Tell me, secular humanists, what separates your ideology from Christianity, or any other dogmatic teleological belief system, for that matter?

Secular humanists claim to be non-dogmatic, and yet upon proclaiming (rightfully) the death of God, they replace one set of absolutes and fixed ideas (God, faith, holiness) which are to be pursued as a cause with another set of equally baseless values (logic, reason, truth, humanity). From my perspective secular humanism seems to be the same as Christianity, Islam, Universalism, etc. and a mere competitor with the same general characteristics (competing for mindshare in the human populace while promoting bullshit moral imperatives and values).

So why is "humanity" (or even reason or truth) in the abstract a worthy enough cause that I should pursue it in favor against my own, private, egoistic cause?

MrDoom wrote:Tell me, secular humanists, what separates your ideology from Christianity, or any other dogmatic teleological belief system, for that matter?

Secular humanists claim to be non-dogmatic, and yet upon proclaiming (rightfully) the death of God, they replace one set of absolutes and fixed ideas (God, faith, holiness) which are to be pursued as a cause with another set of equally baseless values (logic, reason, truth, humanity). From my perspective secular humanism seems to be the same as Christianity, Islam, Universalism, etc. and a mere competitor with the same general characteristics (competing for mindshare in the human populace while promoting bullshit moral imperatives and values).

So why is "humanity" (or even reason or truth) in the abstract a worthy enough cause that I should pursue it in favor against my own, private, egoistic cause?

If you see logic, reason and truth as baseless, how would you expect anyone to answer a “why” question? (except, perhaps, “because I say so and I’ll beat you up if you don’t agree”, which nobody on the Internet is in a position to do). I think the value of logic, reason and truth has to be accepted before any kind of useful discussion can start – even Christianity tries to use logic and reason, and to persuade people that it’s true that there is a God who will beat us up if we don’t do what he says. The Christians’ problem (and the same for other religions) is that there’s no good evidence, even by their own standards, that God exists.

The humanity versus selfishness part of your question is indeed trickier. I shall probably be beaten up, or at least criticised, for my own answer, which is that I would expect you, in the end, to pursue your own inclusive fitness. Evolution doesn’t design living things to be totally selfish, but to maximise the representation of their own genes in later generations. In human terms, this translates to the way most people put the welfare of their children, or their families, on a par with their own. There may be no reason why you shouldn’t be totally selfish, but are you entirely uninterested in what happens to close family or friends, even after you are dead? In the modern interdependent world facing climate change and nuclear bombs, the best long-term hope for anyone is global cooperation, and thinking in terms of what is best for everyone is the best hope for getting it to happen. But I wouldn’t expect you to have the same basic concern for total strangers as you have for yourself and for people close to you.

MrDoom wrote:So why is "humanity" (or even reason or truth) in the abstract a worthy enough cause that I should pursue it in favor against my own, private, egoistic cause?

Because that's who you will be sharing the planet with for your allotted time and assuming you won't be living in a cave eating berries, you will be dependant on the behaviours of other people as they will you.

John

MrDoom wrote:
Secular humanists claim to be non-dogmatic, and yet upon proclaiming (rightfully) the death of God, they replace one set of absolutes and fixed ideas (God, faith, holiness) which are to be pursued as a cause with another set of equally baseless values (logic, reason, truth, humanity).

The ideas espoused by secular humanists are axiomatic not dogmatic.

Or am I missing something?

campermon wrote:
The ideas espoused by secular humanists are axiomatic not dogmatic.

Or am I missing something?

Humanism is the idea that the human project is worthwhile as a collective enterprise. There's no evidence that it is. Humanists certainly don't believe that all humans are worth having around, even though they do believe that sociopaths and psychopaths should be isolated, er, humanely. The real trick is in identifying the sociopaths, er, axiomatically, rather than, um, tautologically.

MrDoom wrote:another set of equally baseless values (logic, reason, truth, humanity). From my perspective secular humanism seems to be the same as Christianity, Islam, Universalism, etc.

If logic and reason were baseless we wouldn't even be to understand what you were meaning, we'd have no language at all.

I do not claim to be a humanist so I won't address the bulk of your original post. However this...

MrDoom wrote:So why is "humanity" (or even reason or truth) in the abstract a worthy enough cause that I should pursue it in favor against my own, private, egoistic cause?

...is parenthetically casting a wider net.

I like reason in the abstract. I like employing reason. I freely admit to this being a private, egoistic cause of mine. I have no (there can be no) reason that I can give you to behave likewise. If you wish to declare your rejection of reason and its uses then I applaud you for your honesty and courage. I am also quite pleased to know this so that I can avoid wasting my time and reason with you. I could say the same about cockroaches.

MrDoom wrote:So why is "humanity" (or even reason or truth) in the abstract a worthy enough cause that I should pursue it in favor against my own, private, egoistic cause?

Because in the long run you will very probably be much happier if you do the former than if you pursue the latter

What a wonderful world this would have been if religion and god had never been invented by the infantile fears of man. More wonderful even if faith and belief had not been a serious cognitive handicap.

andrewk wrote:

MrDoom wrote:So why is "humanity" (or even reason or truth) in the abstract a worthy enough cause that I should pursue it in favor against my own, private, egoistic cause?

Because in the long run you will very probably be much happier if you do the former than if you pursue the latter

But you don't know for sure that you will, and what you find, if you reach adulthood, is that believing in rational human destiny leads to inevitable disappointment in the foibles of your fellow human beings. The way out of that, of course, is to look at those foibles through the rose-coloured glasses of one or another cockamamie philosophy.

