Nora_Leonard wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Nora_Leonard wrote:Identity is a very fluid thing...

Nora_Leonard wrote:I think 'humanist' is useful in a discussion of beliefs and values in a way that 'atheist' is not.

And a discussion of beliefs and values is useful how? In a discussion of beliefs and values? Bend any spoons, lately? Don't you have to assume your conclusion in order to find a discussion of beliefs and values, um, valuable?

You're going to have to explain what you find so funny about my comment about identity.

It's that you wrote it so, um, earnestly. About Somali ex-pats.

Nora_Leonard wrote:I'm talking from the perspective of someone involved in state religious education in the UK, in shaping that curriculum. So yeah, I want the non-religious viewpoint to be represented in any lessons where questions of morality and life-meaning are considered.

Naturally, you suppose that because you get paid to do something, that you should go about it, um, earnestly. Nothing wrong with that. It's make-work, but never mind. I don't much care whether religion is run as a private business, tax free, or as a state business, tax free.

Nora_Leonard wrote:Bend any spoons lately? WTF?

You'll just have to get used to it.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Nora_Leonard wrote:
You're going to have to explain what you find so funny about my comment about identity.

It's that you wrote it so, um, earnestly. About Somali ex-pats.

Somali ex-pats? Is that what we're calling refugees these days? And how did you know what I was feeling when I wrote that? Maybe you are reading 'earnest' into what I wrote.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Nora_Leonard wrote:I'm talking from the perspective of someone involved in state religious education in the UK, in shaping that curriculum. So yeah, I want the non-religious viewpoint to be represented in any lessons where questions of morality and life-meaning are considered.

Naturally, you suppose that because you get paid to do something, that you should go about it, um, earnestly. Nothing wrong with that. It's make-work, but never mind. I don't much care whether religion is run as a private business, tax free, or as a state business, tax free.

Again you're making assumptions about me that are totally unwarranted. Where do you get off telling me what motivates me?

Cito di Pense wrote:

Nora_Leonard wrote:Bend any spoons lately? WTF?

You'll just have to get used to it.

Get used to what? You being [imagine something that would be guaranteed to get me a warning]?

Nora, Cito.

Cito, Nora.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Nora_Leonard wrote:Identity is a very fluid thing...

Nora_Leonard wrote:I think 'humanist' is useful in a discussion of beliefs and values in a way that 'atheist' is not.

And a discussion of beliefs and values is useful how? In a discussion of beliefs and values? Bend any spoons, lately? Don't you have to assume your conclusion in order to find a discussion of beliefs and values, um, valuable?

With what are those beliefs and values identified? Identity? Got circularity? How much should we value our values?

Discussion of beliefs and values can be useful. It can help identify and adjust your own values. Dislike of same sex unions for example is largely faith based bigotry and often persists even after the faith is gone. Hearing others values can force you to examine your own. It would be arrogant indeed to assume that ones values are already perfect.

I've bent spoons lately. I hate it when the ice cream is too cold.

Godless Infidel wrote:
Discussion of beliefs and values can be useful. It can help identify and adjust your own values. Dislike of same sex unions for example is largely faith based bigotry and often persists even after the faith is gone. Hearing others values can force you to examine your own. It would be arrogant indeed to assume that ones values are already perfect.

Don't you see the futility (or rather, the circularity) of claiming 'rationalism' as the basis for perfecting values? Everyone needs an absolute standard in order to promote a set of values. And then Sam Harris (or whoever) comes along and gives 'human well-being' (or whatever) as the slam-dunk standard set of values.

The point is not the particular set of values adopted; the point is that people go on trying to prescribe an absolute standard of values, and the notion of 'progress' in their development. So it goes with humanism. I accept the human propensity to do this (including the human propensity to adopt an elevated sense of one's own refinement).

Of course we recognise that we will no longer go around making war on people who adopt inferior value systems. Or do we? Oh, you say, I don't approve of going to war to impose a set of rational values. That's self-contradictory.

What you're left with is impotent fuming about the deficiencies of other people's inferior and irrational value systems, and interminable arguments with them about same. Justifying the fun of doing that by referring to it as an examination of values is just the kind of rationalisation we need here, the better to identify the circularity of it.

Byron points out that human self-awareness (or whatever the frick-frack) is responsible for awareness of other people's anguish and programs to reduce it. Then what? (That's what John Gray asks.) If you want a metric of progress, look for it in the development of science and technology, which will (along with charity, pacifism, pontification and other programs without metrics) last about as long as we do.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Godless Infidel wrote:
Discussion of beliefs and values can be useful. It can help identify and adjust your own values. Dislike of same sex unions for example is largely faith based bigotry and often persists even after the faith is gone. Hearing others values can force you to examine your own. It would be arrogant indeed to assume that ones values are already perfect.

