Humanism

[robvalue]

Yeah, most of that all looks pretty sensible. I'm slightly wary of giving myself such labels too.

[brewer]

I've got no problem with humanism. I'd rather have that ism in my corner or sitting beside me than a myriad of others. I doubt they'd look down on me or try to convert me.

[Kingpin]

That is certainly true mh that calling yourself a humanist does not carry with a stigma like most other isms. But the point Professor Gray is making is that it is not logically consistent to hold to humanism and a strict naturalistic or secular worldview. Humanism is injecting properties that are non-existent in such a framework which is why he identifies it as the new religion of a post Christian Europe and parallels it to the ideas in Christianity.

[Whateverist]

The idea of progress rests on the belief that the growth of knowledge and the advance of the species go together, if not now then in the long run.

I often hear this sentiment expressed by atheists on this forum. I find the naive hope that our species is getting morally better as it gets smarter highly suspect.

It is more accurate to say that here in the USofA at least we are most definitely Christian in our culture if not our laws. My reaction to that realization is to apply a little skepticism toward the Humanist project. I don't reject it outright but I reject the idea that we need objectivize morality. It is only for the sake of inculcating the next generation that one attempts to formalize rules of morality. But if we are successful, they will grow up able to appreciate that the complexity of human affairs resists rigid categories. When they are peers of the realm they will need to balance the messy stew of contravening claims at play in all human interaction and achieve their own resolution.

However, the biblical myth of the fall of man contains the forbidden truth, that knowledge does not make us free, it leaves as we have always been, prey to every kind of folly.  To believe in progress is to believe that by using the new powers given to us by growing scientific knowledge, humans can free themselves from the limits that frame the lives of other animals.  However, Darwin shows us that humans are like other animals.  Humanists claim they are not.  Humanists insist that by using our knowledge we control our environment and flourish like never before.  In affirming this, they renew one of Christianity's most dubious promises, that salvation is open to all.  The humanists belief in progress is a secular version of this Christian faith.  In the world shown to us by Darwin, there is nothing that can be called progress.  The idea that humanity takes charge of its destiny makes sense only if we ascribe consciousness and purpose and meaning to the human race, but Darwin's discovery was that species are only currents in the drift of genes.  The idea that humanity can shape its future assumes that it is exempt from this truth."

All good points. However it is foolish to think that without objective morality we will degenerate into renegades against social norms. The current of gene drift in humans is strongly in the direction of cooperation and empathy for kin and tribe, and the effect of media has been to shrink the planet and extend the range of who is included as tribe.

Only Christians profess a strong to desire to rape, steal and kill without the shackles of a divine law.

[Whateverist]

You know lkingpinl, I'm always just a little bit suspicious if something ends in ism.

What I subscribe to are humanitarian values in their broadest sense. Hoping for a better world than we have now. And that includes getting rid of isms, since in their vast majority they're just flags to rally behind. Well, maybe there is an ism I can subscribe to: Individualism. Which I don't define as everyone for themselves, but as trying to make up one's own mind about what is iimportant for one's life.

That brings up the age old controversy: is enlightened self interest sufficient as a moral compass?

I think it can be so long as one doesn't go all vulcan like in their logic and cast doubt toward values based on unconscious sentiment.

[Alex K]

That is certainly true mh that calling yourself a humanist does not carry with a stigma like most other isms. But the point Professor Gray is making is that it is not logically consistent to hold to humanism and a strict naturalistic or secular worldview. Humanism is injecting properties that are non-existent in such a framework which is why he identifies it as the new religion of a post Christian Europe and parallels it to the ideas in Christianity.

I think he believes that we can't overcome human nature enough to achieve the form of continuous progress which humanism allegedly claims as its goal. I don't know where logical consistency plays a role in such deliberations. But I also don't know enough about the different strands of humanism to judge whether their worldview is really as naively utopian as he claims. There is imho nothing wrong with claiming a formally unattainable goal as an ideal to strive for. World peace etc.

[Whateverist]

There are a million ways to define progress.  That there's no objective progress does not mean that it is impossible or inadvisable to pursue subjective progress.

Of course that begs the question of whether there is some underlying logic to morality which we may steer toward subjectively. But what could this be except an examination of our innate prosocial impulses to extract and generalize what we can? One can imagine all manner of questionable generalizations becoming inadvertently ensconced by such a project. Perhaps there should be an imperative regarding grooming, like "groom least thee not be groomed"? In the end the best we can do is distill what seems to us the least burdensome oughts which will provide the minimal degree of consideration which we would like to see returned.

Humanity can 1) plan on timescales far in excess of a human lifetime,

.. and yet strangely almost never does so except under the most soul crushing totalitarian systems.

2) alter its own genetic code,

Say hello to eugenics and GMO's.

and 3) reach other celestial bodies.

An important out once we have overrun the petri dish of our own planet.

 
There's no inherent property of evolution that says an organism can't advance to a point where it knows enough about itself to change itself.

No, not evolution. This is where historic example and life experience comes in.

[Whateverist]

Taken from the BHA website: https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/

I quite like the BHA, and though I do not define myself as a humanist, I identify with some of their core beliefs and ideas such as secularism, promotion of equality and freedom of beliefs.

My only objection, along the lines Rob alluded to, concerns this in the opening paragraph at that site "..and have placed human welfare and happiness at the centre of their ethical decision making."  I'm immediately suspect of such a narrow, clannish view which takes into account first and foremost only ones own kind.  Hey, my dog deserves better than that.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

FWIW I wouldn't take that sentiment literally. A lot of what the BHA does is lobby and campaign on secular and non-religious rights in, for example, education and employment, but they are also ardent supporters of international and national charities and campaign groups that seek to stop the sale and export of animal matter for things like Chinese medicine, or the illegal exportation and importation of poached and captured animals.

Whilst true they seem to approach this from the view that, as in the above example, Chinese or oriental medicine is almost without exception hokum and hence the sacrifice of the animals is completely unwarranted, I think you'll find most BHA members and supporters are also very much for animal rights (within reason).

[Pyrrho]

That is certainly true mh that calling yourself a humanist does not carry with a stigma like most other isms. But the point Professor Gray is making is that it is not logically consistent to hold to humanism and a strict naturalistic or secular worldview. Humanism is injecting properties that are non-existent in such a framework which is why he identifies it as the new religion of a post Christian Europe and parallels it to the ideas in Christianity.

Humanism is combining an ethical view with (in the case of secular humanists at least) atheism.  That would be logically inconsistent if ethics and atheism were inconsistent, but they are not.  It may, however, not be consistent with your view of what ethics is.  But that does not make their position inconsistent.

Broadly speaking, it is the view that is and has emerged from the Enlightenment.  Broadly speaking, of course.

Here is wikipedia's introductory paragraph to "humanism":

Humanism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). The meaning of the term humanism has fluctuated, according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it.[1] Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of human freedom and progress. In modern times, humanist movements are typically aligned with secularism, and today "Humanism" typically refers to a non-theistic life stance centred on human agency, and looking to science instead of religious dogma in order to understand the world.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism