Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Open Letter to my Secular Humanist Colleagues
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 31 of 47 (406164)
06-17-2007 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Grizz
06-17-2007 12:09 PM


One is free to engage in their own intelectual pursuits.
I agree; but don't accuse us of "speaking for you" when all that's going on right now is that more people are listening to us.
Like I said, if you object to the "new atheism" being all the rage, then write more books.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Grizz, posted 06-17-2007 12:09 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 32 of 47 (406167)
06-17-2007 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by ICANT
06-16-2007 6:47 PM


Re: Re-Orthodoxy
They have left off teaching of The Love of God, and love thy neighbor as thyself, and instead have started teaching the commandments of men.
Hi Icant
Although I do not subscribe to the Christian Theology I have a great admiration for Jesus the man and have always held his social and ethical philosophy in high regard. Surely one would need to be a cynic to not find a bit of wisdom in many of his teachings on ethics.
It is what people have done with his teachings(or not done)that I find discourgaing.
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 06-16-2007 6:47 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2007 12:37 PM Grizz has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 33 of 47 (406169)
06-17-2007 12:37 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Grizz
06-17-2007 12:31 PM


Re: Re-Orthodoxy
I have a great admiration for Jesus the man and have always held his social and ethical philosophy in high regard.
I guess I'm somewhat curious how you come to have any knowledge of the philosophy of Jesus the man, since Jesus left us absolutely no writings of any kind, and none were produced contemporary to his ministry.
If you're talking about the content of the Bible, then the Jesus you're familiar with would be best described as "Jesus the fictional character."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Grizz, posted 06-17-2007 12:31 PM Grizz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Grizz, posted 06-17-2007 2:45 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 34 of 47 (406183)
06-17-2007 2:35 PM


Interesting.
(1) You say that these "Secular Humanists" are "dogmatic". What is their dogma?
(2) You say that their "task" is to "maintain the status quo". What, in your view, is the status quo?
(3) You say that they "suppress any form of dissent". How do they do this? Have any people been killed?
(4) You say that they "dictate to the individual which positions or beliefs are acceptable to hold". How do they do that? Do you not live in a free country, and can you not think what you like?
To begin let me say I am presenting my OPINION on what I have observed through my correspondence and discusions with others as a member of the organization to which I belong. My observations also come from the popular literature and academic publications of those who identify themselves as secular humanist.
Religion points to divine revelation as the basis of all morality, ethics, and law. Secular Humanism is a nauturalistic philosophy that advocates the use of of human reason, justice, and ethics as the basis for our morality and conduct.
Let me refer to the the tenets of Secular Humanism that have been around since the beginning of the movement. One can find the below at the following location: Home | Free Inquiry#
- A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
- Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
- A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
- A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
- A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
- A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
- A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.
These are the principles that allign with my philosophy and years ago the debates and discussions within the community centred around how to really bring about positive changes in society while respecting the views and beliefs of others. One of our conclusions obviously is in order to accomplish this religion should have no place in government or the science class. We never advocated(until now)a view that religion should have no place in society or those who hold opposing views are the problem. While there are still serious discussions that allign themselves with the original tenets they are being drownded out by an increasing majority whose goal appears to have simply become a debasement of those who hold opposing views. More attention is being paid to denegrating the opposition than attempting to really bring about something positive.
Secular Humanism has really become synonymous with militant athiesm and has strayed from its original goal. An open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance no longer find its home here. Any current SH publication or forum will demonstrate.
1) You say that these "Secular Humanists" are "dogmatic". What is their dogma?
Militant Athiesm
(2) You say that their "task" is to "maintain the status quo". What, in your view, is the status quo?
Militant Athiesm
(3) You say that they "suppress any form of dissent". How do they do this? Have any people been killed?
Just as with a religious establishment - Demonizing anyone who does not conform to a specific doctrine that is in the norm and thus removing them from any serious objective consideration.
(4) You say that they "dictate to the individual which positions or beliefs are acceptable to hold". How do they do that? Do you not live in a free country, and can you not think what you like?
See all my above.

