“Into the millennium” - Pres. Nelson

[CA Steve]

22 hours ago, pogi said:

The child says:  "My reason and logic confirms to me this is the most nourishing, delicious, and valuable fruit in the entire field, and because my logic tells me this and because I plucked it from my mother's tree, I deserve all the credit, and I disown my mother and relinquish her to scorn and shame and wish that she were dead and gone!"     Every mother's dream! 

So reasoning and logic are okay when it comes to Covid but not religion?

[pogi]

2 hours ago, CA Steve said:

So reasoning and logic are okay when it comes to Covid but not religion?

I never said that reason and logic are not okay.  

[Analytics]

On 10/9/2021 at 12:31 PM, pogi said:

Yes, it's every mothers dream to have their kid deny them any credit whatsoever for being the source of the fountain of good that flows from their kid.  It makes them feel so valued and appreciated when their barely infant child arrogantly takes all the credit for the thousands of years of development and experience of their mother that brought forth the fruits for their child to pluck without labor.  They simply pick the apple from the tree and deny credit to their mother who labored diligently in planting, nourishing, watering, pruning, tilling, and grafting the tree for the desired fruit.    

The child says:  "My reason and logic confirms to me this is the most nourishing, delicious, and valuable fruit in the entire field, and because my logic tells me this and because I plucked it from my mother's tree, I deserve all the credit, and I disown my mother and relinquish her to scorn and shame and wish that she were dead and gone!"     Every mother's dream! 

That's not quite the whole dynamic, and it is a hypocritical view to boot.

Humanism explicitly rejects many parts of Christianity that are manifestly false or plainly harmful. It evolved from Christianity, but it isn't Christianity--it is something different and better. It doesn't say Christianity is the most nourishing, delicious, and valuable fruit in the whole field. Rather, it starts with Christianity and does a lot of deliberate artificial selection and cultivation to increase the nutritional value, decrease the bitter seeds, and decrease the toxins.

Regarding how hypocritical you are being here, remember that Christianity evolved out of Judaism and Roman paganism. In general, humanists are aware of the relationship between humanism and the general intellectual tradition of the west. In contrast, you are the one who denies the relationship between Christianity and its heritage, and instead claim that it came directly from God. Who is the one who is really disowning her mother?

Regarding whether science has "precious little" to say on aspects of morality, Steve Pinker says the following in his new book Rationality:

Quote

In fact, it is not hard to ground morality in reason. Hume may have been technically correct when he wrote that it’s not contrary to reason to prefer global genocide to a scratch on one’s pinkie. But his grounds were very, very narrow. As he noted, it is also not contrary to reason to prefer bad things happening to oneself over good things—say, pain, sickness, poverty, and loneliness over pleasure, health, prosperity, and good company. O-kay. But now let’s just say—irrationally, whimsically, mulishly, for no good reason—that we prefer good things to happen to ourselves over bad things. Let’s make a second wild and crazy assumption: that we are social animals who live with other people, rather than Robinson Crusoe on a desert island, so our well-being depends on what others do, like helping us when we are in need and not harming us for no good reason.

This changes everything. As soon as we start insisting to others, “You must not hurt me, or let me starve, or let my children drown,” we cannot also maintain, “But I can hurt you, and let you starve, and let your children drown,” and hope they will take us seriously. That is because as soon as I engage you in a rational discussion, I cannot insist that only my interests count just because I’m me and you’re not, any more than I can insist that the spot I am standing on is a special place in the universe because I happen to be standing on it. The pronouns I, me, and mine have no logical heft—they flip with each turn in a conversation. And so any argument that privileges my well-being over yours or his or hers, all else being equal, is irrational.

When you combine self-interest and sociality with impartiality—the interchangeability of perspectives—you get the core of morality. You get the Golden Rule, or the variants that take note of George Bernard Shaw’s advice “Do not do unto others as you would have others do unto you; they may have different tastes.” This sets up Rabbi Hillel’s version, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.” (That is the whole Torah, he said when challenged to explain it while the listener stood on one leg; the rest is commentary.) Versions of these rules have been independently discovered in Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Islam, Baháí, and other religions and moral codes. These include Spinoza’s observation, “Those who are governed by reason desire nothing for themselves which they do not also desire for the rest of humankind.” And Kant’s Categorical Imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” And John Rawls’s theory of justice: “The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance” (about the particulars of one’s life). For that matter the principle may be seen in the most fundamental statement of morality of all, the one we use to teach the concept to small children: “How would you like it if he did that to you?”

None of these statements depends on taste, custom, or religion.

Pinker, Steven. Rationality (pp. 67-69). Penguin Publishing Group

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Humanism explicitly rejects many parts of Christianity that are manifestly false or plainly harmful. It evolved from Christianity, but it isn't Christianity--it is something different and better. It doesn't say Christianity is the most nourishing, delicious, and valuable fruit in the whole field. Rather, it starts with Christianity and does a lot of deliberate artificial selection and cultivation to increase the nutritional value, decrease the bitter seeds, and decrease the toxins.

Can you share specific morals in humanism that do not exist in Christianity?  Which ones are "different" or even "better"?

