INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used.

For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

Continuing to use this website is acceptance of these cookies.

We are not accepting any new registrations.

Grounds for being a Humanist

Any topics that are primarily about humanism or other non-religious life stances fit in here.
Message
Author
Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#101 Post by Nick » December 15th, 2010, 12:52 am

Latest post of the previous page:

Oh Nick, have mercy on this poor soul!
You have nothing to fear from me, Matt. :D

Your God, however, may be a different matter:
The LORD is a jealous and avenging God; the LORD takes vengeance and is filled with wrath. The LORD takes vengeance on his foes and maintains his wrath against his enemies. (Nahum 1:2)
I'll give you quick answers for how I see things, obviously many questions then follow (which I know you will ask )
I wouldn’t like to disappoint :wink:
1) I don't think that the universe contained evil prior to humans becoming morally responsible (which I think is when self-consciousness emerged). That commits me to the view that some particular things (like the death of animals for example) are not evil, which I accept. Many questions to be raised here of all sorts, but most questions raised also apply to any worldview that does not accept the reality of evil (such as yours?).
Doesn’t that just sound...well...silly? Apart from the fact that your God seems, by his own admission, capable of far greater evil than I could ever contemplate (hmmm...flooding the world, killing just about everything on it would be another example), let’s consider the chronology. 14.5 billion years ago, God creates the universe. 4.5 billion years ago, He creates the earth. Millions of years ago He creates Life. Maybe 100,000 years ago he finally realises his masterpiece, the reason for the whole caper, Man! Still, He can’t be bothered with him for about 100,000 years, leaving Man totally ignorant of divine truth. Oh, and letting them die horrible deaths. During childbirth is particularly benevolent, don’t you think? And you think humans are responsible for evil?! And given that we are animals (apes, to be more precise) what is the difference between human ‘evil’ and other animals killing each other? Lions killing their young, seems a nice evil-free thing to do on a sunny afternoon in Africa....
So the question is (which may have been your original question in fact) Why does God allow evil in the universe? Because I think all evil in the universe is caused by human action, this reduces to the question of why God has set up the world such that human action is able to have such an effect. I think part of the answer is that in order to be morally responsible we cannot live in a magical world where evil actions don't have evil consequences.
But why didn’t God create a nice universe where, either by design or by the perfect result of our own free will, there would be no evil? Why create a defective model? Was God or Adam just being a cheapskate? If Eve was created from Adam’s rib, was that because Adam wasn’t prepared to pay an arm and a leg? :D
That needs a lot of padding out, and again lots of questions follow, and I don't claim that it is "the answer" to the question of evil.
A word to the wise: There are easier positions to defend! Why make life difficult for yourself?
A final point I would say is that every worldview has to have an answer to the questions that evil brings up - and for me, Christianity best explains the phenomenon of evil in reality, and that the questions it leaves unanswered are less troublesome than the questions I have about evil as understood by other perspectives.
You’ll need to explain that one more fully, I’m afraid.
2) I don't think humanists can really have the ultimate hope of restoration and renewal in the way I'm talking about. After all, if the universe is a closed system (i.e. if naturalism is true) it will eventually become a cold, dark place impossible for sustaining life.
Yup. That’s about the size of it. The sun will eventually die. But don’t worry about being cold. In the dying days of the sun you will be overcome by the sun’s heat as it expires.


3) I think there are plenty of good arguments for God, by which I mean the premises in such arguments are more probable than their opposites.

I await examples of this with interest.
But it is possible to consistently reject these arguments given enough ingenuity.
Errr... given a modicum of common sense.
For me, it is the whole of my human experience - intellectual, emotional, existential - that convinces me of the existence of the Christian God. (And the qualifier of "Christian" is essential - I could not be convinced of the god of the philosophers).
Just as well you were born in God’s country, then. And lucky also you were not born 3,000 years ago. That would have been a most puzzling experience. Being totally convinced about something you knew nothing about.....

I’m afraid I find your faith surreal and totally baffling..... :shrug:

User avatar
anaconda
Posts: 219
Joined: June 18th, 2009, 11:07 pm

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#102 Post by anaconda » December 15th, 2010, 11:32 am

Hi Nick

Your responses provide a very clear and concise critique of religious faith. The flawed logic and silliness you point out is something which many followers of religion struggle with and in many cases results in an eventual rejection.

