Is secular humanism a faith? And is it a plausible faith?

[rowland]

This has come up in another context in this board, so let’s break it out here.

It’s been asserted here that humanity is making steady progress, becoming more enlightened and more moral. It’s been further asserted that this is the result of human reason and man-made laws. If the first premise is false then the second is meaningless. And the first is on very shaky ground indeed.

Reality: human upward progress is far from steady. History is full of republics falling to tryanny, of the rule of law collapsing into bloody anarchy, of dark ages, Great Leaps Forward and reigns of terror.

As for morality, I don’t see moral codes converging on any particular point. In every age, in every society, some things are approved and some things are forbidden; however; there is no persistent pattern of movement except churn. For every new “freedom” or “tolerance” there is a new restriction or a new thought crime invented. For every systemic oppression overthrown, a new persecuted class is designated. And… have you noticed? Anti-Semitism is on the rise again. Yes, old evils come back.

And what of science? Science is done by human beings. It is a particular way that humans approach the world.It happens to work quite well, but it rests on fallible humans, human values, human society. It has never existed apart from all this. When human perversity asserts itself and societal values shift away from reason and empiricism, science will collapse. Already, science is corrupted by ideology and politics. The ghost of Lysenko lives in the Global Warming cult. Science is on its way to being nothing more than a meaningless word.

The preponderance of evidence, both from history and from everyday experience, show that human goodness is offset by human evil, and there is no sustainable progress. I believe enlightened Western civilization has passed its peak and is in the early stages of decline. The savages that have recently taken over the Cradle of Civilization are poised to push aside the effete, decadent heirs of the Western tradition. They have the elan and the momentum; all we have is inertia and complacency.

Will the West be utterly destroyed? Perhaps not. The Dark Ages were followed by better times, but before the better times there had to be the Dark Ages. Our culture is now as decrepit as the Roman Republic in its last days. We would be all set for another lengthy Roman Empire except that the Saracens are here already. I expect the coming Empire will be cut short, and we may live to see the next Dark Ages.

Secular humanism is simply unrealistic. This triumphalism of human reason already starts to ring a bit hollow. Man is a marvel in comparison to the nematode, but he is not all that he thinks he is.

[MikeN]

[quote=“rowland”]This has come up in another context in this board, so let’s break it out here.

It’s been asserted here that humanity is making steady progress, becoming more enlightened and more moral. It’s been further asserted that this is the result of human reason and man-made laws. If the first premise is false then the second is meaningless. And the first is on very shaky ground indeed.

Reality: human upward progress is far from steady. History is full of republics falling to tryanny, of the rule of law collapsing into bloody anarchy, of dark ages, Great Leaps Forward and reigns of terror.[/quote]

It depends on your definition of ‘steady’. If you mean continuous or unbroken, then no. If you mean accumulative, then yes.

Example: “After the D-Day landing, the Allies made steady progress towards crushing Nazi Germany”
Someone might object “What about the hedgerows of Normandy? What about the Battle of the Bulge? That wasn’t steady.”
The reply might be “Hey, they hit the beaches on June 6 1944 and Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945. That’s pretty steady.”

As for morality, I don’t see moral codes converging on any particular point. In every age, in every society, some things are approved and some things are forbidden; however; there is no persistent pattern of movement except churn. For every new “freedom” or “tolerance” there is a new restriction or a new thought crime invented. For every systemic oppression overthrown, a new persecuted class is designated. And… have you noticed? Anti-Semitism is on the rise again. Yes, old evils come back.

Not just any particular point; the point we have is one that grew out of Western historical experience and thought and was basically imposed on everyone else, if you’re talking about democracy, religious tolerance, freedom of speech,political equality, and equal rights for women. There was a deep swerve into racism in the 18th and 19th C, but we have largely (officially) recovered from that.