Don't you see the futility (or rather, the circularity) of claiming 'rationalism' as the basis for perfecting values? Everyone needs an absolute standard in order to promote a set of values. And then Sam Harris (or whoever) comes along and gives 'human well-being' (or whatever) as the slam-dunk standard set of values.

The point is not the particular set of values adopted; the point is that people go on trying to prescribe an absolute standard of values, and the notion of 'progress' in their development. So it goes with humanism. I accept the human propensity to do this (including the human propensity to adopt an elevated sense of one's own refinement).

Of course we recognise that we will no longer go around making war on people who adopt inferior value systems. Or do we? Oh, you say, I don't approve of going to war to impose a set of rational values. That's self-contradictory.

What you're left with is impotent fuming about the deficiencies of other people's inferior and irrational value systems, and interminable arguments with them about same. Justifying the fun of doing that by referring to it as an examination of values is just the kind of rationalisation we need here, the better to identify the circularity of it.

Byron points out that human self-awareness (or whatever the frick-frack) is responsible for awareness of other people's anguish and programs to reduce it. Then what? (That's what John Gray asks.) If you want a sense of progress, look for it in the development of science and technology, which will last about as long as we do.

I realise that Logical Bob started this thread to discuss definitions and perceptions of 'humanism', but when I was talking about 'beliefs and values' I was really talking about a way to rename religious education to be inclusive of non-religious viewpoints. In fact many schools already call it that.

And really the level of 'impotent fuming' you're talking about doesn't really come into school RE. But when kids are being taught that Christians and Jews get their values from the Bible, Muslims from the Qur'an...well it is helpful for kids to learn there are other ways to acquire a sense of right and wrong.

Nora_Leonard wrote:But when kids are being taught that Christians and Jews get their values from the Bible, Muslims from the Qur'an...well it is helpful for kids to learn there are other ways to acquire a sense of right and wrong.

Other ways? You mean, there are ways of getting values from levantine scriptures?

Seriously? Kids are being taught that some people get their values from levantine scriptures? Directly? These kids must be eight years old, or something. Great. Let's be honest though, that what is mainly being taught here is tolerance of people who get their values from a levantine scripture different to the one you use. Tolerance has its limits, particularly when one gets one's values of tolerance from levantine scriptures. As a footnote, the idea of not getting one's values from a levantine scripture (or hindu or buddhist) is offered as the consolation prize.

Do you know of tacgnoL?

This is the way I like; you have (passing from left to right in the picture) your 'wrong' and your 'right' (note how the artist de-emphasises the human):

Cito di Pense wrote:

Nora_Leonard wrote:But when kids are being taught that Christians and Jews get their values from the Bible, Muslims from the Qur'an...well it is helpful for kids to learn there are other ways to acquire a sense of right and wrong.

Other ways? You mean, there are ways of getting values from levantine scriptures?

Seriously? Kids are being taught that some people get their values from levantine scriptures? Directly? These kids must be eight years old, or something. Great. <snip>

I suspect none of the school kids would even know what was meant by 'levantine'!

We all know that acquiring values is a life-long process. I suspect most kids get their values through example, through their parents, through their friends, but yes, there will be discussions of codes of behaviour and where these are set down.

You seem to be saying there is nothing of worth to be found in either the Bible or the Qur'an. If you are saying that then there's no point arguing with you.

Nora_Leonard wrote:yes, there will be discussions of codes of behaviour and where these are set down.

You seem to be saying there is nothing of worth to be found in either the Bible or the Qur'an. If you are saying that then there's no point arguing with you.

But they won't be serious discussions of 'codes of behaviour' because the poor wee things are not yet ready for deconstruction. Nobody really wants to think of 'religious history' as 'ancestor worship'. Surely we moderns have moved on from that! Of course, even conservatism realises we must move on. It's the slow and steady pace that's valued.

I can certainly see your point of view on the value of what is found in bible/koran: There's a sinecure as a religious ed teacher at the very least. Before you sign off, I hope you'll muster the tolerance to excuse my cynicism. In my locality, it is required by law for employees of petrol stations to pump fuel for motorists. This saves the motorist from handling fuel, and generates jobs. It's a win-win situation that only slightly increases the price of fuel.

But on the point of the worth of what is to be found in scriptures, I hope you'll also consider the circularity of divining how we discover the worth of what is to be found there. We decide arbitrarily that it is worth something to us.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Nora_Leonard wrote:yes, there will be discussions of codes of behaviour and where these are set down.