The point about accident of birth (location, timing) being the single biggest determinant in whether and which religion is significant for an individual was for me the straw which broke the camels back (as far as dropping my own christianity). It is also THE indicator that religion was a human creation, reflecting the variations which appear in all facets of society and in human history.


.......you still got the santa look going? :smile:
John

User avatar
anaconda
Posts: 219
Joined: June 18th, 2009, 11:07 pm

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#103 Post by anaconda » December 15th, 2010, 11:32 am

Hi Nick

Your responses provide a very clear and concise critique of religious faith. The flawed logic and silliness you point out is something which many followers of religion struggle with and in many cases results in an eventual rejection.

The point about accident of birth (location, timing) being the single biggest determinant in whether and which religion is significant for an individual was for me the straw which broke the camels back (as far as dropping my own christianity). It is also THE indicator that religion was a human creation, reflecting the variations which appear in all facets of society and in human history.


.......you still got the santa look going? :smile:
John

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#104 Post by Nick » December 15th, 2010, 11:53 am

anaconda wrote:Hi Nick

.......you still got the santa look going? :smile:
It's my busiest time of the year! :D

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#105 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » December 15th, 2010, 3:01 pm

Hello, Matt, and a belated welcome.
Carmen Christi wrote:So the question is (which may have been your original question in fact) Why does God allow evil in the universe? Because I think all evil in the universe is caused by human action, this reduces to the question of why God has set up the world such that human action is able to have such an effect. I think part of the answer is that in order to be morally responsible we cannot live in a magical world where evil actions don't have evil consequences. That needs a lot of padding out, and again lots of questions follow, and I don't claim that it is "the answer" to the question of evil.
I am less concerned about the problem of evil as I am about the more general problem of suffering. Believing, as I do, in a world in which life arose by natural processes (including evolution by natural selection) unguided by any divine power, I can see how and why pain and suffering came about, and I can see how an undesigned world would have things in it that would cause the innocent to suffer. What doesn't make sense to me is the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, interventionist God, the kind of God that watches over us and loves us and answers our prayers, also being responsible for a world in which the innocent suffer. I think that if I believed that, it would cause me much anguish.
Carmen Christi wrote:A final point I would say is that every worldview has to have an answer to the questions that evil brings up - and for me, Christianity best explains the phenomenon of evil in reality, and that the questions it leaves unanswered are less troublesome than the questions I have about evil as understood by other perspectives.
Could you give some examples of those questions?
Carmen Christi wrote:2) I don't think humanists can really have the ultimate hope of restoration and renewal in the way I'm talking about. After all, if the universe is a closed system (i.e. if naturalism is true) it will eventually become a cold, dark place impossible for sustaining life.
Well, we don't know that. But personally I'm not bothered about whether the universe is going to end in a Big Freeze, or whether there'll be some kind of Big Bounce involving the end of this universe and the beginning of the next, or whether this is just one universe in an infinite multiverse, or whatever other possibilities there are. If the universe is some kind of blip of somethingness in the middle of an eternity of nothingness, then that seems just as wonderful to me as infinite somethingness.
Carmen Christi wrote:3) I think there are plenty of good arguments for God, by which I mean the premises in such arguments are more probable than their opposites. But it is possible to consistently reject these arguments given enough ingenuity.
Strange. I've yet to meet an argument for God that requires any kind of ingenuity to reject it. I'd like to, though. Could you give just one example?
Carmen Christi wrote:For me, it is the whole of my human experience - intellectual, emotional, existential - that convinces me of the existence of the Christian God. (And the qualifier of "Christian" is essential - I could not be convinced of the god of the philosophers).
Fascinating, isn't it, the way our human experiences differ so much? For me, it is the whole of my human experience that convinces me of the non-existence of the Christian God (and various other personal gods). But I suppose the key ingredient that's missing for me is faith. It's not something I've rejected. I just don't have it. Never have.

