Secular Humanism (ethical, religion, marriage, soul)

[McDweller]

A long time ago, I didn't identify myself with anything. Then, for a short period, I learned about secular humanism, read a short blurb, agreed with it, and kind of identified myself with it. I even read this article on the Huffington Post, but that just left me even more confused than ever. The article said there are three things that lead to secular humanism: dopamine and the pleasure people get for doing positive things to each other, tribalism and cooperation, and reason (as opposed to "superstition" and "dogma").

So, here's the ethical code that I extract from secular humanism:

1. Doing good feels good.
2. Humans should work together peacefully, because we have evolved that way.
3. Humans should use reason, because we have evolved reason.

I think a serious issue that the author is not considering is VALUES. Evolution does not say what we should or should not do. It's also quite difficult to pinpoint what is natural human behavior and cultural human behavior, because humans are very cultural. Ask any sociologist, psychologist, or neurobiologist. Sure, we have our biological impulses, but to say that our own biological impulses is "good" and we should follow that sounds like the appeal to nature. I think the author Doug Thomas should explain why secular humanists value reason in decision-making and ethics, what makes reason reason, and the relationship between reason and superstition/dogma/"unreason" for lack of a better term. For most people who are normal and sane, I would agree that doing good does feel good; however, that concept is just dangerous when you have a sadistic cheater. A person may feel pleasure from successfully stealing the answer sheet from the teacher's desk and think that he is doing good, because he has the answers for the exam. If he scores an A+, his parents will be proud of him. Now, this leads me to suggest maybe the mutual consent is the underlying value here. In any case, I think Doug Thomas should really explain the underlying values for the ethical behavior rather than ignoring values.

[ukrkoz]

Aaahhh, the evolution.... You serious?
Aaahhh, the neurologists, psychologists and other bunch that claims they have all the wisdom in the world, whilst none of them knows what a human psyche REALLY is...
Wrong tracks, buddy. Well, right tracks in your good intentions, wrong guides...

How about those here:

1. Those who do not control their passions cannot act properly toward others.
2. The evils we inflict upon others follow us as our shadows follow our bodies.
3. Only the humble are beloved of God.
4. Virtue sustains the soul as the muscles sustain the body.
5. When the poor man knocks at your door, take him and administer to his wants, for the poor are the chosen of God. (Christ said, "God hath chosen the poor.")
6. Let your hand be always open to the unfortunate.
7. Look not upon a woman with unchaste desires.
8. Avoid envy, covetousness, falsehood, imposture and slander, and sexual desires.
9. Above all things, cultivate love for your neighbor.
10. When you die you leave your worldly wealth behind you, but your virtues and vices follow you.
11. Contemn riches and worldly honor.
12. Seek the company of the wicked in order to reform them.
13. Do good for its own sake, and expect not your reward for it on earth
14. The soul is immortal, but must be pure and free from all sin and stain before it can return to Him who gave it.
15. The soul is inclined to good when it follows the inward light.
16. The soul is responsible to God for its actions, who has established rewards and punishments.
17. Cultivate that inward knowledge which teaches what is right and wrong.
18. Never take delight in another's misfortunes.
19. It is better to forgive an injury than to avenge it.
20. You can accomplish by kindness what you cannot by force.
21. A noble spirit finds a cure for injustice by forgetting it.
22. Pardon the offense of others, but not your own.
23. What you blame in others do not practice yourself.
24. By forgiving an enemy you make many friends.
25. Do right from hatred of evil, and not from fear of punishment.
26. A wise man corrects his own errors by observing those of others.
27. He who rules his temper conquers his greatest enemy.
28. The wise man governs his passions, but the fool obeys them.
29. Be at war with men's vices, but at peace with their persons.
30. There should be no disagreement between your lives and your doctrine.
31. Spend every day as though it were the last.
32. Lead not one life in public and another in private.
33. Anger in trying to torture others punishes itself.
34. A disgraceful death is honorable when you die in a good cause.
35. By growing familiar with vices, we learn to tolerate them easily.
36. We must master our evil propensities, or they will master us.
37. He who has conquered his propensities rules over a kingdom.
38. Protect, love and assist others, if you would serve God.
39. From thought springs the will, and from the will action, true or false, just or unjust.
40. As the sandal tree perfumes the axe which fells it, so the good man fragrances on his enemies.
41. Spend a portion of each day in pious devotion.
42. To love the virtues of others is to brighten your own.
43. He who gives to the needy loses nothing himself.
44. A good, wise and benevolent man cannot be rich.
45. Much riches is a curse to the possessor.
46. The wounds of the soul are more important than those of the body.
47. The virtuous man is like the banyan tree, which shelters and protects all around it.
48. Money does not satisfy the love of gain, but only stimulates it.
49. Your greatest enemy is in your own bosom.
50. To flee when charged is to confess your guilt.
51. The wounds of conscience leave a sear.

No. Not Christ. 51 precepts of Chrishna.

[justus978]

hey, then contact doug thomas and ask him...!

[Aleister Crowley]

You are confusing virtue with dogma. Aspiring to be ethical or right minded is a muted form of narcissism. For those who do not question everything up to and including creation. They are stuck in a world focused on success, material possession and the image they hold of themselves in social circles and society.

[McDweller]

Originally Posted by Aleister Crowley

You are confusing virtue with dogma. Aspiring to be ethical or right minded is a muted form of narcissism. For those who do not question everything up to and including creation. They are stuck in a world focused on success, material possession and the image they hold of themselves in social circles and society.

