Recently, a person by the alias of “Punch Blastbody III” asked several questions to LASH about secular humanism. The subsequent conversation revealed that Punch was disingenuous in his inquiry, with no intention of understanding the position of secular humanism, but rather he was trying to pigeon-hole secular humanists into defending a position that we dont necessarily hold, and most of his questions were loaded with misrepresentations and foregone conclusions that Punch wasnt willing to challenge. However, the initial questions themselves were questions that some might have, and deserve to be answered for anyone who might actually be interested in secular humanism. Ill copy and paste portions of Punchs initial post, desigatned by “//” at the start and finish of the question, followed by my response. For ease of reading, my responses will begin with “>>>”. Enjoy. Secular humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity. //... Progress towards what ideal?// >>>Toward the greater good of humanity. //... What do you mean by ethical lives, Ive no doubt that a person who believes that there is no God can lead a good moral life, but by what grounds can they affirm the existence of any objective moral standard without also affirming some ultimate ground for morality?// >>>“Ethical lives” refers to our moral decisions. Moral decisions can and do occur independent of whether or not one affirms the existence of objective moral standards. Some secular humanists hold to objective forms of morality, others do not. There isnt a required view on the nature of moralitys existence on secular humanism. //... Why think humanity as a greater good?// >>>Largely because we are humans, and its biologically ingrained in us to care for those of our own species. This is very common in the animal kingdom. //What grounds is there for affirming personal dignity and intrinsic moral worth on atheism?// >>>Atheism doesnt comment on morality, any more than ones lack of belief in Bigfoot comments on morality. However, a central doctrine of humanism is that humans have intrinsic moral worth. //What moral property separates us from the animals on your views?// >>>We are animals. Humanism doesnt speak to the moral worth of other species, but many humanists are also animal rights activists as well, while others are not. This is not something that necessarily falls within the scope of humanism. Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. //... if this is true isnt the statement, Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis ITSELF must be known through observation, experimentation, and rational analysis? Is it?// >>>There are two ways of looking at this. Some may take this simply as an axiom, or definition. Namely, that, knowledge, by definition, is derived by observation, experimentation, analysis, etc. However, observation, experimentation, and rational analysis all confirm that these are the methods needed to obtain knowledge, so yes, this statement is confirmed by those things. //... Also how doesnt this rule out knowledge by acquaintance in place of knowledge by description only. By such criteria can we even in principle know moral, aesthetic or revelatory truths even if there WERE such truths? How does this not rule out knowledge of the good, ab initio?// >>>No, it doesnt rule out knowledge of the good, morals, aesthetics, etc. It seems that this question is implying that it does, but thats something the questioner would need to demonstrate. Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. //... I accept evolution, full bore, but where is unguidedness any part of modern the Darwinian science? The presupposition of unguidedness is a prior theological presupposition open to philosophical scrutiny, wouldnt you agree?// >>>No, we wouldnt agree. Its not a theological presupposition. Science seeks to find answers about how the natural world operates. Evolution is a natural process. This doesnt preclude the possibility of a God existing, but it doesnt include God in the theory, either. Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. //... Why think the whims of human need and interest are the grounds for moral values rather than just societal values? Why call such descriptions; prescriptions?// >>> Humans, like all species, have evolved to primarily value their own well-being. Thats why we universally value such things as food, shelter, safety, etc. Through our collective experience, we learn which behaviors and attitudes best promote said well-being being, and thus we “prescribe” these values to future generations, for their well-being. Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. //... What does this even mean?// >>>This means we see lifes highest purpose as being to further the cause of humanism. Perhaps the wording couldve been better. Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. //... true, but the question is WHY think its morally good to benefit human species rather than, say, fish?// >>>No, “WHY” may be a question you have, but thats not the question this statement is addressing. However, the reason why we value humans over fish should be quite obvious to someone who understands evolution. Species that value their own well-being will generally have a survival benefit over species that dont. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and find that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone. //... Some claim(Friedrich Nietzsche), that secularists have hijacked the notion of natural rights from Christian doctrine. How would you respond?// >>>Our response is that we didnt. Ironically, Christianity was a “hijacking” of ancient Judaism. No one religion can claim a monopoly on moral values, as they predate all religions. Any religion that claims to have created the notion of natural rights is the real hijacker. //Also, why think that such ideals arent arbitrary and that our progression towards them isnt justified by anything else other than circular reasoning?// >>>If by arbitrary one means “based on a random whim rather than reason or a system”, then its definitely not arbitrary to value those things which help us to achieve our goals. Our values are determined based on a reasoned approach as to the best ways to achieve those ends. Weve already discussed why we would have those goals, which, once again, isnt arbitrary. As to whether or not its circular reasoning, 1) youd need to first demonstrate that there was circular reason in order to ask how its “any else other than circular reasoning”, and 2) its not circular reasoning because our values are based on a reasoned approach to achieve our desires, and our desires (for well-being) are based on a biological predisposition to value ourselves and our species. Nothing circular about it.
Posted on: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 01:25:03 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015