Which takes me back to the subject of the thread. I have no grounds for being a humanist. A "humanist" is simply what I am: someone who lacks a belief in God or the supernatural but who is trying, or at least who wants to try, to live a good life. My reason for being a Humanist with a capital H, for joining groups like the BHA and this forum, is that I find it valuable to be part of some kind of organisation or community (to use one of Nick's least favourite words), and I think that it would be valuable for many other humanists, whether it's a word they would use to describe themselves or not.

Emma

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#106 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » December 15th, 2010, 3:05 pm

Nick wrote:
2) I don't think humanists can really have the ultimate hope of restoration and renewal in the way I'm talking about. After all, if the universe is a closed system (i.e. if naturalism is true) it will eventually become a cold, dark place impossible for sustaining life.
Yup. That’s about the size of it. The sun will eventually die. But don’t worry about being cold. In the dying days of the sun you will be overcome by the sun’s heat as it expires.
But Nick, Matt wasn't talking about our solar system; he was talking about the universe. Specifically (to quote Wikipedia), the Big Freeze, which is "a scenario under which continued expansion results in a universe that asymptotically approaches absolute zero temperature. It could, in the absence of dark energy, occur only under a flat or hyperbolic geometry. With a positive cosmological constant, it could also occur in a closed universe. This scenario is currently the most commonly accepted theory within the scientific community."

Emma

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#107 Post by animist » December 15th, 2010, 3:22 pm

Carmen Christi wrote:
animist wrote:re "forced" - well, what I wrote was a parody and therefore exaggerated, and in fact it seems to have allowed you to avoid the point of it, which is that the trinity just makes no sense. Certainly, it has absolutely no relevance to human life: we don't operate as three in one, do we, so why should God if he made us in his image?
What exactly is your argument that the Trinity makes no sense? If "Number 1" doesn't actually force "Number 2" yadda yadda, then what is the substance of your point?
well, persuaded rather than forced if you like, makes no difference! Was there a tripartite conference on strategy before Jesus descended? Did the Father, as senior, "suggest" that the Son descend, or did the Son become the Son in virtue of descent? And did the HG claim immunity as incapable of taking bodily form?
Carmen Christi wrote:The idea that humankind is made in the image of God, from the Christian point of view, actually only makes sense if God is in some way a community of Persons. The idea behind the "image of God" is that human beings collectively are meant to represent and reflect God on earth as a community united by love - "In the image of God we created them" as the line goes - so that is pretty relevant if you ask me, if it's true.
that is so ricidulous, sorry. You and I are real Persons who are totally separate but could hopefully love or at least care for each other; that is what is love or compassion is about. You have no idea of what the difference between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is; can you not see that the Trinity is a fudge developed laboriously in the early Xian centuries to make sense, codify and enforce a certain interpretation of confusing passages from the New Testament?

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#108 Post by Nick » December 15th, 2010, 3:35 pm

Emma Woolgatherer wrote:
Nick wrote:
2) I don't think humanists can really have the ultimate hope of restoration and renewal in the way I'm talking about. After all, if the universe is a closed system (i.e. if naturalism is true) it will eventually become a cold, dark place impossible for sustaining life.
Yup. That’s about the size of it. The sun will eventually die. But don’t worry about being cold. In the dying days of the sun you will be overcome by the sun’s heat as it expires.
But Nick, Matt wasn't talking about our solar system; he was talking about the universe. Specifically (to quote Wikipedia), the Big Freeze, which is "a scenario under which continued expansion results in a universe that asymptotically approaches absolute zero temperature. It could, in the absence of dark energy, occur only under a flat or hyperbolic geometry. With a positive cosmological constant, it could also occur in a closed universe. This scenario is currently the most commonly accepted theory within the scientific community."

Emma
I'm happy to accept a technical correction, but the point is the same: there is no prospect of ultimate restoration and renewal. And as our solar system and the universe as a whole have many billions of years left in them anyway, it seems a bit of an unnecessary worry tobe concerned about a new universe. God might have changed His mind by then....