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Regarding how hypocritical you are being here, remember that Christianity evolved out of Judaism and Roman paganism. In general, humanists are aware of the relationship between humanism and the general intellectual tradition of the west. In contrast, you are the one who denies the relationship between Christianity and its heritage, and instead claim that it came directly from God. Who is the one who is really disowning her mother?

You are making me a "hypocrite" based on assumptions you are making about me.  Where have I denied any relationship between Christianity and its heritage?  I happily credit other religions, especially Judaism, as the foundation for Christian ethics.  We fully acknowledge Judaism as our mother.  All good morals come from God, one way or another though.  In Mormonism, we happily pluck the good fruit from other sources.  We are not quite as arrogant as humanism is in refusing credit to other sources though, especially our mother.

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Regarding whether science has "precious little" to say on aspects of morality, Steve Pinker says the following in his new book Rationality:

I think this must be from a discussion with someone else.  I never said that science has precious little to say on aspects of morality.  But ultimately, all science based morality is based on core assumptions of what is "good".  Science can't tell you what is "good".  There is no objective good for science to observe or decipher.   All science can do is say "if ____ is good, then the most efficient way to create good is to _____."

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Can you share specific morals in humanism that do not exist in Christianity?

Slavery is bad? Paul says stuff like “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”

Homosexuals can form romantic relationships just like straight people? 
 

Killing heretics is bad? (“If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods'... do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him... You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death... Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.”)
 

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 10/9/2021 at 9:35 AM, pogi said:

It evolved into what made humanism humanism though. 

Yep. As a professionally trained historian, this is one of my pet peeves. 'Universal' human rights clearly emerged from a Judeo-Christian matrix and only became ascendant because of the impact of Western (Christian) colonisation. This is not a controversial point to historians, only to demagogic atheists/humanists whose worldviews depend on the shaky claim to a completely ahistorical common secular morality.

Edited October 12, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Analytics]

12 hours ago, pogi said:

Can you share specific morals in humanism that do not exist in Christianity?  Which ones are "different" or even "better"?

Great question.

As one important example, consider the Judeo-Christian tradition that teaches us that God “chooses” some people above others, and that He gives land to His people. Further, consider how the Christian scriptures teach that God commands His people to go to war and to commit genocide to remove the gentiles from the promised land.

This teaching led directly to the acts of genocide committed by the Israelites against the Canaanites as described in the Bible. It led directly to millions of people dying in the crusades. It led to the  ill-founded idea that Mormons should gather in Jackson County Missouri and to the 1838 Mormon war. And it led to ongoing conflict in the Middle East where there is an impasse among monotheists about who are God’s real chosen people and thus who really is entitled to Israel. The way Christian nations insisted the existing Palestinians should be expelled from their homes to make way for the Jews puts the Christians on the immoral side of the conflict; that is the root cause for the millions of lives that have been lost, for the unending toil among the Palestinians who are living as refugees under the barrel of a gun, and for the trillions of dollars wasted by America in a war against terror.

The evil Judeo-Christian teaching about chosen people and promised lands is the primary root cause of this.

This leads one to wonder: if God is the real source of morality, why is it that  pious theists can’t agree about who is really entitled to the chosen land?

Let me know if you'd really like me to tell you how humanists know this is evil and why we think our morality is better.

12 hours ago, pogi said:

I think this must be from a discussion with someone else.  I never said that science has precious little to say on aspects of morality.

Smac said that earlier. 

12 hours ago, pogi said:

 But ultimately, all science based morality is based on core assumptions of what is "good".  Science can't tell you what is "good".  There is no objective good for science to observe or decipher.

If one really believes that, then it's easy to rationalize the evil things the Bible teaches such as slavery and genocide.

But your point on the matter is exactly what Steven Pinker was responding to when he said, "O-kay. But now let’s just say—irrationally, whimsically, mulishly, for no good reason—that we prefer good things to happen to ourselves over bad things. Let’s make a second wild and crazy assumption: that we are social animals who live with other people, rather than Robinson Crusoe on a desert island, so our well-being depends on what others do, like helping us when we are in need and not harming us for no good reason."

If we whimsically take those two irrational beliefs as axioms and apply reason, we can come up with a system of morality that is better than what is taught in the Bible. 

 

[pogi]

12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Slavery is bad? Paul says stuff like “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”

You can largely thank Christianity for ending an institution that has existed from the beginning of time. 

Quote

The campaign for abolition was spearheaded by devout Christians, and it stands to this day as perhaps the finest political achievement of what would now be called faith-based activism. But who were the abolitionists, and how did their Christianity motivate them to campaign against the slave trade? This paper examines the Christian mind of the abolitionists, and ponders the lessons for today.

The Bible is not so clear cut.  As you know, it can be interpreted many different ways.  The Bible was used to both justify and end slavery.  The abolitionist movement was indeed inspired by "Christian principles".