You seem to be saying there is nothing of worth to be found in either the Bible or the Qur'an. If you are saying that then there's no point arguing with you.

But they won't be serious discussions of 'codes of behaviour' because the poor wee things are not yet ready for deconstruction.

I think that by the time they reach high school there could be some serious discussion. But at present, in our particular syllabus, the unit on "Rules for living" is in key stage 2. (Grades 3-6) But even there they are encouraged to discuss whether they find rules (like school rules) useful or not.

Cito di Pense wrote:I can certainly see your point of view on the value of what is found in bible/koran: There's a sinecure as a religious ed teacher at the very least. Before you sign off, I hope you'll muster the tolerance to excuse my cynicism.

But on the point of the worth of what is to be found there, I hope you'll also consider the circularity of divining how we discover the worth of what is to be found there. We decide arbitrarily that it is worth something to us.

Of course individuals decide what things are meaningful to them, although I suspect not all do so consciously. And it often takes a lot of hard lessons for some people to learn what is truly valuable to them, what broadens and inspires them in a healthy way.

As someone who appreciates myth and metaphor, not to mention poetry, I can still find things of beauty in the Bible. Also, without believing in his divinity (or going into a long debate about whether he existed or not) I can appreciate the way Jesus used parable to turn conventional teaching of the day on its head and to make some radical statements about conventional morality.

I should add that I don't go to the Bible for inspiration nowadays, I tend to find that along in the way in quite mundane sources.

Nora_Leonard wrote:
As someone who appreciates myth and metaphor, not to mention poetry, I can still find things of beauty in the Bible. Also, without believing in his divinity (or going into a long debate about whether he existed or not) I can appreciate the way Jesus used parable to turn conventional teaching of the day on its head and to make some radical statements about conventional morality.

Those themes are all to be found in non-scriptural literature (and you might be tempted to say that it is ultimately derivative of scriptural literature, if you are not a fan of deconstruction). I was exposed to 'radical statements about conventional morality' in high-school literature classes that did not see the need to focus on critical theories that made them 'derivative'.

It's the focus on paying our debt to tradition that keeps this thing inflated; it's indoctrination, too, but one which avoids looking into the abysses of deconstructing 'original sources'. As I said in my first responses in this thread, I don't care if religion is a state sponsored business or a private business. Business is strictly business. What you know about economics is that resources directed to it are not available for other projects. When you get right down to it, these businesses are encouraged by the state because of the dictum that fifty billion flies cannot possibly be wrong about what they like.

Nora_Leonard wrote:I can appreciate the way Jesus used parable to turn conventional teaching of the day on its head and to make some radical statements about conventional morality.

Put it in the present tense, and you're just talking about a literary character who lives on in the present, rather than sneaking in an ideology about a real person presenting real teachings as an employee of his ghostwriters.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Nora_Leonard wrote:
As someone who appreciates myth and metaphor, not to mention poetry, I can still find things of beauty in the Bible. Also, without believing in his divinity (or going into a long debate about whether he existed or not) I can appreciate the way Jesus used parable to turn conventional teaching of the day on its head and to make some radical statements about conventional morality.

Those themes are all to be found in non-scriptural literature (and you might be tempted to say that it is ultimately derivative of scriptural literature, if you are not a fan of deconstruction). I was exposed to 'radical statements about conventional morality' in high-school literature classes that did not see the need to focus on critical theories that made them 'derivative'.

I never said they weren't to be found elsewhere.

Most people don't have a clue what deconstruction is.

Cito di Pense wrote:It's the focus on paying our debt to tradition that keeps this thing inflated; it's indoctrination, too, but one which avoids looking into the abysses of deconstructing 'original sources'. As I said in my first responses in this thread, I don't care if religion is a state sponsored business or a private business. Business is strictly business. What you know about economics is that resources directed to it are not available for other projects. When you get right down to it, these businesses are encouraged by the state because of the dictum that fifty billion flies cannot possibly be wrong about what they like.

You are disregarding the entire pastoral/community aspect of religious communities. Of course you aren't the first atheist—nor the last—to do so. Religion doesn't persist solely because the state encourages it. And although state welfare provides some pastoral support—well we all know how useful/useless that can be at times.

There is a whole infrastructure/ceremonial/otherworldly aura that many places of religion provide that take people out of their day-to-day lives, that they find restorative, that moves them. I can be moved by the sounds and music of religious places. I also find that kind of transportation to other realms in things like mythic computer games (such as the Myst games).

