Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The concept of humanism is as old as time itself, and at its root it's all about me, me, me! The most obvious example is ancient Greece which was very humanistic. The Greek mindset further influenced the Mid-East and northern Africa through the conquests of Alexander the Great. Rome was also heavily influenced by this same mindset, and let's not forget the Renaissance. It was the humanistic mindset that set Greece up to be conquered by Alexander (who was only following in his fathers footsteps). It was the same mindset that allowed Rome to conquer the "world," followed by the Mongul hordes. The result: The Dark Ages! People were now too busy surviving to advance in intellectual and scientific pursuits (although some did try). How to escape from the morass humanistic thinking had gotten them into? War! All along, people were putting their faith in the goodness of mankind which led them to war after war after war. It was the humanistic mindset that wouldn't allow the people to question the church when it called for the Crusades. After all, the priests and the pope wouldn't lead them astray, would they? No one would purposefully deceive them! More war fueled by false promises! Faith in their fellow man led to unimaginable horrors.
The American colonists expected to be rightly treated by England and France. After all, wouldn't their former friends and neighbors treat them well? I think we all know how that ended up. Germany had the same mindset after World War I. That left them ripe for the picking by you know who. The Germans so believed in the humanistic mindset that people would rise to the occasion and be guided by their inner "good" compass, they wouldn't even believe the atrocities that were occurring in their homeland; they thought it was propaganda. We're hardwired to think that people are essentially good because, deep down, we know the right way to live. However, that doesn't address the reality that predators are always on the prowl, and the predators can be pretty evil.
I won't disagree for a minute that many wars were fought over religion, at least in the name of religion. But who instigated and lead the wars? What was their motivating factor? It certainly wasn't to spread love and goodwill; most acknowledge the motivating factors were power, greed, and land. That's why I mentioned Biblical Christianity. There's no doubt that people have perverted faiths of all types to further their own agendas. That's why a moral compass is needed; that's why absolute moral values within all societies are essential. Without them, people will blindly look away and take care of #1. Yes, there will be exceptions to the rule; however, the exceptions will be far too few.
Well said. This ties in nicely to a thread I started a while back about how people determine their morality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by brittZ
I wanted to branch off to another area here based on a post I made in one of the many debates about homosexuality. I DO NOT want to discuss homosexuality here as there are plenty of threads for that. Instead I am curious to see how people determine their morality from a Christian standpoint and a non-believer standpoint. Here are my thoughts to open the discussion.
If you allow your own inner conscious to be your moral compass and trust it to steer you to what is right then you are being led by a faulty compass. You can shift it up or down based on what you allow yourself to be subjected to. That is why it will never work to say that it feels right or natural so it must be ok.
As it turns out, I can and did give rep point for ya Blueberry. You deserve 'em. Humanism truly is the blind leading the blind off a cliff for the benefit of the blind.
What (or who) is going to provide the sense of direction you claim we need? Philosophers can't agree on idealogical issues. Scientists don't agree on scientific conclusions. Politicians don't agree with each other. Neighbors disagree with neighbors; states, with states; countries, with countries. When mankind is left to it's own devices and ideas, chaos and destruction ultimately occurs. Rational thought and scientific inquiry aren't magically going to make people agree. Charismatic leaders or charlatans will rise up to rally the people around them, and secular wars will be fought; however, with no moral absolutes, even more people will die.
I know you don't believe the Biblical record, and that is fine. Others do, however, so I'm going to use an example to illustrate my point. (This is for illustration only and not to debate the accuracy of the Bible, so please don't go there.)
When creation occurred, Adam and Eve were given only one rule: don't eat the forbidden fruit. They did. Although I believe God must have given them some general guidelines while walking with them in the garden, there weren't formal rules laid out. In the New Testament, we are told that God has written His word on our hearts, so these early peoples must have had an "inner compass." Fast forward 1650 years. Mankind had been living in what was originally a perfect world. However, they didn't have a formal set of rules. Everyone did what he thought was right in his own eyes, ignoring that "inner compass." The result: They were so evil that God destroyed the world with a flood.
According to the Talmud, Noah was given a set of seven laws. (The Bible records just one, but it was one that came with a penalty. A second guideline concerned what could be eaten.) A thousand years later, these laws were expanded and became the Law of Moses. For the first time, people were expected to follow a common set of guidelines. All peoples were handed the Noahide laws after the flood. The Israelites, specifically, were handed the Mosaic laws.
Here we are today, 4350 years after the flood. Without a common law (the humanistic mindset), mankind lasted only 1650 years. So again, my question is, who or what will determine the sense of direction we need? Each person doing his/her own thing, listening to his/her inner compass, certainly doesn't work. We already know people don't agree with one another. If we haven't reached common concurrence in the "millions" of years we've been evolving, just when do you expect our minds and hearts will become one with rational thought and scientific inquiry?
Beautifuly said! I wonder what the response will be. pins and needles are for sure!
What (or who) is going to provide the sense of direction you claim we need? Philosophers can't agree on idealogical issues. Scientists don't agree on scientific conclusions.
History may appear chaotic and confusing with all of the competing ideas and conflicts that exist in all societies. I'm not suggesting that any one philosophy will suddenly stop all of this turmoil. However, beneath this apparent chaos human beings still manage to organize themselves into nations, conduct commerce and go about the daily business of life. Anyone can observe that all human beings, regardless of their ethnic, religious or cultural backgrounds share common needs. Everyone needs the basics for survival such as food, water and shelter as well as the common need for safety and the sharing of resources. I don't think you'll find competing beliefs about any of these human needs, they're self evident. It is also evident that over the countless centuries of human existence that progress has been made in every area of human endeavor. We are fortunate to be the beneficiaries of the cumulative total of human knowledge and today we can cure many illnesses that used to kill thousands, we can efficiently produce crops and distribute food to consumers, and the list goes on and on. All of our acheivements have been the result of rational thought and the advancement of the scientific method, the very things that I'm proposing that are the foundation of humanism. If you look around the world today you'll notice that the wars we're engaged in and the terrorists that we're trying to stop are motivated by religious fervor, not by rational behavior, and with that parting thought I think I've addressed your questions quite well.