Quote

Abolitionists also maintained that ‘the laws of brotherly love are infinitely enlarged’ by the Gospel, which proclaims ‘goodwill towards men without distinction’. Since all men were now to be treated as brethren, the Mosaic ban on perpetual enslavement of fellow Israelites was universalised.[49] Of course, pro-slavery Christians emphasised that neither Christ nor the apostles demanded the abolition of slavery. But abolitionists responded that slavery was tolerated as an evil by the early church, just like ‘the sanguinary despotism of Nero’ and ‘the sports of gladiators’, neither of which was expressly condemned in the New Testament.[50] Despotism and slavery were contrary to the ‘spirit’ of Christianity, whose ‘merciful operations’, though ‘gradual and slow’, eventually undermined both institutions.[51] Abolition could not happen in the first centuries, when the church was too weak and slavery was integral to the Roman economy. As Equiano observed, if Paul ‘had absolutely declared the iniquity of slavery…he would have occasioned more tumult than reformation’. Yet his letter to Philemon plainly showed ‘that he thought it derogatory to the honour of Christianity, that men who are bought with the inestimable price of Christ’s blood, shall be esteemed slaves, and the private property of their fellow-men’.[52] Paul had pointed the way; it was for later Christians to complete the journey.[53]

Abolitionists maintained that over the long run Christianity was inimical to the institution of slavery. The great Scottish Enlightenment historian (and Church of Scotland minister), William Robertson, claimed that ‘the spirit and genius of the Christian religion’ had gradually undermined many of the evils of the ancient world, including ‘the practice of slavery’. He observed that the enslavement of fellow Christians had been widely forbidden by the church and its bishops, so that slavery largely disappeared from Christian Europe by the twelfth century.[54] The Cambridge Baptist, Robert Robinson, amplified the argument. In the central rite of communion, he reasoned, slaves and slaveholders ate and drank together as brethren, undercutting earthly hierarchies. Christ had brought ‘deliverance to the captives’ by teaching principles of brotherhood and human dignity that ‘slowly but certainly subverted the whole system of slavery’.[55] The revival of slavery in the sixteenth century was a terrible reverse, but it would not survive the consistent application of Christian principles.[56]

https://www.jubilee-centre.org/cambridge-papers/the-abolition-of-the-slave-trade-christian-conscience-and-political-action-by-john-coffey

Quote

While some clergymen were using Christian scriptures to propagate slavery, others were scouring the Bible to end it. Although evangelicals tend to receive most of the credit for this, the origins of Christian abolitionism can be traced to the late 17th Century and the Religious Society of Friends or Quakers.

Since their establishment in the mid 17th century, Quakers had faced persecution for their beliefs which stated that everyone was "equal in the sight of God" and capable of receiving the "light of God's spirit and wisdom", including Africans. Several of their founders, including George Fox and Benjamin Lay, encouraged fellow congregants to stop owning slaves, and by 1696, Quakers in Pennsylvania officially declared their opposition to the importation of enslaved Africans into North America.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/slavery_1.shtml

While slavery existed within Christian culture and the Bible has been used to justify it, Christian Bible based principles was responsible for changing a culture and institution that has existed from the beginning of time.   Humanists want to deny credit to Christianity for ending slavery and take credit themselves for being more righteous?  They are standing on the shoulders of Christian abolitionists.

12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Homosexuals can form romantic relationships just like straight people? 

Many Christian sects have no problem with homosexuality.  I am a Christian and believe that homosexuals should be allowed to form romantic relationships just like straight people.  I would suggest that most Christians probably feel the same way.  To suggest that homosexual relationships are morally good or evil cannot be based in scientific objectivity, however.  To suggest that humanist morality on this matter is better or more righteous, is really just a claim based on a core assumption.  Nothing scientific/objective about it at its core.  It is a fairly religious sort of belief.

12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Killing heretics is bad? (“If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods'... do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him... You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death... Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.”)

While Christianity evolved out of this, these certainly are not Christian values.  Christ clearly put an end to it.  Once again, humanism is born of Christian values which are progressive and evolved over thousands of years and humanism is simply plucking of the modern fruit. 
 

Edited October 12, 2021 by pogi

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

The evil Judeo-Christian teaching about chosen people and promised lands is the primary root cause of this.

In humanism, they don't need a God to proclaim them as chosen.  They simply forgo God and choose themselves above all others.  They are the self-proclaimed chosen ones - placing themselves above those who disagree with them or don't subscribe to their views.  They believe that their chosen status makes them the worthy inhabitants of this land, nay, all lands, with the self-righteous goal of abolishing all religious people and people who view things differently.  It is just another form of religion and ethnocentrism with the goal of whitewashing all other beliefs from the earth.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

This leads one to wonder: if God is the real source of morality, why is it that  pious theists can’t agree about who is really entitled to the chosen land?

It's quite simple explanation. We are a mortal and fallen people capable of great atrocities in the name of God.  If God is the elephant, we are the blind-men arguing and fighting about what an elephant even is.  Some Christians lean on the extreme pacifist side (even more so than humanists do) while others lean to the war-hawk side of things.   While no one can agree with each other, because their perceptions of the elephant are subjective, the fact remains that the elephant exists and is palpable and uniquely experienced by each hand, based on previous perceptions and world-views.  While God may be the source of all good and all morality, our interpretations of it are entirely subjective and relative to our lived-experience.  We make mistakes.   Some may argue that we should do away with religion because of their mistakes, fallible, and even unreliable perceptions, but to throw out the good elephant which formed the basis and foundation of humanism, simply because humans can't agree what it is would be an incalculable mistake.  The elephant is the reason that good on earth even exists.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

If one really believes that, then it's easy to rationalize the evil things the Bible teaches such as slavery and genocide.