Anti-semitism is somewhat on the rise in Europe, driven by
a) Larger Muslim populations, and a more extreme ideology
b) Anger with Israel on the Left for its occupation policies, which has morphed into anti-Semitism at the extreme.
c) a lot of good-old-fashioned anti-Semitism was still around, but had been driven out of polite society by the horrors of Nazism. Now, with the resurgence of right-wing nationalism and ethno-centrism in places like Hungary, it has made a comeback. Note though, that in France even Marie LePen has had to try and silence her old man.
As for the rest, a lot of Christian anti-Semitism was discredited by the Holocaust, and the recent embrace of Israel by fundamentalists has drained a lot of the rest (Mel Gibson excepted!)

And what of science? Science is done by human beings. It is a particular way that humans approach the world.It happens to work quite well, but it rests on fallible humans, human values, human society. It has never existed apart from all this. When human perversity asserts itself and societal values shift away from reason and empiricism, science will collapse. Already, science is corrupted by ideology and politics. The ghost of Lysenko lives in the Global Warming cult. Science is on its way to being nothing more than a meaningless word.

No, the ghost of Lysenko lives in the politically-inspired rejection of science driven by self-interests of the petroleum lobby.
It certainly is meaningless in the mouths of Rick Santorum or Republicans pushing Creationism in the schools, like Bobby Jindal.

The preponderance of evidence, both from history and from everyday experience, show that human goodness is offset by human evil, and there is no sustainable progress. I believe enlightened Western civilization has passed its peak and is in the early stages of decline. The savages that have recently taken over the Cradle of Civilization are poised to push aside the effete, decadent heirs of the Western tradition. They have the elan and the momentum; all we have is inertia and complacency.

Really? With what? You know who else had elan? The Ghost Shirts.
I really don’t understand how a ragged ass bunch of Holy Warriors armed with rpgs mounted on Toyota pickups can turn conservatives into such jelly-kneed blubbers.

Will the West be utterly destroyed? Perhaps not. The Dark Ages were followed by better times, but before the better times there had to be the Dark Ages. Our culture is now as decrepit as the Roman Republic in its last days. We would be all set for another lengthy Roman Empire except that the Saracens are here already. I expect the coming Empire will be cut short, and we may live to see the next Dark Ages.

I think your history is a bit off here. The Roman Republic was hardly decrepit- it just had a dysfunctional political system.
After all, during the time that Republicanism was collapsing the legions were conquering Spain, Gaul, North Africa, Macedonia, Greece, the Near East and Egypt.

And you think we’re about to have a resurgence of the West in an Imperial form except said desert banditos will- do what?
I know some conservatives have been shrieking about ISIS teaming up with Mexican narcotics dealers to ship Ebola-infected Guatemalan children across the border- but really, that’s sooo 2014.

Secular humanism is simply unrealistic. This triumphalism of human reason already starts to ring a bit hollow. Man is a marvel in comparison to the nematode, but he is not all that he thinks he is.

Any Woman could tell you that.

[MikeN]

Secular Humanism is the belief in
a) Naturalism: every natural phenomena we have encountered in the Universe (so far) is explainable by science, even if, as with dark energy, we haven’t found the explanation yet.

-We may reach the limits of the explainable; after all these blobs of meat jelly in our head were originally designed for finding edible roots and dodging leopards, not probing the origins of the Cosmos.
letterstonature.wordpress.com/

-There are no reliable reports of supernatural intervention in the Universe (that we know of).

b) Secularism: Governments should not be in the business of promoting or hindering any religion- that stays within the boundaries of the law:no human sacrifices.

-Anyone wishing to push a viewpoint in the political arena has to do so from a secular standpoint: “I oppose homosexual rights because it causes harm to children”, not “I oppose homosexual rights because God told me it was an Abomination unto His Nostrils”.

These of course were the founding principles of the American Constitution, which very deliberately eschews mention of God and claims all its powers derive from “We, the People”. This wasn’t an accident; there was a lively debate and firm insistence that God not be mentioned, which led to some religious figures up into the 19th C denouncing it as a (literally) God-forsaken document.

c) Humanism: the belief, not necessarily in the essential goodness and unity of humanity, but that progress can be made toward that goal. Liberalism has been defined as ever increasing the circle of those regarded as “us” and not “them”.