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#109 Post by Nick » December 15th, 2010, 3:41 pm

Emma Woolgatherer wrote: Which takes me back to the subject of the thread. I have no grounds for being a humanist. A "humanist" is simply what I am: someone who lacks a belief in God or the supernatural but who is trying, or at least who wants to try, to live a good life. My reason for being a Humanist with a capital H, for joining groups like the BHA and this forum, is that I find it valuable to be part of some kind of organisation or community (to use one of Nick's least favourite words), and I think that it would be valuable for many other humanists, whether it's a word they would use to describe themselves or not.

Emma
I like to think I have raised your consciousness about the over-use and abuse of this word. :D Mind you, I am certain that as thoughtful a person as you, would have considered carefully before using it. And, in this context, for once, I think it's appropriate.

Probably. :wink:

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#110 Post by animist » December 15th, 2010, 3:52 pm

Nick wrote:
Emma Woolgatherer wrote: Which takes me back to the subject of the thread. I have no grounds for being a humanist. A "humanist" is simply what I am: someone who lacks a belief in God or the supernatural but who is trying, or at least who wants to try, to live a good life. My reason for being a Humanist with a capital H, for joining groups like the BHA and this forum, is that I find it valuable to be part of some kind of organisation or community (to use one of Nick's least favourite words), and I think that it would be valuable for many other humanists, whether it's a word they would use to describe themselves or not.

Emma
I like to think I have raised your consciousness about the over-use and abuse of this word. :D Mind you, I am certain that as thoughtful a person as you, would have considered carefully before using it. And, in this context, for once, I think it's appropriate.

Probably. :wink:
this is news to me - what is wrong with the word? In this context I would think "organisation" definitely not appropriate (except for the organising of the IT basis that Maria and Alan kindly do), "community" sort of OK - but "forum" best of all

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#111 Post by Nick » December 15th, 2010, 4:20 pm

Animist, I'd say that "organisation" refers to the BHA, which sounds fair to me.

"Communities" has become a buzz-word to lump together groups of people who just share a common attribute. It's even part of the name of a government department FFS! I also think it is unhelpful both as a description and as a tool for social policy. Grr!!

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#112 Post by animist » December 15th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Nick wrote:Animist, I'd say that "organisation" refers to the BHA, which sounds fair to me.

"Communities" has become a buzz-word to lump together groups of people who just share a common attribute. It's even part of the name of a government department FFS! I also think it is unhelpful both as a description and as a tool for social policy. Grr!!
well, sorry, I meant TH, and I am not any organisation like the BHA; sometimes I feel I am a humanist, sometimes not. But surely sharing a common attribute does literally make a community (eg user community); I suppose to you the word suggests there should be some common feeling or esprit de corps?

Maria Mac
Site Admin
Posts: 9306
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:34 pm

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#113 Post by Maria Mac » December 15th, 2010, 6:05 pm

I agree that the word 'community' is over-used. I am currently resisting the label 'skeptic community' as if I don't have anything to do with the geeky types I see at the few skeptic meetings I attend beyond a shared interest in skepticism. But I think 'online community' is fair description of this forum, more because of the socialising and disclosure of personal matters in the private club than the topic discussions.

[/diversion]

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#114 Post by Dave B » December 15th, 2010, 6:16 pm

Nick wrote:Animist, I'd say that "organisation" refers to the BHA, which sounds fair to me.

"Communities" has become a buzz-word to lump together groups of people who just share a common attribute. It's even part of the name of a government department FFS! I also think it is unhelpful both as a description and as a tool for social policy. Grr!!
It does seem to be another of those perfectly good and useful words that have become used for so many diverse reasons that they indeed become jargon.

I would love to live in a community - one of those places (street, village or whatever) where most of the members have a common purpose to improve the quality of life they share. That is what I always understood a community to mean in real life. That does give them a common attribute but it is a more "intimate" one rather than meaning a whole bunch of people who hardly know anything about one another.