Removing religion from the earth won't remove the rationalization of evil.  It will compound it.  Greed, pride, power, and ethnocentrism will always exist within or without religion.

2 hours ago, Analytics said:

But your point on the matter is exactly what Steven Pinker was responding to when he said, "O-kay. But now let’s just say—irrationally, whimsically, mulishly, for no good reason—that we prefer good things to happen to ourselves over bad things. Let’s make a second wild and crazy assumption: that we are social animals who live with other people, rather than Robinson Crusoe on a desert island, so our well-being depends on what others do, like helping us when we are in need and not harming us for no good reason."

If we whimsically take those two irrational beliefs as axioms and apply reason, we can come up with a system of morality that is better than what is taught in the Bible. 

What if I disagree with those morals and believe that the fittest are deserving of the land and its spoils?  Who is to say I am wrong?  Biology and evolution certainly won't disagree.  We are animals, lets start acting like them - lawless.  

Edited October 12, 2021 by pogi

[Analytics]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

In humanism, they don't need a God to proclaim them as chosen.  They simply forgo God and choose themselves above all others.  They are the self-proclaimed chosen ones - placing themselves above those who disagree with them or don't subscribe to their views.  They believe that their chosen status makes them the worthy inhabitants of this land, nay, all lands, with the self-righteous goal of abolishing all religious people and people who view things differently.  It is just another form of religion and ethnocentrism with the goal of whitewashing all other beliefs from the earth.

That is a malicious, slanderous lie. 

According to the Humanist Manifesto III:

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

It is unbecoming, unproductive, and dishonest to tell other groups they believe hideous things that are the opposite of what they believe.

Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 - American Humanist Association

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is a malicious, slanderous lie. 

According to the Humanist Manifesto III:

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature's integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

It is unbecoming, unproductive, and dishonest to tell other groups they believe hideous things that are the opposite of what they believe.

Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 - American Humanist Association

Is it a lie?  It sounds like a great accepting and tolerant manifesto, unless you believe in God (if I understand you correctly - an unreliable source of evil), or if you believe "the evil Judeo-Christian teaching about chosen people and promised lands" - it being the "root cause" of so much evil in the world today.

I truly want to understand how you think they are not the self-proclaimed chosen ones.  Why do they get to be the arbiters of morality?  Why do they get to judge those who believe they are chosen by God to be lower then themselves?

You never answered my question.

Quote

What if I disagree with those morals and believe that the fittest are deserving of the land and its spoils?  Who is to say I am wrong?  Biology and evolution certainly won't disagree.  We are animals, lets start acting like them - lawless.  

Honestly, why does humanism get to dictate morality?  Aren't they self-chosen to do so? 

Either humanism is intolerant of different views, or you are just doing a really bad job at representing their views.  You are clearly intolerant of religion. 

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by pogi

[Analytics]

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

Is it a lie? 

Yes, what you said is a lie. Humanists are not the self-proclaimed chosen ones. They do not place themselves above those who disagree with them or don't subscribe to their views.  They do not believe that their chosen status makes them the worthy inhabitants of this land, nay, all lands. They do not have the self-righteous goal of abolishing all religious people and people who view things differently.  Humanism is not just another form of religion and ethnocentrism with the goal of whitewashing all other beliefs from the earth.

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

It sounds like a great accepting and tolerant manifesto, unless you believe in God (if I understand you correctly - an unreliable source of evil), or if you believe "the evil Judeo-Christian teaching about chosen people and promised lands" - it being the "root cause" of so much evil in the world today.

Humanism does have guardrails on its level of tolerance--to the extent your views are inhumane, you are the enemy of humanists. Suicidal bombers fighting a Jihad in the name of God won't find refuge with us. But to the extent your religious-based morality doesn't contradict humanism's values, you have no problem with us.

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

I truly want to understand how you think they are not the self-proclaimed chosen ones.  Why do they get to be the arbiters of morality? 

With the foundation of reason, they know they are right. You don't have to a stalemate with Muslims regarding whether the elephant wants the Jews or the Muslims to inhabit the holy land. You can use reason and our common humanity to come to a win-win compromise. 

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

Why do they get to judge those who believe they are chosen by God to be lower then themselves?

It isn't about being lower and it isn't about judging others. Humanists believe what they do because of reason. You asked for an example of humanist morality that didn't come from religion. Asked and answered. 

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

Honestly, why does humanism get to dictate morality?

That's like asking why aerodynamics gets to dictate how airplanes fly. Humanists simply try to understand what is right through reason.

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

Aren't they self-chosen to do so? 

No.

24 minutes ago, pogi said:

Either humanism is intolerant of different views, or you are just doing a really bad job at representing their views.  You are clearly intolerant of religion. 

