted either, ideas develop in radically different ways at the same time, and it is easy to find examples of completely contradictory stances in different Christian worldviews. Effects were not necessarily even intended, ideas take on a life of their own once released.

When we discussed this before you considered any mention of non-Christian society irrelevant though which makes the topic impossible to discuss.




Augustine of Hippo summarised Paul's theology as “Once for all, then, a short precept is given thee: Love, and do what thou wilt... let the root of love be within, of this root can nothing spring but what is good.”



I can't discuss the evolution of this idea without mentioning non-Christian societies so I won't bother.

Secularisation was often a violent and tyrannical process though as a result of 'rational ethics' being applied, why should it be considered a product of 'Humanist values'?

Ideas develop in numerous different directions, and this was equally true about things purportedly based on 'Enlightenment Values' that are supposedly the font of all goodness.



Tertullian, 2nd Century:

We worship the one God . . . There are others whom you regard as gods; we know them to be demons. Nevertheless, it is a basic human right that everyone should be free to worship according to his own con- victions. No one is either harmed or helped by another man’s religion. Religion must be practised freely, not by coercion; even animals for sac- ri ce must be offered with a willing heart. So even if you compel us to sacrifice, you will not be providing your gods with any worthwhile service. They will not want sacrifices from unwilling offerers – unless they are perverse, which God is not




The Greeks had democracy and it was far from Humanist.



Reality premised on a particular worldview influenced by Christianity which they frequently acknowledged in their own words. There is no single 'source' of the scientific revolution, but numerous influences which influenced the cultural environment at the time. There are also some unintended consequences linked to Christianity (church translation of Greek philosophical texts, integration of these into theological education, the university system itself).

Newton on his natural philosophy:

You can compare this to 'irrelevant' non-Christian societies (China for example) to see why it is important and not just pure coincidence. The problem is that the modern Western worldview is so fundamentally ingrained in people's thought processes that the culturally conditioned is often mistaken for the natural.



Again, I can't discuss this meaningfully recourse to non-Christian societies.

Along with the idea that rights are bestowed on the individual and progressive history, the things you mentioned are pretty much the core concepts of Humanism though when combined with Greek rationalism.

Strangely enough, all are rare in historical societies and all are found in Christian theology. You see this as pure coincidence, and I don't believe ideologies give birth to themselves. So we get stuck.

Finding the odd church father making a comment does not establish that idea as a Christian principle or that Christianity is its source in humanism.

Furthermore, we've been through all of this before, it's off topic, and I don't care to rehash it. I've made my case and you yours. Let the jury decide.

Also, you have steadfastly refused repeated requests asking you to clarify just what your claim is. I have never said that humanism couldn't have an idea that came from Christianity, and just that it wouldn't be one of the core tenets, that humanism owes no debt to Christianity and is in fact a repudiation of it.

But who knows exactly what you are claiming. Maybe we are actually in agreement. If all you mean is that humanism has a trivial relationship to Christianity, I would not argue that point or even care.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

-

He begins by discussing works by Dostoevsky, particularly Crime and Punishment. He then calls out Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins 'Radical atheists' on their assumption that humanity can proceed on a purely rational and irreligious basis. Dostoevesky seems to make the point (according to this prof) that if there's no transcendent value (God) then you can do whatever you want (morality is destroyed and chaos ensues). The prof asks his students "What the hell is irrational about me getting whatever I want from every one of you whenever I want it...and how is that more irrational than us cooperating so that we can have a good time of it?" He complains that radical atheists believe the human psychopathic tendency is irrational and therefore are misguided in thinking that pure rationality is a viable path forward.

Well I would say he makes an argument, and I wonder if folks here think he is accurately describing radical atheism and whether his argument is sound. The video rounds up to 6 minutes in length. Please at least skim it before replying, because I have not quoted the full text.

It doesn't matter if god exists or not, societies have to set up rules to keep anti-social behavior under control. No body wants to live in a world where thugs rule the streets and everyone is out just for himself, in the end that doesn't work for anyone. Humans naturally cooperate, and naturally have feelings of compassion for others. I've read a little bit of Fyodor Dostoevsky, what he wrote seemed pretty nihilistic. If people need god to make them be good then people must not be good. I remember that Thomas Hobbes had ideas that reflect Dostoevsky's beliefs, there has to be a "sovereign" or king to make people do the right thing. I think the Council for Secular Humanism gives a list of thinkers who had ethical theories that don't require belief in a god or "sovereign." Council for Secular Humanism

 

[JustWondering]

He begins by discussing works by Dostoevsky, particularly Crime and Punishment. He then calls out Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins 'Radical atheists' on their assumption that humanity can proceed on a purely rational and irreligious basis. Dostoevesky seems to make the point (according to this prof) that if there's no transcendent value (God) then you can do whatever you want (morality is destroyed and chaos ensues). The prof asks his students "What the hell is irrational about me getting whatever I want from every one of you whenever I want it...and how is that more irrational than us cooperating so that we can have a good time of it?" He complains that radical atheists believe the human psychopathic tendency is irrational and therefore are misguided in thinking that pure rationality is a viable path forward.