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Chiroptera, posted 06-17-2007 3:17 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Grizz
Member (Idle past 5471 days)
Posts: 318
Joined: 06-08-2007


Message 35 of 47 (406186)
06-17-2007 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by crashfrog
06-17-2007 12:37 PM


Re: Re-Orthodoxy
I guess I'm somewhat curious how you come to have any knowledge of the philosophy of Jesus the man, since Jesus left us absolutely no writings of any kind, and none were produced contemporary to his ministry.
If you are uncomfortable with my statement then I will rephrase it to:
'I have a great admiration for the philosophy atributed to Jesus the man and have always held this social and ethical philosophy in high regard.'.
If you're talking about the content of the Bible, then the Jesus you're familiar with would be best described as "Jesus the fictional character."
Alright, to make peace I will rephrase it once again to:
'I have a great admiration for the philosophy atributed to the fictional character Jesus the man, and have always held this social and ethical philosophy in high regard.'
Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2007 12:37 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2007 4:25 PM Grizz has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 47 (406192)
06-17-2007 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Grizz
06-17-2007 2:35 PM


I'm trying to figure out what you are saying here, Grizz. Are you saying that discussion and debate is being stifled in this unnamed organization to which you belong? Are you letters and essays not being published in this organizations newsletter? Are you being ignored or shouted down when you try to speak at your local chapter's meetings? Are you being snubbed socially by the other members?
And is dissent really being suppressed? Or does the general membership feel that the matter has been discussed sufficiently, and it is time to move forward on the decisions that have been reached by the membership? How do we tell whether you are really being "suppressed" or whether you are simply unhappy that the general consensus differs from your own opinion?

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Grizz, posted 06-17-2007 2:35 PM Grizz has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 37 of 47 (406194)
06-17-2007 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by crashfrog
06-17-2007 1:03 AM


Re: Re-feeling
You believe now what you've always believed. Like I said.
I was born more that 57 years ago so that is not what I have always believed.
That is what I have always believe since I came to the conclusions that it was correct.
Care to show me where what Genesis says is incorrect?
Or would you just rather preach what you believe.
You sound like you have joined the church of evolutionism and got religion.
Enjoy

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2007 1:03 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by crashfrog, posted 06-17-2007 9:00 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 46 by nator, posted 09-09-2007 7:39 AM ICANT has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 38 of 47 (406195)
06-17-2007 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mark24
06-17-2007 6:17 AM


Re: Re-feeling
Hi mark,
You believe everything you read? No, of course you don't, you had an irrational "feeling" based upon the faulty logic of your previous post. It must have been a feeling, because it wasn't based on evidence.
I believe I stated I believed the Genesis account. I look at Genesis account of creation as evidence apparantly you do not. Would you like to come over and show me where Genesis does not say what I say it says. http://EvC Forum: The Literal Genesis Account of Creation -->EvC Forum: The Literal Genesis Account of Creation
Enjoy

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by mark24, posted 06-17-2007 6:17 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by mark24, posted 06-17-2007 5:47 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 47 by nator, posted 09-09-2007 7:42 AM ICANT has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 39 of 47 (406200)
06-17-2007 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Grizz
06-17-2007 2:45 PM


Re: Re-Orthodoxy
'I have a great admiration for the philosophy atributed to the fictional character Jesus the man, and have always held this social and ethical philosophy in high regard.'
That's fair enough. I felt I was addressing an inconsistency in your statement - the inconsistency being between "I reject Christian Theology" and "I cleave to the philosophy of Jesus." The inconsistency is that, if you affirm that the material in the Bible is actually the words of a historical man called Jesus, you're accepting a point supported only by Christian theological tradition.
Your statement didn't make me uncomfortable. That it's logically inconsistent to claim to reject Christian theology but embrace the Christian theological position that the Bible records words spoken by Jesus should make you a little uncomfortable, I think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Grizz, posted 06-17-2007 2:45 PM Grizz has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 40 of 47 (406204)
06-17-2007 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by ICANT
06-17-2007 3:59 PM