I'm intolerant of evil behavior. I'm in favor of truth and I'm in favor of reason. That doesn't mean I'm intolerant of religion. 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Yes, what you said is a lie. Humanists are not the self-proclaimed chosen ones. They do not place themselves above those who disagree with them or don't subscribe to their views.  They do not believe that their chosen status makes them the worthy inhabitants of this land, nay, all lands. They do not have the self-righteous goal of abolishing all religious people and people who view things differently.  Humanism is not just another form of religion and ethnocentrism with the goal of whitewashing all other beliefs from the earth.

Humanism does have guardrails on its level of tolerance--to the extent your views are inhumane, you are the enemy of humanists. Suicidal bombers fighting a Jihad in the name of God won't find refuge with us. But to the extent your religious-based morality doesn't contradict humanism's values, you have no problem with us.

With the foundation of reason, they know they are right. You don't have to a stalemate with Muslims regarding whether the elephant wants the Jews or the Muslims to inhabit the holy land. You can use reason and our common humanity to come to a win-win compromise. 

It isn't about being lower and it isn't about judging others. Humanists believe what they do because of reason. You asked for an example of humanist morality that didn't come from religion. Asked and answered. 

That's like asking why aerodynamics gets to dictate how airplanes fly. Humanists simply try to understand what is right through reason.

No.

I'm intolerant of evil behavior. I'm in favor of truth and I'm in favor of reason. That doesn't mean I'm intolerant of religion. 

The problem is that you have clearly set up all Judeo-Christian religion as the enemy of humanists with their "evil" beliefs that they are chosen.  I mean, who can argue that the Bible is not evil after all the passages you have shared, right?   Either you are doing a terrible job of representing their values and beliefs, or the manifesto is just a bunch of empty words.

I love how you deconstruct God as being an unreliable source of morality because no one can agree with each other.  You then continue to uphold "reason" as the foundation of humanism.  You say, "because of reason they know they are right".  All we have to do is "reason" together as humans and we will all agree with what is moral and will all get along right?  Reason is the foundation for philosophy.  Do you see much agreement there?  How can you claim to "know" that you are right based on "reason" and assumptions?   Philosophy can't even agree on what it means to know anything, let alone being a reliable and stable foundation for one superior version of morality that all will agree with because it is reasonable. 

You claim that humanism doesn't place themselves above those who disagree with them.  That is manifestly untrue.  Believing that your morality is right while others is wrong is a form of placing yourself above them.   Promoting your morals above another's is doing the same.  Shaming religion is the same.  It is just another form of ethnocentrism.   It is the, "we are tolerant - so long as you agree with our version of morality, otherwise, we are better than you and your morals should be extinguished from humanity" whitewash.

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by pogi

[The Nehor]

50 minutes ago, Analytics said:

Yes, what you said is a lie. Humanists are not the self-proclaimed chosen ones. They do not place themselves above those who disagree with them or don't subscribe to their views.  They do not believe that their chosen status makes them the worthy inhabitants of this land, nay, all lands. They do not have the self-righteous goal of abolishing all religious people and people who view things differently.  Humanism is not just another form of religion and ethnocentrism with the goal of whitewashing all other beliefs from the earth.

Humanism does have guardrails on its level of tolerance--to the extent your views are inhumane, you are the enemy of humanists. Suicidal bombers fighting a Jihad in the name of God won't find refuge with us. But to the extent your religious-based morality doesn't contradict humanism's values, you have no problem with us.

With the foundation of reason, they know they are right. You don't have to a stalemate with Muslims regarding whether the elephant wants the Jews or the Muslims to inhabit the holy land. You can use reason and our common humanity to come to a win-win compromise. 

It isn't about being lower and it isn't about judging others. Humanists believe what they do because of reason. You asked for an example of humanist morality that didn't come from religion. Asked and answered. 

That's like asking why aerodynamics gets to dictate how airplanes fly. Humanists simply try to understand what is right through reason.

No.

I'm intolerant of evil behavior. I'm in favor of truth and I'm in favor of reason. That doesn't mean I'm intolerant of religion. 

When you join do you get a pony?

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

When you join do you get a pony?

Nope, that is a form of animal slavery.  Curse you and your morals. 

[Analytics]

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

The problem is that you have clearly set up all Judeo-Christian religion as the enemy of humanists with their "evil" beliefs that they are chosen. 

No, that isn't what I did. My point all along is that in the modern world, Christian ethics are, for the most part, de facto humanist ethics. I don't have to worry about you burning witches at the stake or chopping off the head of drunks because an angel told you to, etc. You use reason to figure out which parts of the scriptures you ought to focus on, and which ones you ought to ignore. For the most part, we really are on the same page.

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

All we have to do is "reason" together as humans and we will all agree with what is moral and will all get along right?  Reason is the foundation for philosophy.  Do you see much agreement there?  How can you claim to "know" that you are right based on "reason" and assumptions?   Philosophy can't even agree on what it means to know anything, let alone being a reliable and stable foundation for one superior version of morality that all will agree with because it is reasonable. 

Just because two people don't agree doesn't mean one isn't right. Claiming philosophy can't agree on anything is dodging the question.