Well I would say he makes an argument, and I wonder if folks here think he is accurately describing radical atheism and whether his argument is sound. The video rounds up to 6 minutes in length. Please at least skim it before replying, because I have not quoted the full text.

*yawn* Another theist smearing atheists, I've never seen that before. Some of the happiest, most prosperous and crime free nations in the world have a large population of atheists in them. Shouldn't they be falling into anarchy like something out of Mad Max if what this guy is claiming was true?

 

[Augustus]

Humanism has its roots in the West in ancient Greece and has been evolving ever since, albeit with a period of relative hibernation during the Age of Faith. Christianity wasn't even a twinkle in Judaism's eye when Thales and subsequent pre-Socratic philosophers began speculating that natural events were not punishments from capricious, which led to free speculation about reality.

Thales presumably believed, like the rest of the ancient Greeks, that human inequality was a fundamental fact of nature. Basic reason tells you that nature has no concept of equality and what is man but part of nature? Opposing this fundamental social tenet would not only be irrational but against reason itself.

He presuably saw the basic unit of society as being the family and the value of the individual was directly linked to their role and status in the family. An individual who acted according to their own whims at the expense of the family's virtue would probably warrant death. That is what 'reason and empathy' would tell you anyway, empathy for the family.

He presumably had absolutely no concept that rights could be bestowed on people due to their shared Humanity. The common slave or the peasant and the citizen were hardly cut from the same cloth after all. Reason and empathy told you the hoi polloi shouldn't be burdened with that which nature has set beyond their comprehension. Such people were roles, not individuals in the true sense. Even the citizen had to fulfil his duties to the polis, no freedom of conscience but an austere for he, duty was that which he was in thrall to.

He presumably saw history as an unending cycle of rise and fall. There was no progress, just gains that would eventually be lost as was the certainty of nature.

The Greek worldview was fundamentally alien to your Humanism, yet you consider it the source?

"Those who are fit to rule are those who realize there is no morality and that there is only one natural right, the right of the superior to rule over the inferior." Leo Strauss, founder of the neocon movement

A good example of the Greek philosophical worldview reflecting Strauss' Platonism.

Good that you chose it as an example of anti-Humanism.

Also, you have steadfastly refused repeated requests asking you to clarify just what your claim is. I have never said that humanism couldn't have an idea that came from Christianity, and just that it wouldn't be one of the core tenets, that humanism owes no debt to Christianity and is in fact a repudiation of it.

But who knows exactly what you are claiming. Maybe we are actually in agreement. If all you mean is that humanism has a trivial relationship to Christianity, I would not argue that point or even care.

I've told you this numerous times. It relates to several of the fundamental axioms underpinning of the Humanist worldview. There are also some relevant aspects of social permissiveness. There are also some structural factors that provided (largely unintended) assistance in creating the modern West.

It relates to the fundamental worldview onto which your 'reason and empathy' are applied. These are not value neutral, they are based on axioms drawn from the cultural context of the 'rational ethicist'. Much of ethics is based on reason and empathy yet only a tiny proportion ever led to Humanism. Beliefs have consequences.

How did we get from the Greek views (your anti-Humanism) to Humanism? What changed about the nature of society so that your 'reason and empathy' were applied to the individual as the fundamental social unit on which morality is based? Where did the concept of Humanity with rights (gradually) develop from? Why did time become linear rather than cyclical?

This was a long drawn out process that started from Christian creation mythology, Pauline theology and the equality of each person before God. Unlike the Jews, Christians were freed from the Law and act on conscience 'love God and do as thou wilt'. Time progressed towards the eschaton.

