What is @Patrick’s definition of secular humanism I wonder. Wikipedia talks about philosophical naturalism and a disbelief of the supernatural, those seem like they rule out Christianity.
4 Likes
For what it’s worth, the largest secular humanist organization, Humanists International, has this to say:
1 Like
Secular humanism is a philosophy that embraces human reason, ethics, philosophical naturalism while specifically rejecting religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience, and superstition as the basis of morality and decision making. Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or God.
Why do I think that @swamidass is an example of a secular humanist whereas other Christians are not? Because by his actions, @swamidass seems to base (as far as I can tell) his morality and decision making on sound 21st Century American human reasoning and not on any church’s dogma or doctrine. He uses his well thought out construct of the human Jesus to provide his moral guidance that he has reasoned out for himself. His belief that this Jesus is God doesn’t disqualify or degrade his secular humanism. His morality is not out of worldly but very of this world right now. His Jesus/God is a very real part of him as a collection of individual and unique network of synaptic firings in his brain not much different that every other human being. He transcends regular dogma, doctrinal Christianity as a Secular Humanist that happens to be Christian.
Okay that is a parody. If you really mean that, I’m not a Christian secular humanists (is that tribalist?).
2 Likes
So it sounds to me that your idea that “morality is relative” is very much objective truth for you. I knew we had something in common…we both submit ourselves to objective truths
1 Like
Morality is situational and conditional. It is never fixed and unchanging. It is both time dependent and location dependent.
So your truth statement that declares that morality is never unchanging may change tomorrow will it? You have not thought through your worldview well enough. If morality is changing, then this takes a stick of dynomite and blows up the idea of morality into a million pieces just to introduce the possibility of mass hysteria and cultural implosion.
I like your spunk and i love your speaking to me about your Italian heritage and love for italian food and concern for people there in NJ. But out of all of the disagreements on evolution, science philosophy etc, by far the one i most vehemently disagree with the most is yours on morality.
My truth statement? What is that? We are having a discussion about modern morality and you are talking about something else.
You said this -
Morality is situational and conditional.
That in itself is a truth statement. You are factually telling me that morality is relative. To a serial killer, murder is moral. To you and i, it is immoral. Your suggestion inadvertently suggests that they can coincide.
But what your truth statement says exactingly as a conclusion is that there are no moral rules at all.
I certainly have thought through my worldview well enough. I think about it everyday and tweek it regularly based on the situation I find myself in. I don’t have your doomsday view of morality. Through human reasoning as well as science and technology, life has gotten easier and morality, ethics and values have changed for the better.
Yes of all our disagreements on evolution and science, I am mostly agasted at your immorality, terrible ethics and unsound values. If you are representative of “christian values”, I won’t be surprised that few er and fewer people would identify with you as time goes on. History is going to judge you harshly. I do hope that your children and grandchildren won’t judge you too harshly, and realize that you we indoctrinated into a cult or sect of archaic beliefs. Perhaps you can escape before it is too late.
1 Like
I have fine morals, ethics, and values. And I don’t need a God or the treat of enternal damnation to keep me moral, ethical and of high values. I just do it with my evolved human reasoning.
Imagine no religion, it is easy if you try, no hell below us, above us only sky.
1 Like
A better way to put it is that everyone uses the concepts of secular humanism for at least part of their morality. When we (i.e. Western democracies) argue over the justification for laws we base those arguments on the same principles that secular humanism uses. At least in the US, if the only justification for a law is “because my holy book says so” then it usually doesn’t pass a legislature or it is struck down in the courts. I would say that the basic concepts of secular humanism are non-controversial within Western culture. However, some may legitimately find problems with views towards religions within secular humanism.
2 Likes
Great…
A philosophy major who is a YEC.
Pluralism as a political doctrine comes out of Secular Humanism… which is why i dont engage in criticism of Secular Humanism.
2 Likes
That is fine that you think of me this way. I definately will tend towards selfishness and foolishness from time to time and even here in this discourse. I just cannot understand however how one can be “aghast” over another being immoral and unethical, when morality and ethics is never firm, always changing and only true on an individualistic relativistic basis.
I am not saying that you are a bad person because i dont even truly know you. I am questioning the legitimacy of your worldview that morals are never firm and objective and always relative and expect this to hold a society together. There are South American tribes who subscribe to a view of honor found in a sort of deceitful revenge where befriending a neighboring tribe member then disembering him is virtuous. Your worldview declares a statement of truth that this must be ok. Mine as i subscribe to this “ancient” text says its wrong. Which view is really more unethical and “archaic” in the depths of its foundation?
What if the South American tribe had an ancient holy text that said tricking people and dismembering them was what God commanded? What then?
It would seem to me that if we ground morality in religious beliefs then we are making morality relative to what religion you belong to. That doesn’t seem to solve the problem. Would you like to live under Sharia law because of someone else’s religious beliefs? Probably not, right?
2 Likes
I agree! They prob do have a holy text of some sort. When i went to college i did everything in my being to devoid myself from the Christian faith i was raised within. Then i studied the world religions, Judaism and Christianity included. We see difficult wars in the OT and laws that are hard to understand at face value. But then i met Christians who were smart, moral, nice folks who helped in understanding the dynamics of these wars and even how justifiable it was for God to wipe out a population that was always evil all of the time w the flood. This could be equated to ISIS, a serial rapist, child molester, thief in every person everywhere all of the time and a more friendly nation justifying its elimination fr the world. So God wiped out ISIS on steroids. I believe Japan not resigning from slaughtering Americans justified bombing and destroying Japanese two cities. And i love Japanese people…my daughter literally babysits Japanese kids from parents transfered here to work for Toyota while they meet in Christian Bible study!
I believe that there can be ethical conversation dynamics related to abortion. And these would be over about .001 percent of cases. I would want more conversation about even this before deciding for sure…but i can say that I am frightened when i hear of talk about the possibility that a baby up to a day before its birth can be subjected to a painful attempt at its life who, when born alive would still be left to his suffering death on a cold table. This is telling to me about a how moral our “modern ethics” really is.
If they are following their religious beliefs then they wouldn’t be evil.
1 Like
Religious beliefs are a dime a dozen. The idea that morality is subjective is really a religious belief by the way. You are religious. I cannot for the life of me expect that in our existence where the fingerprints of a Cause are everywhere that He did not reveal Himself. And He did. Ifvthis is true and i know it is, this is far different than “religious beliefs” God is 100% love, holy, righteous and good. In the face of what is opposing this nature such as hate, immoral, heinously evil and bad, God has to in His perfection, impose justice and His wrath against such. And Scripture says He is still patient with us and the best news ever in the history of man is that He chose to absorb the wrath we deserve via the crucifixtion of His Son.
How so?
Also, what is the purpose in labeling my position as religious?
It’s strange that you could call religious beliefs “a dime a dozen” and then use religious beliefs as the basis of your morality.
1 Like