21 minutes ago, pogi said:

You claim that humanism doesn't place themselves above those who disagree with them.  That is manifestly untrue.  Believing that your morality is right while others is wrong is a form of placing yourself above them.   Promoting your morals above another's is doing the same.  Shaming religion is the same.  It is just another form of ethnocentrism.   It is the, "we are tolerant - so long as you agree with our version of morality, otherwise, we are better than you and your morals should be extinguished from humanity" whitewash.

The very pious monotheist Osama bin Laden had an ethical code that he received from his religious tradition. Yes, I think my ethics are better than his. The world would be a better place if more people thought like me and fewer people thought like him. If you'd like to denigrate me as being ethnocentric because I believe my morals are in fact better than his, then so be it.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

No, that isn't what I did. My point all along is that in the modern world, Christian ethics are, for the most part, de facto humanist ethics.

So the Judeo-Christian belief that a people is chosen by God is not "evil" after all?  Because that is what you said. 

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that humanist ethics are just de facto Christian ethics - it being the original/originator and all?  That is what I have been trying to say all along, but you kept insisting that I was wrong, that humanist ethics are indeed different and in fact superior to Christian ethics (but humanists don't place themselves above others, right?  That's a "lie" right?).  They have chosen themselves as superior ethical beings because they are superior beings of reason.  They faculties of reason are objectively better. 

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

Just because two people don't agree doesn't mean one isn't right. Claiming philosophy can't agree on anything is dodging the question.

I see, so anyone who disagrees with your philosophy or morality is simply an unreasonable person.  But humanists don't place themselves above others.  What question am I dodging, by the way?

So, there is only one objective morality that is "right"?  Hmmm....   

Can't I use the same argument for the question you asked me?

Quote

This leads one to wonder: if God is the real source of morality, why is it that  pious theists can’t agree about who is really entitled to the chosen land?

  "Just because two people don't agree doesn't mean one isn't right?" 

All the arguments that you are using to uphold reason as the more reliable foundation of morality, can be used in religion too.  I don't see a difference.  You say that religion is unreliable because no one agrees.  The same is true for philosophy - which is all humanism is based on. 

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

The very pious monotheist Osama bin Laden had an ethical code that he received from his religious tradition. Yes, I think my ethics are better than his. The world would be a better place if more people thought like me and fewer people thought like him. If you'd like to denigrate me as being ethnocentric because I believe my morals are in fact better than his, then so be it.

It is not just Osama bin Laden, it is anyone who believes in the Bible or believes that they are chosen by God.  You are superior to them, correct?  You are self-chosen to be the arbiter of morality based on your own faculties of reason, which are fallible.  And anyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable, because there can only be one right.  Which is obviously you.  Any reasonable person could see that. 

 

Edited October 12, 2021 by pogi

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

So the Judeo-Christian belief that a people is chosen by God is not "evil" after all?  Because that is what you said. 

It depends. Does that Judeo-Christian belief also entail the belief that the Jews should drive the non-Jews out of the promised land because God promised it to the Jews?

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that humanist ethics are just de facto Christian ethics - it being the original/originator and all? 

No, that would be less accurate. Historically, "Christian ethics" contained all sorts of false and unethical beliefs. The point is that humanistic rationality is what determines what's really good and what's really evil. Appeals to Christian scriptures and Christian traditions does not.

1 hour ago, pogi said:

You are self-chosen to be the arbiter of morality based on your own faculties of reason, which are fallible.  And anyone who disagrees with you is unreasonable, because there can only be one right.  Which is obviously you.  Any reasonable person could see that. 

Everybody is free to engage in the debate about the morality of anything, including the actions and teachings of God in the scriptures. It's been established how reason can be applied to issues of ethics and morality. Everyone is invited to partake.

[pogi]

25 minutes ago, Analytics said:

No, that would be less accurate. Historically, "Christian ethics" contained all sorts of false and unethical beliefs. The point is that humanistic rationality is what determines what's really good and what's really evil. Appeals to Christian scriptures and Christian traditions does not.

If morality is determined by humanistic rationality, what determines if humanistic rationality is good or evil, or even reliable? 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

55 minutes ago, pogi said:

If morality is determined by humanistic rationality, what determines if humanistic rationality is good or evil, or even reliable? 

 

I think an equally important question is how do Christians determine morality. Certainly not scripture since that justifies things that we find abhorrent today. Latter-day Saints can point at modern prophets, but they are forced to disavow the abhorrent things said and done by past prophets (raising the question what will be disavowed today). It seems to me that modern Christian ethics (the ones where heretics are no longer burned at the stake) were shaped and formed by humanistic ideas as much as the other way around. 

[Analytics]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

If morality is determined by humanistic rationality, what determines if humanistic rationality is good or evil, or even reliable? 

 

If you are really interested in this topic, at some point you are going to have to pay attention to what humanists say on the matter. Please carefully read the following quote.