Christianity took humanity as a species in itself and sought to convert it into a species for itself. Thus, the defining characteristic of Christianity was its universalism. It aimed to create a single human society, a society composed, that is, of individuals rather than tribes, clans or castes. The fundamental relationship between the individual and his or her God provides the crucial test, in Christianity, of what really matters. It is, by definition, a test which applies to all equally. Hence the deep individualism of Christianity was simply the reverse side of its universalism. The Christian conception of God became the means of creating the brotherhood of man, of bringing to self-consciousness the human species, by leading each of its members to see him- or herself as having, at least potentially, a relationship with the deepest reality – viz., God – that both required and justified the equal moral standing of all humans.
Inventing the Individual

The Reformation further freed society from the strictures of tradition by asserting that the individual was free to interpret the Bible, and may even be grated Divine insight into how it should be interpreted. Christianity was reinfused with Greek philosophy during the Renaissance. Industrialisation and its loosening of the social bonds sped up the process.

Please try to keep in mind that just because a Christian does it doesn't mean that it is due to his Christianity. If somebody arrived at such a notion in the fourth century, he did it by using the humanist method - reason applied to compassion - not the Christian method - ethics from a book accepted as by faith as timeless, objectively real, immutable, authoritative, and non-negotiable.

Except that form of Christianity is one that exists in your mind to a far greater extent than it reflects actual history. You define the majority of Christian theology (and some of the Bible itself) as being 'not Christian' which is an obvious absurdity. I consider that influential Christian theologians reasoning from scripture should be considered part of Christianity which is the normal thing and most reasonable thingto do

And while you define Humanism as basically the source of all virtue, had you been born an Aztec, ancient Greek, Roman or a rural Muslim, the chances of 'reason and empathy' leading you to Humanism would be low to zero.

Things that seem natural and self-evident to you only do so because of your cultural conditioning. Absent these, your reason and empathy go in completely different directions

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Thales presumably believed, like the rest of the ancient Greeks, that human inequality was a fundamental fact of nature. Basic reason tells you that nature has no concept of equality and what is man but part of nature? Opposing this fundamental social tenet would not only be irrational but against reason itself.

He presuably saw the basic unit of society as being the family and the value of the individual was directly linked to their role and status in the family. An individual who acted according to their own whims at the expense of the family's virtue would probably warrant death. That is what 'reason and empathy' would tell you anyway, empathy for the family.

He presumably had absolutely no concept that rights could be bestowed on people due to their shared Humanity. The common slave or the peasant and the citizen were hardly cut from the same cloth after all. Reason and empathy told you the hoi polloi shouldn't be burdened with that which nature has set beyond their comprehension. Such people were roles, not individuals in the true sense. Even the citizen had to fulfil his duties to the polis, no freedom of conscience but an austere for he, duty was that which he was in thrall to.

He presumably saw history as an unending cycle of rise and fall. There was no progress, just gains that would eventually be lost as was the certainty of nature.

The Greek worldview was fundamentally alien to your Humanism, yet you consider it the source?

Why do you consider that relevant? I mentioned Thales as a counterargument to your claim that the idea of a rational universe was a Christian contribution to humanism, as well as to demonstrate that the roots of humanism go back to before Christianity, not to name an individual from antiquity with my 21st century ideology. That was centuries in the forming.

IANS: Also, you have steadfastly refused repeated requests asking you to clarify just what your claim is. I have never said that humanism couldn't have an idea that came from Christianity, and just that it wouldn't be one of the core tenets, that humanism owes no debt to Christianity and is in fact a repudiation of it.

But who knows exactly what you are claiming. Maybe we are actually in agreement. If all you mean is that humanism has a trivial relationship to Christianity, I would not argue that point or even care.

I've told you this numerous times. It relates to several of the fundamental axioms underpinning of the Humanist worldview. There are also some relevant aspects of social permissiveness. There are also some structural factors that provided (largely unintended) assistance in creating the modern West.

It relates to the fundamental worldview onto which your 'reason and empathy' are applied. These are not value neutral, they are based on axioms drawn from the cultural context of the 'rational ethicist'. Much of ethics is based on reason and empathy yet only a tiny proportion ever led to Humanism. Beliefs have consequences.

How did we get from the Greek views (your anti-Humanism) to Humanism? What changed about the nature of society so that your 'reason and empathy' were applied to the individual as the fundamental social unit on which morality is based? Where did the concept of Humanity with rights (gradually) develop from? Why did time become linear rather than cyclical?

This was a long drawn out process that started from Christian creation mythology, Pauline theology and the equality of each person before God. Unlike the Jews, Christians were freed from the Law and act on conscience 'love God and do as thou wilt'. Time progressed towards the eschaton.

Christianity took humanity as a species in itself and sought to convert it into a species for itself. Thus, the defining characteristic of Christianity was its universalism. It aimed to create a single human society, a society composed, that is, of individuals rather than tribes, clans or castes. The fundamental relationship between the individual and his or her God provides the crucial test, in Christianity, of what really matters. It is, by definition, a test which applies to all equally. Hence the deep individualism of Christianity was simply the reverse side of its universalism. The Christian conception of God became the means of creating the brotherhood of man, of bringing to self-consciousness the human species, by leading each of its members to see him- or herself as having, at least potentially, a relationship with the deepest reality – viz., God – that both required and justified the equal moral standing of all humans.
Inventing the Individual

The Reformation further freed society from the strictures of tradition by asserting that the individual was free to interpret the Bible, and may even be grated Divine insight into how it should be interpreted. Christianity was reinfused with Greek philosophy during the Renaissance. Industrialisation and its loosening of the social bonds sped up the process.

I don't see an answer to my question there. I will cease asking you what your specific claim is. You seem unwilling to give a clear answer.

You define the majority of Christian theology (and some of the Bible itself) as being 'not Christian' which is an obvious absurdity.

That is incorrect. I have said that Christian theology either comes from scripture or elsewhere. That which comes from elsewhere is the product humanistic influences. Christian doctrine now mostly calls the Genesis creation story figurative (some say allegory, but that is the wrong word). They didn't get that idea from the Bible.

The crux of the distinction is whether people are applying reason to scripture and reinterpreting it in the light of knowledge derived by rationalistic and empirical methods, or believing scripture as written. I didn't say that both don't contribute to contemporary Christianity, just that the former is derived using methods alien to a faith based approach that regards scripture as divine revelation to be believed and obeyed, but rather, borrows from another tradition and is imported into Christianity.

 

[Augustus]

Why do you consider that relevant? I mentioned Thales as a counterargument to your claim that the idea of a rational universe was a Christian contribution to humanism, as well as to demonstrate that the roots of humanism go back to before Christianity,

It's relevant because the Greek view of ethics was fundamentally different from Humanism for multiple reasons. You even chose to hold up Strauss' Platonism as an example of 'anti-Humanism'.

Even if you aren't, I'm interested in how we got from one worldview to another. I'm not content with some form of 'humanism did it'.

I don't see an answer to my question there. I will cease asking you what your specific claim is. You seem unwilling to give a clear answer.

IANS: What's your argument?
A: Several fundamental tenets of Humanism come from Christianity, not Greek philosophy. These are the points...
IANS: You seem unwilling to answer the question

That is incorrect. I have said that Christian theology either comes from scripture or elsewhere. That which comes from elsewhere is the product humanistic influences. The crux of the distinction is whether people are applying reason to scripture and reinterpreting it in the light of knowledge derived by rationalistic and empirical methods, or believing scripture as written. I didn't say that both don't contribute to contemporary Christianity, just that the former is derived using methods alien to a faith based approach that regards scripture as divine revelation to be believed and obeyed, but rather, borrows from another tradition and is imported into Christianity.

Paul's theology was interpretive, not purely scripture based and he saw at least some of the OT as allegory. To consider the methods of Paul as being 'alien' to Christianity seems a bit of a strange approach.

And back to the circular reasoning of God humanism did it.

I give up

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

IANS: What's your argument?
A: Several fundamental tenets of Humanism come from Christianity, not Greek philosophy. These are the points...
IANS: You seem unwilling to answer the question

Then you were arguing with yourself. I never claimed or argued that humanism is a product of Greek philosophy. I was arguing that it had almost nothing to do with Christianity. The roots of humanism go back to the ancient Greeks, and some of their ideas persist in it today, but that is not what you are arguing against, is it? You were apparently arguing that since there were palpable differences between the ancient Greek worldview and the modern humanist, humanism owes a debt to Christianity.

I wish you had clearly and succinctly worded your position like you just did weeks ago - the first time I asked you to do so.

You'll say that you did, but this is the first time I would agree with you that you have.

I give up

That's the best way to end this. There is nothing more for either of us to say. We've each made our case.

Thank you for your time and effort.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

-

*yawn* Another theist smearing atheists, I've never seen that before. Some of the happiest, most prosperous and crime free nations in the world have a large population of atheists in them. Shouldn't they be falling into anarchy like something out of Mad Max if what this guy is claiming was true?

What countries have the largest population of atheists? My old Geography of the World book might not be up-to date. How do they even know how many atheists there are, is anyone who has no religion considered an atheist? BTW I think its completely possible to be moral without religion.