Thus I agree, TH is a community - most of us feel safe to "expose" personal matters. So far it is certainly the best such community I have found thus far on the web and I do not expect to find better.
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Emma Woolgatherer
Posts: 2976
Joined: February 27th, 2008, 12:17 pm

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#115 Post by Emma Woolgatherer » December 15th, 2010, 6:47 pm

I discovered Humanism, about thirteen years ago, because I was looking for some kind of non-religious community, something similar to the community that religious people have when they belong to a church. I joined a mailing list (the old Internet Infidels one) that offered something of the community spirit I was after, but most of the members were in North America, so there was very little chance of meeting any of them. More recently, I joined my local humanist group (South West London Humanists), but that meets just once a month, in the upstairs room of a pub, for a talk and a discussion. I used to quite like it, but it didn't have much of a community feeling, and I haven't been for a long time. I'm convinced that one of the biggest advantages that churches have is property. All those buildings, cold and draughty though they may often be, are so useful. I fantasise, sometimes, about winning the lottery and buying a building and turning it into a community centre for all kinds of secular groups to use, like Conway Hall. But that's just a pipe dream. There are other things I'd love to get involved in, like some kind of outreach programme for non-religious people who are a bit isolated from others with similar views (as my own parents were in their old age), who don't have access to the Internet, and who can't get out and about easily. That sort of thing needs organisation. Sadly, I'm not very organised. :D

Emma

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#116 Post by animist » December 15th, 2010, 7:19 pm

Dave B wrote:I would love to live in a community - one of those places (street, village or whatever) where most of the members have a common purpose to improve the quality of life they share. That is what I always understood a community to mean in real life. That does give them a common attribute but it is a more "intimate" one rather than meaning a whole bunch of people who hardly know anything about one another.

Thus I agree, TH is a community - most of us feel safe to "expose" personal matters. So far it is certainly the best such community I have found thus far on the web and I do not expect to find better.
well, don't you live on a street or village? Sorry, this sounds more challenging than intended, and all I mean is that is up to the inhabitants of wherever to get more involved if they want to. Actually, what is good about TH is maybe that we don't know really know each other and are certainly not in the situation of regular physical contact; I really think that it makes the personal "exposure" (your word) easier. Sort of linking up with the "What were you doing...?" threads, I remember that in the 60s I wanted to live in a commune (much to my parents' derision, given my asocial tendencies) because I thought that this was more "real" than bourgeois nuclear familly life. Communities were normally distinguished from communes as being more stable, and more more genuinely motivated by shared religious or ideological ideals (a good novel about them is Iris Murdoch's "The Bell"). Lastly for now, I agree with Emma's remarks about churches, and it reminds us that they really were the centres of traditional communities: I feel depressed about the closures of pubs and churches, as despite the faults of each, they are communal centres.

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#117 Post by Alan C. » December 15th, 2010, 7:28 pm

animist
Actually, what is good about TH is maybe that we don't really know each other
Quite a few of us do :)
and are certainly not in the situation of regular physical contact;
We have had a fair few "meet ups" that anyone is welcome to attend, we even had Marian from Canada at one such meet up. :smile:
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

User avatar
animist
Posts: 6522
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#118 Post by animist » December 15th, 2010, 7:40 pm

Alan C. wrote:
animist
Actually, what is good about TH is maybe that we don't really know each other
Quite a few of us do :)
and are certainly not in the situation of regular physical contact;
We have had a fair few "meet ups" that anyone is welcome to attend, we even had Marian from Canada at one such meet up. :smile:
well I am so glad that another one is planned, even though I am not going, and I hope you all have a great time. Sure I will meet some of you sometime (have already met Nick)

User avatar
Alan C.
Posts: 10356
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 3:35 pm

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#119 Post by Alan C. » December 15th, 2010, 7:46 pm

animist
(have already met Nick)
Oh dear! Please don't tar us all with the same brush :laughter:





Sorry Nick.........Mate? :wink:
Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers.

Nick
Posts: 11027
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#120 Post by Nick » December 16th, 2010, 1:04 am

Grrrrrr!!! :angry:


Only some of us are mad axe murderers.....








:laughter:

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 24067
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: Grounds for being a Humanist

#121 Post by Alan H » December 16th, 2010, 1:09 am

Dave B wrote:Thus I agree, TH is a community - most of us feel safe to "expose" personal matters. So far it is certainly the best such community I have found thus far on the web and I do not expect to find better.
What a nice thing to say! Thank you.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

Post Reply