How happy you end up depends ever so closely on how much happiness you believe is possible. Hucksterism like "The Secret" is not going to get you there. You will discover that the worthy cause that brings you happiness in its pursuit is still something you constructed, and isn't really 'out there'.

Simply not having to recite religious dogma makes lots of people happier than they were whilst reciting religious dogma against their better judgement.

Grace wrote:What a wonderful world this would have been if religion and god had never been invented by the infantile fears of man. More wonderful even if faith and belief had not been a serious cognitive handicap.

Feeling unhappy about the religiously-inspired foibles of your fellow humans does not lead to greater happiness.

Cito di Pense wrote:

andrewk wrote:

MrDoom wrote:So why is "humanity" (or even reason or truth) in the abstract a worthy enough cause that I should pursue it in favor against my own, private, egoistic cause?

Because in the long run you will very probably be much happier if you do the former than if you pursue the latter

But you don't know for sure that you will

Hence the word 'probably'.
I don't know about any of that 'believing in rational human destiny' business. It sounds far too airy-fairy for me. I simply observe that amongst my own acquaintance, those who manage to escape from egoism towards valuing the welfare of others as well as their own, are generally much more content than those that don't. No need for causes or isms. Just an outwards rather than an inwards focus.

andrewk wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

andrewk wrote:
Because in the long run you will very probably be much happier if you do the former than if you pursue the latter

But you don't know for sure that you will

Hence the word 'probably'.
I don't know about any of that 'believing in rational human destiny' business. It sounds far too airy-fairy for me. I simply observe that amongst my own acquaintance, those who manage to escape from egoism towards valuing the welfare of others as well as their own, are generally much more content than those that don't. No need for causes or isms. Just an outwards rather than an inwards focus.

It's an odd thing but this is my experience too. I think our brains are mis-wired for altruism.

andrewk wrote:
Hence the word 'probably'.
I don't know about any of that 'believing in rational human destiny' business. It sounds far too airy-fairy for me. I simply observe that amongst my own acquaintance, those who manage to escape from egoism towards valuing the welfare of others as well as their own, are generally much more content than those that don't. No need for causes or isms. Just an outwards rather than an inwards focus.

Well, as far as wibbling goes, this is not particularly pernicious. A bit long on vague sanctimony, a bit short on specifics.

I am a bit dubious about how much ego is shed in practicing declarations of the value of one's outward-directedness. Do-gooding is always risking this if do-gooding alone ends up not compensation enough, and anecdotes about it have to be told and re-told.

I do understand that 'secular humanists' like to advertise a service orientation as intense as that of the religious nuts, who also do what they do in order to be 'happier', which is what serving god does for you. Secular humanism and religious humanism are just two species of humanism, so let's peel away the invidious distinctions.

Trying to show that you can have 'moral goodness' without god mainly involves looking back over your shoulder at the religionists you think are chasing you. Humanism isn't philosophy; it's polemic.

I hate to say this but what I have sensed about you leaves me thinking that do-gooding is something you have little experience with.

SpeedOfSound wrote:I hate to say this but what I have sensed about you leaves me thinking that do-gooding is something you have little experience with.

Think of it this way: I didn't have any kids* which I then indoctrinated with my gloomy outlook. It was the best I could do.

I empathise with your situation. I just don't care.



* That I know of

Cito di Pense wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I hate to say this but what I have sensed about you leaves me thinking that do-gooding is something you have little experience with.

Think of it this way: I didn't have any kids* which I then indoctrinated with my gloomy outlook. It was the best I could do.

Better than most religious accomplish. Looks like you've got a bit of the humanist in you after all!

MrDoom wrote:Tell me, secular humanists, what separates your ideology from Christianity, or any other dogmatic teleological belief system, for that matter?

Being based on something real and observable, for a start.

Secular humanists claim to be non-dogmatic, and yet upon proclaiming (rightfully) the death of God, they replace one set of absolutes and fixed ideas (God, faith, holiness) which are to be pursued as a cause with another set of equally baseless values (logic, reason, truth, humanity).

Interesting statement from someone trying to use reason and logic to convince me. Can you see how this argument defeats itself?

From my perspective secular humanism seems to be the same as Christianity, Islam, Universalism, etc. and a mere competitor with the same general characteristics (competing for mindshare in the human populace while promoting bullshit moral imperatives and values).

If you don't believe in the validity of the human endeavor, you're welcome to not participate. Often (and always the point where I object) this choice is not given in Christianity and Islam. But I need to ask, why are you (trying to) using reason and logic to tell me that reason and logic is a bullshit basis for an ideology?

So why is "humanity" (or even reason or truth) in the abstract a worthy enough cause that I should pursue it in favor against my own, private, egoistic cause?

If you have no interest in the human endeavor, there probably is no reason. But then, I don't expect to hear any complaining when things are looking bad and you need help.

Cito di Pense wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I hate to say this but what I have sensed about you leaves me thinking that do-gooding is something you have little experience with.

Think of it this way: I didn't have any kids* which I then indoctrinated with my gloomy outlook. It was the best I could do.

* That I know of

That's actually a great accomplishment. I thank you for this.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

SpeedOfSound wrote:I hate to say this but what I have sensed about you leaves me thinking that do-gooding is something you have little experience with.

Think of it this way: I didn't have any kids* which I then indoctrinated with my gloomy outlook. It was the best I could do.

Better than most religious accomplish. Looks like you've got a bit of the humanist in you after all!

A marvellous, witty and insightful exchange! Worthy of Wilde and Shaw.
Truly the spirit of Christmas is upon us.