Re: Re-feeling
ICANT,
I look at Genesis account of creation as evidence apparantly you do not.
Biblical Genesis is a hypothesis contradicted by science. It is not evidence of itself. That's like saying that the evidence of General Relativity is Einstein's paper on it. Or that "Origin of Species" is proof of evolution, & so on.
So, no, the book of Genesis isn't evidence, any more than all the books on science are evidence, either. In fact, you commit a logical fallacy; circular argument by even claiming such a thing. You have to make an argument of the form "I believe the biblical account because the bible is true, how do I know it's true? Because it says so". Ultimately you have to accept your conclusion in order to accept your premise.
Evidence is any data that supports a theory, so what data supports the Genesis hypothesis? Absolutely none, in fact the data contradicts it, not supports it.
So, why do you accept Genesis as being factually true? It is certainly not evidence, matey. It's a "feeling", something associated with your religions feelgood factor.
If you can have Genesis as evidence of itself, then can I have Watership Down as evidence of talking rabbits?
Mark
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2007 3:59 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2007 7:59 PM mark24 has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 41 of 47 (406210)
06-17-2007 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by mark24
06-17-2007 5:47 PM


Re: Re-feeling
Evidence is any data that supports a theory, so what data supports the Genesis hypothesis? Absolutely none, in fact the data contradicts it, not supports it.
I believe the evidence supports the Genesis account of creation.
My invitation still stands. We are dragging this thread off topic.
EvC Forum: The Literal Genesis Account of Creation

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by mark24, posted 06-17-2007 5:47 PM mark24 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 42 of 47 (406213)
06-17-2007 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by ICANT
06-17-2007 3:46 PM


Re: Re-feeling
Care to show me where what Genesis says is incorrect?
That's easy enough. Open to any random page and you'll see something untrue. The entire book is factually in error on every substantial point.
But that's not the topic of this thread. Nor is the fact that you could invent literally any story whatsoever and claim that it was the reason you came into belief.
None of that would change the fact that, eventually, I would have proven that every claim in Genesis was counterfactual, and you would still maintain its truth - not because you had a reasonable argument that it was but because you just had a feeling that it was.
We can do that, if you like; but that's not what this thread is about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by ICANT, posted 06-17-2007 3:46 PM ICANT has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 43 of 47 (420715)
09-09-2007 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Grizz
06-16-2007 12:26 PM