I know Muslims in the place where I work that find their prayer breaks in the prayer room incredibly restorative, like people who meditate for the same reason but with no religious purpose.

I don't know what else to say.

I haven't a clue what this is about, but someone posted it on their FB page and I listened to it and liked it so much I put it in my YT favourites. I find it very restful.

Nora_Leonard wrote:You are disregarding the entire pastoral/community aspect of religious communities. Of course you aren't the first atheist—nor the last—to do so. Religion doesn't persist solely because the state encourages it. And although state welfare provides some pastoral support—well we all know how useful/useless that can be at times.

There is a whole infrastructure/ceremonial/otherworldly aura that many places of religion provide that take people out of their day-to-day lives, that they find restorative, that moves them. I can be moved by the sounds and music of religious places. I also find that kind of transportation to other realms in things like mythic computer games (such as the Myst games).

I know Muslims in the place where I work that find their prayer breaks in the prayer room incredibly restorative, like people who meditate for the same reason but with no religious purpose.

I don't doubt it. It's an infrastructure with 'other-worldly' illusions mocked up for people who lack the resources to access the same responses or focus their attention without sleight-of-hand. I don't begrudge them their lack of resources. As long as they have legally-mandated 'prayer breaks' for people who don't profess anything to pray to. Then you'll be making progress in bringing secular humanists into the, um, fold. Until then, 'prayer breaks' at the office are a crock of state-supported crap greasing the squeaky wheel.

Nora_Leonard wrote:Religion doesn't persist solely because the state encourages it.

That's what we all like to think, but we're not yet up for the experiment that tests how much people really want to pay for their fun. The secular humanists know this already, and beg for donations at every meeting. To what end? To grow the organisation, of course. As it is, their pomp and worldy circumstance aren't yet a statue of Priapus. It's the sort of community fostered when you get a bunch of people together who have no other reason for being together than a search for community. Muslims have the same problem in the mosque. All the other-worldly shit helps them forget what they don't have in common with their fellow celebrants. Once they realise they're all just sacks of meat, they turn into humanists.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Nora_Leonard wrote:There is a whole infrastructure/ceremonial/otherworldly aura that many places of religion provide that take people out of their day-to-day lives, that they find restorative, that moves them. I can be moved by the sounds and music of religious places. I also find that kind of transportation to other realms in things like mythic computer games (such as the Myst games).

I know Muslims in the place where I work that find their prayer breaks in the prayer room incredibly restorative, like people who meditate for the same reason but with no religious purpose.

I don't doubt it. It's an infrastructure with 'other-worldly' illusions mocked up for people who lack the resources to access the same responses or focus their attention without sleight-of-hand. I don't begrudge them their lack of resources. As long as they have legally-mandated 'prayer breaks' for people who don't profess anything to pray to. Then you'll be making progress in bringing secular humanists into the, um, fold. Until then, 'prayer breaks' at the office are a crock of state-supported crap greasing the squeaky wheel.

We do have legally-mandated 'prayer breaks' for the infidels: they're called coffee or cigarette breaks! In any case most of the Muslims are using their legally-mandated lunch hour for the midday prayer, which is the one that is likely to occur during the working day.

It's an infrastructure with 'other-worldly' illusions mocked up for people who lack the resources to access the same responses or focus their attention without sleight-of-hand. I don't begrudge them their lack of resources.

The same could be said for people (like me) who enjoy losing themselves in a computer game world or in the Star Trek universe! We didn't devise those ourselves...

Cito di Pense wrote:

Nora_Leonard wrote:Religion doesn't persist solely because the state encourages it.

That's what we all like to think, but we're not yet up for the experiment that tests how much people really want to pay for their fun. The secular humanists know this already, and beg for donations at every meeting. To what end? To grow the organisation, of course.

What are you talking about? Most religious people tithe to their local temple or church. What state-funding do churches get?

Nora_Leonard wrote:Most religious people tithe to their local temple or church. What state-funding do churches get?

Property tax exemptions? Other exemptions from income taxes as 'non-profit' organisations? I don't know. I see lots of wonderful acreage buried beneath church buildings. I see academic scientists getting nickel-and-dimed by their federal and regional funding agencies.

This could be the beginning of my religious education.

Nora_Leonard wrote:
The same could be said for people (like me) who enjoy losing themselves in a computer game world or in the Star Trek universe! We didn't devise those ourselves...

So you are a consumer of mysticism. Then there are producers like me who actually program the computer game worlds. But we have to give the devil his due, because we need marketers like you to sell the game to the audience.