Humanism

[TheRealJoeFish]

---

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.  

You lost me.  

Ok, after three rereads, I think I get what you're saying.  So, question: did the eradication of natural smallpox count as progress?  Sure, it may not be "objective" progress, but it sure as hell feels like progress to me.

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.

What?  This assertion seems so wacky to me that I don't really know how to respond.  Even if true, that doesn't say anything about humanity's capacity to progress in a humanistic manner past what we could call "the constraints of evolution" or "the evolutionary drift"; all it says is that we haven't really utilized our capabilities and done so yet.

2) alter its own genetic code,

Say hello to eugenics and GMO's.

Pfffft.  Again, I'm not talking about particular ways to escape the evolutionary drift, I'm talking about our capacity.  And, also, I love how you're citing GMOs as a bogeyman.  You know, GMOs... those 1) plants that are completely safe to eat and could reduce hunger and suffering around the world and 2) animals that are altered to serve useful purposes and provide important medical and research opportunities for people.  

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.

I think you may have missed my point.  I'm not opining on the likelihood that humanity is successful in "beating evolution" or whatever.  I'm addressing a specific theme of the passage in the OP, which seems to be that humanity can't beat evolution; in making this argument, the author makes a number of statements about the species and evolution itself that I think are complete bunk, and I'm responding to those.  In response to the OP passage, I've tried to lay out some of the tools humanity has, and show why I think the author's wrong about his impossibility argument.  I think we actually agree that his impossibility argument is wrong, and we probably also agree that, even so, the likelihood of this happening is low.  But I think you misinterpreted my post.

Apologies for loose language in this re: "beating evolution" and such.  Y'all know what I mean.

[Whateverist]

Sorry. I just never cope well with acronyms, TBH. Telling me what TRJF stands for would really help.

But the only progress I understand is progress toward a goal. I don't think there is any progress possible in the goals we set however. So progress is stagnant except when it is relative. (Now I'm just having fun being quixotic. I can be an asshole this way if you believe my wife .. which I don't.)

[Kingpin]

Here's the discussion of Professor Gray's view in a bit more detail:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zI_RNE5smw

[Ben Davis]

Thought this would be an interesting topic of discussion.  Defining "humanism" is a little difficult so I thought I would start by using some words that the humanist society uses to describe themselves:

"Humanism is the view that we can make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values and that we can live good lives without religious or superstitious belief.  Humanists seek to make the best of the one life we have by creating meaning and purpose for ourselves.  We choose to take responsibility for our actions and work with other for the common good.  We think that other people for example are moral concerns, not because they are made in the image of something else, but because of who they are in themselves.  Humanism is a naturalistic worldview encompassing atheism.  We believe people can and will continue to find solutions to the world's problems so that the quality of life can be improve for everyone."

Humanism isn't difficult to define; it's significantly easier than any supernaturalist ideology. In fact, you've already been given 2 consistent definitions in addition to yours. Here's a third and my favourite:

A rationalist outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters:

- a Renaissance cultural movement which turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought.
- (among some contemporary writers) a system of thought criticized as being centred on the notion of the rational, autonomous self and ignoring the conditioned nature of the individual.

What I find interesting is that some atheists have the most penetrating critique of humanism.  In particular Professor John Gray.  What he argues is:

"Humanism is the new religion or new faith in a post-Christian Europe. It is the dominant worldview that informs everything else.

Post-Christian? Well, we live in hope
Anyway, I've never encountered a humanist who would accept that it's a religion. An ideology, yes; a philosophy, yes; a world-view, yes. Conflating the definitions of those with 'religion' is deliberate misrepresentation and makes me question the veracity of JG's analysis.

However, a truly secular view of the world is one that does not permit belief in or the hopes of humanism.  A truly naturalistic worldview is one that does not leave any room for secular hope."

Nonsense. If that were true, there would be no secular or naturalist humanists. In fact they make up the majority of those who identify as humanists. JG's deliberately misdefining words and muddying waters in order to make... what point? Humanism is 'bad'? Humanism doesn't really exist? Humanism offends him in some way?

His central argument in his book "The Silence of Animals" is:  "Humanism is essentially the Christian faith expressed in secular terms.

Ah... his point. He wants to tar humanism with the same brush as christianity. But he's wrong here. There are certain parallels which mainly result from the co-opting of enlightenment or humanitarian values by christianity over the last 100/150 years but the core tenets of humanism & christianity could not be more opposed.

In which we have replaced the idea of God's providence with a conviction of the nature of progress.

So 'faith in the existence & plan of a supernatural overlord' and 'conviction that humans can make naturalistic progress' are the same things? Since when.

Christians understood history as a story of sin and redemption. Humanism is the transformation of this Christian doctrine of salvation in to a project of universal emancipation.

So the promise of vicarious redemption and the potential of human effort to solve human problems are the same things? I'm confused. I thought JG was supposed to be showing us how humanism is 'christianity expressed in secular terms', not demonstrating, with each of his statements, how fundamentally different the underlying ideologies are?

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.

They can do and they may do. The humanist position is that it all depends on human effort and not on any surrender to the whims of fanciful divine intervention. Do we leave things to unfold as they may or do we try and use human intellect to take a modicum of control?

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.