Quote

In fact, it is not hard to ground morality in reason. Hume may have been technically correct when he wrote that it’s not contrary to reason to prefer global genocide to a scratch on one’s pinkie. But his grounds were very, very narrow. As he noted, it is also not contrary to reason to prefer bad things happening to oneself over good things—say, pain, sickness, poverty, and loneliness over pleasure, health, prosperity, and good company. O-kay. But now let’s just say—irrationally, whimsically, mulishly, for no good reason—that we prefer good things to happen to ourselves over bad things. Let’s make a second wild and crazy assumption: that we are social animals who live with other people, rather than Robinson Crusoe on a desert island, so our well-being depends on what others do, like helping us when we are in need and not harming us for no good reason.

This changes everything. As soon as we start insisting to others, “You must not hurt me, or let me starve, or let my children drown,” we cannot also maintain, “But I can hurt you, and let you starve, and let your children drown,” and hope they will take us seriously. That is because as soon as I engage you in a rational discussion, I cannot insist that only my interests count just because I’m me and you’re not, any more than I can insist that the spot I am standing on is a special place in the universe because I happen to be standing on it. The pronouns I, me, and mine have no logical heft—they flip with each turn in a conversation. And so any argument that privileges my well-being over yours or his or hers, all else being equal, is irrational.

When you combine self-interest and sociality with impartiality—the interchangeability of perspectives—you get the core of morality. You get the Golden Rule, or the variants that take note of George Bernard Shaw’s advice “Do not do unto others as you would have others do unto you; they may have different tastes.” This sets up Rabbi Hillel’s version, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.” (That is the whole Torah, he said when challenged to explain it while the listener stood on one leg; the rest is commentary.) Versions of these rules have been independently discovered in Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Islam, Baháí, and other religions and moral codes. These include Spinoza’s observation, “Those who are governed by reason desire nothing for themselves which they do not also desire for the rest of humankind.” And Kant’s Categorical Imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” And John Rawls’s theory of justice: “The principles of justice are chosen behind a veil of ignorance” (about the particulars of one’s life). For that matter the principle may be seen in the most fundamental statement of morality of all, the one we use to teach the concept to small children: “How would you like it if he did that to you?”

None of these statements depends on taste, custom, or religion.

Pinker, Steven. Rationality (pp. 67-69). Penguin Publishing Group

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It seems to me that modern Christian ethics (the ones where heretics are no longer burned at the stake) were shaped and formed by humanistic ideas as much as the other way around. 

That is a possibility, but Christian ethics also have a possibility that revelation informs changes in morality even if complicated by apparent change.

Edited October 13, 2021 by Calm

[Analytics]

48 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I think an equally important question is how do Christians determine morality. Certainly not scripture since that justifies things that we find abhorrent today. Latter-day Saints can point at modern prophets, but they are forced to disavow the abhorrent things said and done by past prophets (raising the question what will be disavowed today). It seems to me that modern Christian ethics (the ones where heretics are no longer burned at the stake) were shaped and formed by humanistic ideas as much as the other way around. 

Exactly.

My position here really isn’t that controversial. The text book Practical Ethics by Peter Singer, published by Cambridge University Press has been in print since 1979 and is widely considered the an authoritative introductory text book on ethics. In the introduction, Dr. Singer says in the introduction:

Quote

The third thing ethics is not is something intelligible only in the context of religion. I shall treat ethics as entirely independent of religion.

Some theists say that ethics cannot do without religion because the very meaning of “good” is nothing other than “what God approves”. Plato refuted a similar claim more than two thousand years ago by arguing that if the gods approve of some actions it must be because those actions are good, in which case it cannot be the gods’ approval that makes them good. The alternative view makes divine approval entirely arbitrary: if the gods had happened to approve of torture and disapprove of helping our neighbours, torture would have been good and helping our neighbours bad. Some theists have attempted to extricate themselves from this dilemma by maintaining that God is good and so could not possibly approve of torture; but if these theists want to maintain that good means what God approves, they are caught in a trap of their own making, for what can they possibly mean by the assertion that God is good—that God is approved of by God?

Traditionally, the more important link between religion and ethics was that religion was thought to provide a reason for doing what is right, the reason being that those who are virtuous will be rewarded by an eternity of bliss while the rest roast in hell. Not all religious thinkers have accepted this…It is enough to say that our everyday observation of our fellows clearly shows that ethical behavior does not require believe in heaven and hell and, conversely, that belief in heaven and hell does not always lead to ethical behavior.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Analytics said:

If you are really interested in this topic, at some point you are going to have to pay attention to what humanists say on the matter. Please carefully read the following quote.

 

Just as Pinker argues that Hume is standing on narrow grounds of reason, I could just as easily argue that Pinkers grounds are narrow.  His own morality which you claim is based on reason is really just based on "irationally, whimsically, mulishly, for no-good reason"  assumption.  I know he is saying that tongue in cheek, but it honestly is without reason that his foundation is objectively sustainable.  

Quote

When you combine self-interest and sociality with impartiality—the interchangeability of perspectives—you get the core of morality

What does this even mean?  

He claims that "I, me, mine have no logical heft", yet he sets up self interest as one of the very core principles of morality.  Where is the reason there? Seems like he is all tangled in reason.  How can you trust his reason after such a blunder?  If it has no logical heft, why should we appeal to it and include in the holy secular trinity of self-interest, sociality, and impartiality that makes the core of morality?