So, people should not aspire to be ethical or right-minded, because aspiring good ethics is a muted form of narcissism, as if narcissism is a bad thing? Sorry, but I don't follow that line of thought. o_O

Science does not tell people what they should and should not do. There is overwhelming evidence in the literature that smoking seriously harms human health. Science itself cannot say people should or should not stop smoking. But people have values, such as the sanctity of human life, that every human life is valuable. If there is evidence that smoking is harmful, and this evidence is perceived to be a violation of the person's value of human life (his own, for instance), then that person's ethical judgment and reasoning is most likely going to be that he's going to avoid smoking. I think values are important but are often overlooked.

[Aleister Crowley]

Originally Posted by McDweller

So, people should not aspire to be ethical or right-minded, because aspiring good ethics is a muted form of narcissism, as if narcissism is a bad thing? Sorry, but I don't follow that line of thought. o_O

Science does not tell people what they should and should not do. There is overwhelming evidence in the literature that smoking seriously harms human health. Science itself cannot say people should or should not stop smoking. But people have values, such as the sanctity of human life, that every human life is valuable. If there is evidence that smoking is harmful, and this evidence is perceived to be a violation of the person's value of human life (his own, for instance), then that person's ethical judgment and reasoning is most likely going to be that he's going to avoid smoking. I think values are important but are often overlooked.

You bring up an interesting concept known as choice often termed free will. It would be like me saying I didn't kill myself in my youth because I didn't think anybody would show up at my funeral. If I smoked like a chimney and lived to 90+ years, would that be luck or chance?

A better question is one of asking if an afterlife exists. When they talk about disturbing the peace or doubting that the dead who have not suffered a tortured life in this earth deserve any peace or semblance of it in the afterlife. One could argue the dead are all around us. Some have argued that the dead are really living through the living or living their lives for them.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by McDweller

So, here's the ethical code that I extract from secular humanism:

I share many goals with them. As I do with atheists. But I have never felt compelled to label myself as either, or to entirely align with their position. But much of what I say, do and espouse is indistinguishable from those who do use such labels of themselves. If I was _forced_ to label myself as anything I would likely go with "secular" before "atheist" or "humanist" or "agnostic".

Originally Posted by McDweller

1. Doing good feels good.

That sounds more like hedonism than secularism or humanism to me. I can not recall a single piece of humanist literature I have read which would have led me to extract this from. From what Humanist perspectives exactly did you derive this from?

I think if you need to distill it into soundbites then I think the humanist perspective on "doing" is more likely better summarizes as "Having evaluated actions in terms of their effect, choose to do those that cause the least amount of net harm to all, and the most amount of net benefit to all".

Or as Hank and John Green of VlogBrothers fame would say "Endeavor to reduce the quantity of World Suck" which is about as sublime a distillation of humanist values as you are likely to find.

Originally Posted by McDweller

2. Humans should work together peacefully, because we have evolved that way.

Essentially this is ok but it is a bit over simplified. We are a social species for sure. And society and so forth are simply a human relationship. Like any other. A more complex and larger scale one, but in essence it is just a human relationship like any marriage or friendship or business dealing.

The reason we should work together is that that is simply the only way a relationship works. It has been tried in other ways before. It simply does not work. Dictatorships and their cronies simply crumble.

Originally Posted by McDweller

3. Humans should use reason, because we have evolved reason.

As above we should not use it simply because we evolved it. We should use it because it _works_ and it supports the human relationship we call society. As Sam Harris would say: I have yet to hear of a society where its residents came to suffer because the people became too reasonable.

Originally Posted by McDweller

I think a serious issue that the author is not considering is VALUES. Evolution does not say what we should or should not do.

To a point it does not, but I would not remove it or any science from the table of discussion on values and ethics and morality and society either. I think knowing where we came from influences heavily on those areas of discourse explicitly and most often implicitly. Just like the Saganist or Tysonist "Cosmic Perspective" given us by our Astrophysics can heavily influence the perspectives on how we form values and ethics.

I doubt there are too many who could read the two or three paragraphs Sagan wrote about "The Pale Blue Dot" without having some of their perspectives upgraded or challenged.

Originally Posted by McDweller

Sure, we have our biological impulses, but to say that our own biological impulses is "good" and we should follow that sounds like the appeal to nature.

But yes I agree appeals to nature are over used and their implications over stated. We see this heavily in, for example, the debates around homosexuality. The detractor will call it "unnatural". And such detractors are simply wrong and have been called on it innumerable times.

But underlying that detraction is the assumption that "natural=good and unnatural=bad". Otherwise why would they be trying (and so miserably and consistently failing) to label it as "unnatural" in the first place. Yet they invest so much time trying to make that argument fly, that they appear not to have noticed how irrelevant the argument is even if it was 100% right.

But as I say, I would be hyper sensitive to under (or over) stating the role science has to play in how we form our values and what those values should be.

[Arach Angle]

science does not say anything. Anything at all. I agree with noise, I am hypersensitive to the use and misuse of science too. I see religion addressing some emotional needs of humans. Some of them need more "guiding" than others. I don't see any other institution that does it better. And religion is as imperfect as any other. I just wish we could do it without all the magic.

[CrazyDonkey]

Non-secular humanists looks to the Bible and dogma for justification (or rationalization) for humanistic values (freedom of thought, speech, and action), because in a theistic society no other justifications are allowed, while secular humanists looks to experience and reason, because they are free to do so.

So, what would be secular anti-humanism? Nazism...