http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism I had heard of Humanism before, and had attended a few Central Colorado Humanist presentations, however I had not pursued it diligently. Basically, Humanism is a belief based on the belief that certain ethics and values will benefit humans more than other ethics and values. Humanist beliefs are largely based on science, making it a nice tie in for Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape, the notion that science can determine what is ethical and unethical. Seems to fit me quite well, however I am still interested in Buddhism. Thoughts?
To Wolverine: My thoughts on the moral landscape when moralists breach the wall separating church and state. In short: Moralists no longer require a cathedral with a pulpit. All they need is a cause or a product. Morality is killing this country faster than foreign enemies ever could. Youll find morality under every political rock you turn over. Aside from judicial morality there is the tax collectors morality. Hussein the street hustler ran as a moralist preaching his sick brand of morality; hope and change. He based his campaign on the sure knowledge that a political moralist can fool voters just as easily as can a hereafter preacher. Hussein understood one thing: Touchy-feely rhetoric is the only thing a moralist has to master until its time to force compliance. After winning, all he had to do was hang in there long enough to consolidate his power without knowing squat about governing a free people Its not only political morality that is destroying Americas moral fiber. Preventative medicine is more about the healthcare industrys morality than it is about health. A nation of pill freaks buying prescription drugs to prevent this or that is the highest morality of all. Diet and exercise gurus promising healthier lives are moralists contradicting the pill priesthood if you dont count vitamins as pills. There were propaganda moralists long before the others jumped on the morality bandwagon. Movies and TV shows have always been dirty little morality plays; the Twilight Zone was the worst of them but not by much. It can be argued that live and let live is also dogma, except that those of us who believe it do not give a rats ass how others live, worship, or eat; so long as they leave us alone.
Define "benefit". Science can't do that because it doesn't contain any value judgments. Humanism is a sneaky way to sound objective and to hide arbitrary judgments under the cloak of science. At least Bible thumpers will be honest and say that they just have faith.
To Jack Ridley: Absolutely, when it is mixed with politics. Political morality is the foundation for theocracy, and the most effective way to circumvent the First Amendment. Basically, if politicians want to be spiritual leaders they should join a church. Obviously, laws like dont kill, dont steal, etc., are based on moral principles, but when politicians preach morality in order on tell everyone how to behave in all things that is a sure sign of immorality as well as a political priesthood trying to move the country towards a totalitarian theocracy. Also, you will note that not one government priest talks about the moral principles that have been enshrined in law for countless centuries. Whenever a top Democrat preaches morality for the common good, I want to shout Spend more time punishing those who violate the ancient prohibitions against reprehensible conduct, and less time shooting off your foul mouth telling law-abiding Americans how to live. The reason those bums dont punish the worst among us is because they must protect their own kind who do the very things they refuse to punish.
For one, humanism does not replace a religion, it is simply what is left when some people leave religion behind. Many Christians are humanists. I don't know to what extent you follow Buddhism, so I can't tell you if it's compatible with yours. Humanism as I remember it is the notion that morality comes from humans. Nothing inhuman decides what is ethical for a human to do. I would say that humanism doesn't say that science can determine what is ethical or not, but that what is ethical or not is completely based on humans and is irrelevant in humanity's absence.
that is cute. Kind of like a human leaving reality (the garden) for a manmade belief, then returning. That is about as oxymoron as a "christian jew" ie.....christians dont believe that people created the 'law' (moralities) in the first place. Another funny one. All words are created by humans. So both the theologies and all moral descriptions are manmade. Just because people can believe or purely accept the lies of someones creation does not mean there is a 'god' creating morals. The only universal moral is the instinct of a life to have an intention to live. I just covered that. instinct is the best description to comprehend the 'life' of anything What makes mankind different is consciousness, in which a human mind can not only comprehend the life of another but give of its own, to 'support life to continue' (*good, defined) and it is the comprhension of life that enables a life to understand life; the foundation of anything moral
At the risk of going off topic for just a moment, I just wanted to say thank you for supporting my argument about the numbers that are given on the periodic table. At this point, I am forced to cede to your argument that all words are created by man. Therefore, the verbal expression of the number 1 (one) cannot be expressed with meaning without the use of those man-made words. And as you already know, those words come from the imagination of man. So Thank You.
I certainly won't argue the point that imagination is the most powerful force found within man, but as for the entire universe... that is questionable. Have you explored all there is in this universe? No? Then I guess that your declaration of such an absurd claim is a little bit fanciful and perhaps egocentric.
Why should I believe that any part of the universe exists that I haven't explored? It's unempirical and I can't support it with the evidence I have at hand. The whole world is egocentric. The whole world is the ego.
Which part of your suggestion is not empirical? The universe? or your imaginations about the universe that you have not explored? or the actual parts of the universe that you have not explored? I suppose that you do have objective empirical evidence to support such claims as you have made regarding the 'ego' and being 'egocentric'?
A net benefit for humanity or a single person, a better well being. It can be used to make value judgements. A person can scientifically determine that starving a child is a detriment while feeding a child is benefit. It not that far a reach. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTKf5cCm-9g"]Sam Harris: The Moral Landscape - YouTube[/ame] Faith is a violent dogma. Humanism is grounded in the betterment of humanity, it is grounded in demonstrable values and does not call for the stoning of homosexuals.
Define "net benefit", "better", "humanity", and "well-being". Detriment to what? Benefit to what? Not all faith is violent. How do you "demonstrate" values? Sounds like Is/Aught Fallacy to me. Who does it call for the execution of?
To Wolverine: I responded to this in the OP: . . . making it a nice tie in for Sam Harris's The Moral Landscape. . . That why I began my reply with this: My thoughts on the moral landscape when moralists breach the wall separating church and state.
How can they be "actual" if I have not empirically proved them to exist by exploring them? Of course. All of the empirical evidence I have has been gathered by me. I have no evidence to support the belief that the universe is in any way different than the way I see it, therefor the world is egocentric. As to the question of whether or not the universe is "ego", if we equate empiricism with science then we must adopt monism, in which case I am the universe and the universe is me.
Just because they are not actual in your perception, does not mean that they are not actual to others. If you hold some inhibition that is restricting you from exploring those other parts, then that is a problem of yours. Now you are suggesting that there is a part of the universe that is different than the way you perceive it to be; and yet you say that you have no evidence to support that belief. Whose belief are you talking about? If you have not explored those other parts of the universe, then how do you know that you have gathered sufficient evidence to make a sound conclusion? Who is this "I" that you refer to? Please describe this "I" that you refer to. Why does 'empiricism' have to be equated to 'science' in order to conclude that the "I" is related to "monism" and subsequently the 'universe'?
They are obvious. Detriment to the child mentioned, and a benefit to the child mentioned. I meant to say A faith that...., my phone is not the greatest device to post from. It is not fallacious in nature, unless common human decency is a fallacy. I suggest listening to the video I posted, Sam Harris has some condensed versions as well. Christianity, the Old Testament, calls for the execution of homosexuals, non-believers, and unruly children. It is anything but a moral base to anchor ethics to.