I'm not a part of any movement, but I see my own behaviors in a lot of your complaints of the Secular Humanist movement, so I'll try to explain why I do the things you see in others.
Grizz writes:
Unfortunately, I see the secular humanist movement slowly evolving into the very thing I despise - a dogmatic, orthodox institution who’s primary task is to maintain the status quo and suppress any form of dissent - whether real or apparent.
After years of evolving through argument, my positions are now pretty sturdy. I haven't had anyone knock a hole in one in a very long time. Now I wouldn't be in this position unless I thoroughly tested every idea I came upon. It's what I do. So, when I come upon someone who has a differing opinion, I look for flaws in its support structure. I usually find them. The same isn't true when they look at mine.
So, while the result is that dissent is quashed, the goal was merely to test the idea. And while the result is that the status quo is maintained, that's not because of any wish to do so -- it's merely the result of holding positions whose flaws, if any, must be on the level that would take a pretty spectacular intellect some pretty intense examination to see, as if it were any less, I would've long ago come across someone who could tear them down.
Grizz writes:
It also is obvious that many of these same scholars have become increasingly condescending and crass in their approach to the opposition.
When a person's superiority has been established, that's all that should be needed.
If Stephen Hawking read my posts relating to physics and simply responded with, "Moron;" would I dismiss that and demand disproof? Uhhhh... no. I'd take his word that there are mistakes and take it upon myself to correct the problem. One word is all it would take.
Of course, this doesn't work quite as well on Fundies. A Fundie has a hard time recognizing their inferiority as they never feel the impact of having a belief structure collapse, because they never give out the real reasons they believe and so keep them from ever being attacked. And a Fundie never really feels the sting of having an attack blocked, as the attacks they use against opposing viewpoints don't really underlie their disbeliefs. And if a miracle happens and the Fundie does realize their status, their intellectual laziness means that, "You're an idiot," doesn't stimulate them to do the research required to fix the problem -- which further supports the idea that they are inferior. And once you've firmly established who has the pearls and who is the swine...
Grizz writes:
In awe of the elite one hesitates to form any opinion that goes against the grain as one fears this would be perceived as a sign of weakness by the status quo.
Ok, I'll go against the opinion of the elite. (myself)
Let's see... an alternative to atheism. I got it! Theism!
Hmmm... the support is... arbitrary. That's weak. Yeeeah... I think I'll drop that now in favor of something a tad more robust. Such as atheism.
Ahhh... much better.
Grizz writes:
I also have noticed that in the public forums there has been an increasingly dogmatic and rigid demand for adherence to semantics.
Speaking the same language does tend to facilitate communication.
Grizz writes:
We are further warned that the deranged genetic mutants have run amok and at this very moment have their finger on the button waiting to vaporize mankind. What is never mentioned, however, is that it is our ability to reason and inquire into the workings of nature that have made it possible to bring about such a nightmare of epic proportions.
It's probably not mentioned because that's a pretty confused mess. It looks like you might have some improper transferrence in there.
Grizz writes:
As Carl Sagan pointed out - our long term survival may ultimately depend not on reason but on our ability to reign in the ”reptilian instincts’ that lie deep in our psyche.
Which would hinge on us reasoning that we need to suppress said instincts, so it would depend on reason.
I just outplayed Sagan.
Grizz writes:
Neither reason nor religion can squash the impulse to lash out that arises suddenly in response to a perceived threat.
I'd call that reason. It's just that evolution did the math instead of us.
Grizz writes:
Our scourge is that we have always found increasingly sophisticated methods to destory our fellow man yet we have never been able to find a means to bring us all together.
Competition is a pretty good motivator. Without a suitable replacement, losing it would likely be disasterous.
Grizz writes:
By demonizing the opposition one makes any civil dialogue or understanding impossible.
You can't have a civil discussion with someone who has a strong emotional investment in the beliefs being questioned. When you get close to the core, their fight-or-flight reflex kicks in. They start flailing wildly -- their eyes glaze over and they start reading your posts stupidly. Desperate for tangents, suddenly everything's a joke. So, you've now got the equivalent of a three-year old who refuses to eat his veggies. Try to make him eat them and he just spits them back out. You can't get anywhere with such a person.
Their entry into a protective denial-mode is what interferes with reasoned discussion and understanding -- not the claim that such occurrs.
Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.
Edited by DominionSeraph, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Grizz, posted 06-16-2007 12:26 PM Grizz has not replied

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 44 of 47 (420716)
09-09-2007 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
06-16-2007 7:17 PM


Re: Re-feeling
crashfrog writes:
There aren't even any that convince philosophers, and those are people you can convince of nearly anything with a half-assed argument.
Hey!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 06-16-2007 7:17 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 45 of 47 (420717)
09-09-2007 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ICANT
06-16-2007 6:47 PM


Re: Re-Orthodoxy
quote:
I have always been skeptical of orthodoxy and always question my deeply held views as well as those of others.
I am not sure I believe you when you say you have challenged your own deeply-held beliefs. Like, at all.
This doubt is based on conversations here, where you seem to have done nothing but defend all of your beliefs, even though most of them are rationally indefensable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ICANT, posted 06-16-2007 6:47 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024