That many more sophisticated believers now see atheists as moral beings who value meaning in their lives is a sign of progress. We no longer need to convince them, at least, that we have the whole gamut of social, psychological and moral needs and intuitions that religious people have. We now have to convince them that these are not inherently properties of religion but of humans.
Set aside for the moment the fact that these values are less those of secular humanism and more a mishmash of broadly liberal aims mixed with one blank-slatist identitarian left view generally rejected by science-supporting liberal humanists. It simply does not make to sense to argue that if we recognized secular humanism as having what Staddon sees as the property of a religion—an ethical framework—this should disqualify it from having influence on law and society.
Generally, we want and need societies to have ethical frameworks and this is why we make laws and social expectations. If we diagnose everything that has an ethical framework as a religion and thus ineligible for inclusion in law or social norms, we end up with anarchy.
This is also unlikely to ever happen as we are social mammals with a well-developed moralistic prefrontal cortex and seem unable to help ourselves forming ethical frameworks and rules for society.
Alternatively, if we consider everything which has an ethical framework equally suitable for inclusion in law and social norms, we end up with a kind of moral and epistemological relativism currently more commonly associated with postmodern views. If everybody is equally right because they equally sincerely believe themselves to be right, society can only stagnate.
For progress, we need to assume that some ideas are more right, both factually and ethically, than others. We need the Liberal Principle: Checking of each by each through public criticism is the only legitimate way to decide who is right.
The functioning of modern secular liberal democracy works via the marketplace of ideas, in which ideas are weighed against each other and compared for their various merits. When considering whether a moral claim should be legalized, it is less useful to evaluate whether or not it is part of something that could be considered religious than to address the ideas themselves and the strength of arguments for or against them.
As a secular humanist on the economic left, I can support the idea that the richest should be expected to help the poorest on ethical grounds even though Jesus said it before Marx did. Staddon concludes by arguing that, because the beliefs of religious believers are clearly defined, they are unfairly disadvantaged as political candidates against secular humanists, who have just as many unprovable beliefs, which are less accessible.
This is implausible. Candidates usually do state their values and proposed policies quite clearly in order to get people to vote for them. Also, arguing that religious beliefs are at a disadvantage because people understand what they are does not seem like much of a defense of them. It would be much better for Prof.
Staddon to argue well for his own positions on abortion, homosexuality and gender roles in terms that will make sense to humanists and liberals, as well as to religious conservatives. Submit those arguments to the marketplace of ideas. Given that so many religious people already hold the liberal values on those topics that he associates with secular humanism and reconcile this with their faith, it seems this can work.
If he is unable to convince liberal humanists of his stance on abortion rights, same sex marriage and gender roles we already know gender differences exist , it might not be that we have an unfair advantage in the marketplace of ideas. Our ideas might just be better. Helen Pluckrose is a liberal humanist, a cultural and political writer and the editor-in-chief of Areo. She is the co-author, with James Lindsay, of Cynical Theories , which looks at the evolution of postmodern thought in scholarship and activism.
But is believing in humanity, progress, morality, and a purposeful life more rational than believing in god? I fail to see how one set of groundless beliefs is any more rational than another. Your self-congratulation here is perhaps a very good example of exactly the sort of arrogance that Saddon laments.
No, not those of us who are on the side of science and reason. You demonstrate that Saddon is essentially correct. But you insulate yourselves from equal scrutiny via the trick of pronouncing yourselves scientific and rational whereas your values are no better than mine and maybe a whole lot worse.
Or at least they should not be privileged. Boss, it sure would be nice to be able to stay subscribed to articles. When you click the boxes you get taken to WordPress and generally bothered. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities.
It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality. Humanism is an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity, recognizing that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone. Humanism is: A joyous alternative to religions that believe in a supernatural god and life in a hereafter.
Humanists believe that this is the only life of which we have certain knowledge and that we owe it to ourselves and others to make it the best life possible for ourselves and all with whom we share this fragile planet.
An appreciation of the art, literature, music and crafts that are our heritage from the past and of the creativity that, if nourished, can continuously enrich our lives.
Humanism is, in sum, a philosophy of those in love with life. Humanists take responsibility for their own lives and relish the adventure of being part of new discoveries, seeking new knowledge, exploring new options. Instead of finding solace in prefabricated answers to the great questions of life, humanists enjoy the open-endedness of a quest and the freedom of discovery that this entails. Humanism is the light of my life and the fire in my soul.
It is the deep felt conviction, in every fiber of my being that human love is a power far transcending the relentless, onward rush of our largely deterministic cosmos. All human life must seek a reason for existence within the bounds of an uncaring physical world, and it is love coupled with empathy, democracy, and a commitment to selfless service which undergirds the faith of a humanist. Humanism is a philosophy, world view, or lifestance based on naturalism-the conviction that the universe or nature is all that exists or is real.
Sadly, as many theologians admit, God remains hidden. This lacuna itself is evidence against gods. As the late physicist Victor Stenger noted , the absence of evidence is indeed evidence for absence if the evidence should have been there. The same should go for most religious truth claims. But never mind. Since Staddon admits that secular humanism fulfills neither of these two criteria, his argument has already failed.
Certainly most religions, at least theistic ones, are attached to a moral code. But religious morality has three features that differentiate it from morality deriving from secular humanism. First, the diversity of morality among secular humanists is far wider than that of followers of a given religion: beyond adherence to the Golden Rule, secular humanists vary dramatically in what they consider moral. It is not easily accessible.
So the view that abortion is murder, for instance, comes from the claim that fetuses, like adults, have souls, and therefore aborting them is murder. In Islam and Christianity, the view that homosexuality is immoral comes from scripture. And so on.
0コメント