-Humanists acknowledge the world can be a tough and mean place, and recognise the existence of people who do evil; they simply believe that it’s a good idea -and an achievable goal -to work towards improving it, and hope that one day we can attain that goal.

[Il_Doge]

I never found having my sense of ethics compared to bonobos or a mindless instinct to be very flattering or motivating. Secular humanists tend to argue that ethics are instinctive but they’re also the same crowd that will argue we should learn to move past our instincts, or they pick and choose what an “instinct” is based upon whatever fits their personal agenda. That is to say that it’s subjective ethics which should by definition be unreliable although I have never known a “humanist” to agree on that point.

[MikeN]

@Il Ðoge

I never found having my sense of ethics compared to bonobos or a mindless instinct to be very flattering or motivating.

These days I don’t find looking in a mirror flattering, but it is what it is.

Secular humanists tend to argue that ethics are instinctive but they’re also the same crowd that will argue we should learn to move past our instincts, or they pick and choose what an “instinct” is based upon whatever fits their personal agenda. That is to say that it’s subjective ethics which should by definition be unreliable although I have never known a “humanist” to agree on that point.

This is a good point. After all, our instincts from the old days on the savannah tell us to cooperate when it’s to our advantage, cheat when we can get away with it, and smash the guys from the next river over, rape their females, and steal their territory.

Though we should say “some” secular humanists say this e.g. Sam Harris; many others base their ethics on different grounds.
And it depends what you mean by “subjective”. There’s individual subjectivism, cultural subjectivism, or human-inclusive subjectivism. The last would be standards which can be objective without being universal i.e. they apply to all human beings, but just because that’s the kind of animals we seem to be.

(Other objective non-theistic moral standards would be the various forms of consequentialism; Kant’s ‘reason-based’ ideas of duty; rational egoism etc.).

But I must admit that I personally haven’t found any foundation for moral belief that satisfies me, and I’ve been looking for almost fifty years. I don’t find the various atheistic arguments convincing; on the other hand religious ones (theistic or otherwise) are even less defensible.

[Zla_od]

There’s more than one useful way to think about religion. Some say that religion (or something close to it) is universal across all human societies. Others associate “religion” with a particular combination of cosmology, ritual, hierarchy etc. that only makes sense in contrast to “the secular,” and which historically arose with Christianity (which, unlike other ancient cults, emerged in a state of tension with the wider Roman society) before other “world religions” were reformulated to fit the same model.

If we define religion according to its functions in society, then “secular humanism” might well function in religion-like ways in those societies where it dominates. If we define religion according to content, then we have to decide on what content. For example, secular humanism does involve a certain cosmology, though not supernatural belief (again, the sacred / secular distinction, which may or may not be useful). It may or may not involve rituals (as does football), but now we need to focus on some identifiable group of secular humanists.

[tempogain]

[quote=“rowland”]

Secular humanism is simply unrealistic. [/quote]

Why? Or better put, what is realistic then? All your arguments apply just as well to the world as it stands now under any particular philosophy. What’s put it in the state it is now? Religion has had a good long run to set things right. Even if you take a somewhat Luddite view, I don’t see how secular humanism takes much blame at all. Has the world been some kind of paradise that SH might destroy? If you want to argue that we would be better off with a common ideal, delusion or not, to unite some segment of us so that we could better fight some other segment, well it’s debatable. But it’s a political-historical argument and not a philosophical one.

This triumphalism of human reason already starts to ring a bit hollow. Man is a marvel in comparison to the nematode, but he is not all that he thinks he is.

Now now, man doesn’t need humanism to think himself superior. Far from it! The opposite really. I don’t know of any humanistic philosophies that set man above other animals, but maybe they exist. Some religions are explicit about this.