Nonsense. This is someone who's swallowed the whole 'knowledge is bad' meme of the abrahamic religions. Knowledge and its application has gone a long way towards freeing humans from a vast array of natural problems (e.g. famine, disease) and 'human' ones (e.g. human rights abuses, rows with the neighbours). It's another misrepresentation to try and make knowledge a black & white issue. We do the best we can with what we can do with what currently know and work on doing & knowing more so that we can do better in the future. Sometimes people abuse knowledge for selfish gain however 'knowledge' doesn't 'fail' simply because people can make mistakes or because we don't know everything now. That's simply childish.

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.

Yes. In fact, we have already done so. Ever heard of the plague?

However, Darwin shows us that humans are like other animals.

No, he shows us the we are animals. There's no inference that 'animals are all the same', which is what JG's clearly implying.

Humanists claim they are not.

Which is true! Them's the facts! We're not like other animals. The human 'evolutionary niche' (big, pattern-recognising brains and tool-making) have clearly divorced human survival rates from many naturally selective influences.

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.

Now there's a jump & a half! he misses out the main bit of the christian promise, the bit that makes it dubious: that salvation will be provided by a supernatural force. There's a marked difference between humanistic confidence in the application of human effort and christian faith in the power of god. Just because one can compare parts of one ideology to another does not make the two ideologies 'versions' of the same thing.

In the world shown to us by Darwin, there is nothing that can be called progress.

Nonsense. At very least, there's the possibility of greater survival rates. That's progress in evolutionary terms.

The idea that humanity takes charge of its destiny makes sense only if we ascribe consciousness and purpose and meaning to the human race...

There's no need to 'ascribe' it, we are conscious beings, capable of describing individual and group purpose. Does JG not know any real people?

...but Darwin's discovery was that species are only currents in the drift of genes.

Not 'only'. We are not automata. Is JG really denying the fact that we are conscious and purposeful beings?

The idea that humanity can shape its future assumes that it is exempt from this truth."

Which, as I've shown, is no truth at all.

Sorry this is so long, but I thought it was interesting enough to have a discussion.

It is interesting. I'd just offer you the advice that, based on the piece you've referenced here, you shouldn't listen to John Gray about anything related to humanism. He clearly has a vested interest in erroneous conflations of ideology and can't make a practical observation for toffee.

[robvalue]

Beautiful takedown Ben

[AFTT47]

What I find interesting is that some atheists have the most penetrating critique of humanism.  In particular Professor John Gray.  What he argues is:

"Humanism is the new religion or new faith in a post-Christian Europe. It is the dominant worldview that informs everything else.

Post-Christian? Well, we live in hope  
Anyway, I've never encountered a humanist who would accept that it's a religion. An ideology, yes; a philosophy, yes; a world-view, yes. Conflating the definitions of those with 'religion' is deliberate misrepresentation and makes me question the veracity of JG's analysis.

I don't mind owning up to some degree of faith. We Secular Humanists have a decidedly optimistic outlook based on the assumption that not only are we capable of doing great things but that we WILL do great things. We can make an evidence-based argument for that based on the track record of our species - particularly the meteoritic rise of knowledge and technology of the past few centuries and the ever increasing rate of that rise - but it's certainly not a slam dunk. Our optimism is colored by emotional bias to some degree. So what? What's the consequences if we're wrong? Where's the harm of striving towards excellence and having faith that we will achieve it? Far better than sloughing through life, whining whoa is me and we suck IMO.

[robvalue]

I don't have a lot of faith in humanity as a whole, in fact I think it's by blind luck we haven't blown half the planet up already. I think we have a tendency to get carried away with new technology/science, and only realize the implications after its too late to do anything about it. I'm glad to see we have some institutions which are actually trying to predict these kinds of problems now (I forget the name).

However, humanity is all we have got. So I have to put my chips down regardless of my faith.

[Ben Davis]

I don't mind owning up to some degree of faith. We Secular Humanists have a decidedly optimistic outlook based on the assumption that not only are we capable of doing great things but that we WILL do great things. We can make an evidence-based argument for that based on the track record of our species - particularly the meteoritic rise of knowledge and technology of the past few centuries and the ever increasing rate of that rise - but it's certainly not a slam dunk. Our optimism is colored by emotional bias to some degree. So what? What's the consequences if we're wrong? Where's the harm of striving towards excellence and having faith that we will achieve it? Far better than sloughing through life, whining whoa is me and we suck IMO.

I agree but I don't like to call it 'faith' because of the automatic association that people will make with religious definitions of the word. To me, there's a big difference between unsupported faith in the power of a supernatural entity to provide progress on our behalf and supported confidence in the power of people to make our own progress. I'd go as far to suggest that any human progress that religions claim has been made by their supernatural entity can be explained, more coherently & elegantly, by claims of human agency. We know that humans can do good & bad things; we have evidence of that. We also know that most people will do good things rather than bad. We can see an upward trend, over time, in civilised development. Consequently, humanistic confidence is well justified and arguably the most appropriate ideology for fulfilling human potential. 'Confidence', yes; 'earned trust', yes; 'faith', no.

Religions have been co-opting human effort for so long, in order to prop up their definition of 'faith', that the word has become practically meaningless. It's about time people took credit for what they've accomplished, both good & bad, so that we can properly accept the collective responsibilities generated by our intellect. Words like 'faith' are counter-productive to that end.

[Alex K]

Shouldn't it be the professional duty of a philosopher to clarify terms and meaning, not to muddy the waters? Bad philosopher!

[robvalue]

The idea that humans are all we have, and as such we can't rely on anything else is so obvious that it's strange to even have a word for it (at least in part). But then the same goes for atheism.