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,390,088 times
Reputation: 3540
MG,
I appreciate the tone of this discussion. Obviously we disagree, and we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I want to address your comments that were so eloquently presented. (I sincerely mean that, just in case anyone thinks it was a feeble attempt at sarcasm!) After that, I'm willing to let my side of this discussion drop because I think the point has been made.
Thank you to those people who have encouraged me in this thread!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontanaGuy
However, beneath this apparent chaos human beings still manage to organize themselves into nations, conduct commerce and go about the daily business of life. Anyone can observe that all human beings, regardless of their ethnic, religious or cultural backgrounds share common needs. Everyone needs the basics for survival such as food, water and shelter as well as the common need for safety and the sharing of resources. I don't think you'll find competing beliefs about any of these human needs, they're self evident.
The veil of human cooperation is very thin. In today's society, when push comes to shove, the vast majority of people will do whatever it takes to preserve and protect what is theirs. I have done a lot of reading on survivalist websites to glean information about common sense steps we can take to prepare for interruption of services that may occur due to natural disasters, power failures, or terrorist attacks. (I'm extremely remote, so my location will be one of the first to be cut off and one of the last to have services restored.) Most of these people are just plain, decent folks who seem like upright citizens (and, yes, a few very scary kooks!). However, it's frightening to read what these "good" people are willing to do to ensure their survival and that of their loved ones. I can't imagine what the "good" people who haven't prepared for emergencies are going to do, but I imagine many of them will also be willing to stoop to outright murder of the innocent.
It doesn't matter that people have common needs. When resources become scarce, it's every man for himself. The survivalists sure aren't planning to share, and I doubt few others will either after the enormity of an end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it situation becomes known. I think the days of sacrificing ourselves for others are gone.
Various scenarios have been played out on the news over and over; when a massacre is in process, the vast majority of people are trying to protect themselves. In the Virginia Tech situation, there was even one student who was trying to barricade the door and couldn't get anyone to help; they were all looking to protect themselves! From the accounts I read, it sound like most of them died in the process. (This example by no means is meant to diminish the sacrifice the Jewish professor made in this situation.) Unfortunately, the days of working together to ensure common survival seem to be gone.
Quote:
It is also evident that over the countless centuries of human existence that progress has been made in every area of human endeavor. We are fortunate to be the beneficiaries of the cumulative total of human knowledge and today we can cure many illnesses that used to kill thousands, we can efficiently produce crops and distribute food to consumers, and the list goes on and on. All of our acheivements have been the result of rational thought and the advancement of the scientific method, the very things that I'm proposing that are the foundation of humanism.
I somehow don't think we'll agree on the source of these inspirations and achievements!
Quote:
If you look around the world today you'll notice that the wars we're engaged in and the terrorists that we're trying to stop are motivated by religious fervor, not by rational behavior, and with that parting thought I think I've addressed your questions quite well.
The people carrying out the wars might be fueled by religious fervor, but who's behind them? What's their motivation? They're the predators I've talked about that will take advantage of the people's reliance on the goodness of their fellow man. Finally, with a particular flavor of religious extremism, is it really religious fervor that fuels their acts or their worldly desires? (By the way, the same could be said for the Crusades.) When some are looking to a reward of 70 virgins, I somehow can't be convinced they're motivated to spread peace, love, and harmony. (Now we're back to the "me, me, me" attitude, aren't we? )
Blueberry, you've made some good common sense observations that I agree with. It's true that an orderly civilization can slip in chaos, just look at New Orleans when Katrina struck. However, people who are living in an advanced western nation such as our own at this point in time are very fortunate. People have never enjoyed so much that we take for granted. Despite the temporary setbacks that plague humanity when a natural or man made catastrophe strikes I'm fairly optimistic that we'll continue to make progress as we've done in the past. I really do believe that the humanistic model for creating an efficient and productive society is the means for acheiving our goals.
While I'm sure both of you realize that I side with Blueberry on this debate, I just have to say that both of your posts are so eloquently written that they are truly a pleasure to read. I wish everyone had those kinds of skills.
MontanaGuy, Blueberry, thank you both for showing us all what a real discussion on CD forums should look like.
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,390,088 times
Reputation: 3540
MG,
I share your optimism when it comes to temporary setbacks. People have shown incredible resiliency, innovation, and love and caring for their fellow humans during incredible misfortunes. My pessimism comes into play when facing long-term, end-of-the-world type scenarios and/or war. I'm truly grieved at the many instances of man's inhumanity toward man that I see in so many day-to-day venues that I dread an apocalyptic scenario.
However, you'll be relieved to note that I'm a very happy, joyful and optimistic person normally. I've taught my daughter to always expect the best in people but to be prepared for the worst and to always look beyond the surface chatter. I definitely believe in treating all people with love and respect, and always give them the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. You seem like the same kind of person. Hopefully, we can influence those around us and encourage others to embrace both humanity and life.
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,390,088 times
Reputation: 3540
Alpha and Blue,
Thank you. I'm humbled by your remarks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
More war fueled by false promises! Faith in their fellow man led to unimaginable horrors. 
I can't imagine what the "good" people who haven't prepared for emergencies are going to do, but I imagine many of them will also be willing to stoop to outright murder of the innocent.