 

[Augustus]

Just to clarify...

I was arguing that it had almost nothing to do with Christianity.

I know, I just considered your claim of 'rational ethics' to significantly underestimate the effect of culture on your beliefs, and the claim of 'humanist values' creating Humanism to be akin to saying 'God did it'.

You were apparently arguing that since there were palpable differences between the ancient Greek worldview and the modern humanist, humanism owes a debt to Christianity.

...because it was the source of several fundamental axioms on which modern Humanism stands. Only then would your rational ethics, for example, lead you in a Humanist direction.

That would now be a reasonable summary.

Thank you for your time and effort.

Thanks for the discussion

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

the claim of 'humanist values' creating Humanism to be akin to saying 'God did it'.

It depends exactly what you mean by that.

Humanism today is the result of ideas that evolved over time using methods and ideas that humanists consider valid today, virtually all of them some form of the rejection of supernaturalism, and often by people with no concept of what would later be called humanism. That is the claim, and it is nothing like "God did it."

When people first tested rational skepticism, rational ethics, and the scientific method, for example, they probably had no clear conception of what we call humanism today. They must have sensed that they were rejecting theistic ideas in each case, but that was likely the limit of their awareness of the ideology that would eventually flower due to their contributions.

But that is the central distinction between humanism and Christianity: the rejection of supernaturalism in the former.

We discussed Thales and the idea of rational skepticism, a bedrock philosophical position in humanism which was probably a poorly formed idea in Thales' head when he began experimenting with it..

Newton made contributions to what would become humanist metaphysics, but probably with no such concept in his head either. Nevertheless, he was pioneering another philosophical position that would become another bedrock philosophical position in humanism - empiricism, or the superiority of applying reason to observation rather than turning to prayer or revelation to obtain useful knowledge about physical reality.

Certainly by the time they tested the political ideas of Locke and Montesquieu, also a reaction to the reigning theistic order, there must have been at least the beginning of a sense of an ideology recognized explicitly as such coming into being.

I mentioned the preamble to the US Constitution yesterday. It's a humanistic statement of the purpose of government, one which promotes human excellence and celebrates the idea of the individual as sovereign over his own life, although its authors may not have been rejecting supernaturalism per se, but its presence in government.

Nevertheless, I suspect that the founders had a much clearer notion of humanism than those who had contributed to its evolution in the centuries that had come before.

Today, secular humanists explicitly rejects supernaturalism and promote man to the role God had played. From the Affirmations of Humanism:

• We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

• We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.

• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.

• We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

• We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.

These are not things that Thales, Newton, or Locke were likely to say, but the better ideas and methods of such men were culled from their not so good ideas (Newton was into astrology) and cobbled together into a complete ideology that represents a radical departure from its main alternative in the West.

 

[JustWondering]

-

What countries have the largest population of atheists? My old Geography of the World book might not be up-to date. How do they even know how many atheists there are, is anyone who has no religion considered an atheist? BTW I think its completely possible to be moral without religion.

Europe has for some time been leading the charge away from religion in the west. I just looked up murder rates by country and the US has a murder rate 4-6 times that of most European countries. There are governmental and civilian organizations that take surveys and compile data on just about anything you can think of. Just use google, you'll find it.

 

[Ricktheheretic]

Europe has for some time been leading the charge away from religion in the west. I just looked up murder rates by country and the US has a murder rate 4-6 times that of most European countries. There are governmental and civilian organizations that take surveys and compile data on just about anything you can think of. Just use google, you'll find it.

Could anything else be responsible for a lower murder rate in European countries? Maybe having a more socialist economic system where wealth is more equally distributed contributes to a better social environment. This doesn't go against the beliefs of Secular Humanism, people inherit the earth as it is and find better ways to manage it's resources and solve social/cultural problems. I find it strange that so many Christians in America support the Republican Party when so many of it's ideals go against the teachings of Christ, "give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's," "blessed are the poor," "woe unto ye who are rich," etc. etc. I'm sure a Republican could be a Secular Humanist, but I think most SH people lean towards the left. BTW I'm a registered Republican but vote Democratic or for independent candidates. I'm not trying to bring this into politics, but I think that from a Secular Humanist perspective politics matters because we can't hope for anyone else but us to make life better here on earth. It ties in with the topic, can people be good w/o god? Well, when did being good ever require trusting in an all powerful being? BTW there are good religious people and I don't discriminate against them.