Sociality?  What does he mean by this?  Isn't sociality entirely molded by culture and changes with time?  What is objective about it?   Does morality change with it?  What if two different cultures have very differing views of sociality?  Even within a culture, each individual is different in terms of social needs and preferences. 

Impartiality?  What a myth!  If morality cannot be achieved without objective impartiality, then morality is a myth too. Humanism itself is grounded in partiality towards its own philosophical assumptions.  You can't escape it.  It views itself as superior.  How is impartiality even possible with such a view?  It falls victim to the same circular logic that fundamental Christians find themselves in wherein they claim that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true.  The same circular logic can be found here wherein humanists claim that their logic is the only true logic because their logic says it is.

The fact is that there is no such thing as objective morality.  Sorry.  Whatever morality exists, be it from God or reason, is subject to our interpretation and personal perspectives based on cultural narratives, personal perspectives, and philosophical beliefs which we cannot escape.  

I have no reason to accept humanism as the one true morality.  I don't see objective reason for it.  

Why is humanism so human centric (anthropocentric)?  Why does humanistic morality only deal with human-well being?  How is its very foundation not based in that philosophical assumption that humans are more deserving of well-being than all other creatures?  How is that an objective fact?

How many humanists own pets I wonder.  Aren't we just animals too?  If human slavery is immoral, why not animal slavery?  If morality is objective in the universe, then it should apply to all animals alike, right?  If it is immoral to kill and eat other humans, than surely it is immoral to kill and eat other animals too, right? I mean, anthropocentrism kind of makes sense in a religious creationist narrative, but if our morality is going to be based on pure objective reason, I don't see any reason for it?  The foundation is not objective at all and without good reason.  How can we say that foundation is objective in any way? It is based on made up assumptions from an anthropocentric partiality.  Impartiality, you say is needed for morality.  Then morality doesn't exist. 

 

Edited October 13, 2021 by pogi

[Analytics]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

Just as Pinker argues that Hume is standing on narrow grounds of reason, I could just as easily argue that Pinkers grounds are narrow.  His own morality which you claim is based on reason is really just based on "irationally, whimsically, mulishly, for no-good reason"  assumption.  I know he is saying that tongue in cheek, but it honestly is without reason that his foundation is objectively sustainable.  

Every argument needs premises. The strength of this particular premise was already addressed earlier. Requoting Dan Harris:

Quote

What if certain people would actually prefer the Bad Life to the Good Life? Perhaps there are psychopaths and sadists who can expect to thrive in the context of the Bad Life and would enjoy nothing more than killing other people with machetes.

Worries like this merely raise the question of how we should value dissenting opinions. Jeffrey Dahmer’s idea of a life well lived was to kill young men, have sex with their corpses, dismember them, and keep their body parts as souvenirs. We will confront the problem of psychopathy in greater detail in chapter 3. For the moment, it seems sufficient to notice that in any domain of knowledge, we are free to say that certain opinions do not count. In fact, we must say this for knowledge or expertise to count at all. Why should it be any different on the subject of human well-being?

Anyone who doesn’t see that the Good Life is preferable to the Bad Life is unlikely to have anything to contribute to a discussion about human well-being. Must we really argue that beneficence, trust, creativity, etc., enjoyed in the context of a prosperous civil society are better than the horrors of civil war endured in a steaming jungle filled with aggressive insects carrying dangerous pathogens? I don’t think so.

 

15 hours ago, pogi said:

What does this even mean?  

He claims that "I, me, mine have no logical heft"..., yet he sets up self interest as one of the very core principles of morality.  Where is the reason there? Seems like he is all tangled in reason... 

Here's the thing. Steven Pinker is an eminent professor at Harvard University. Peter Singer is an eminent professor of ethics at Princeton University. These are very intelligent scholars and in the world of ethics, they are mainstream. We can disagree about whether or not they are right, but it's beyond dispute that their positions on ethics are deeply considered. Your confusion here is evidence that you haven't thought about these issues very carefully. It isn't evidence they are wrong. If you'd like to understand why they believe what they do, you need to invest some time in a book or two.

15 hours ago, pogi said:

Why is humanism so human centric (anthropocentric)?  Why does humanistic morality only deal with human-well being?  How is its very foundation not based in that philosophical assumption that humans are more deserving of well-being than all other creatures?  How is that an objective fact?

How many humanists own pets I wonder.  Aren't we just animals too?  If human slavery is immoral, why not animal slavery?  If morality is objective in the universe, then it should apply to all animals alike, right?  If it is immoral to kill and eat other humans, than surely it is immoral to kill and eat other animals too, right?

These are fair questions that humanists do in fact ask. What does Christianity authoritatively say about how animals ought to be treated? I'm not sure there is much in the Bible about it.

In contrast, humanism provides a framework to address these questions in a rational manner. For example, the humanist Yuval Noah Harari has thought about these issues deeply and has come to more nuanced and morally insightful conclusions than the vast majority of theists. You really ought to read the full book to put this into context, but here is a flavor:

Quote

Pigs are among the most intelligent and inquisitive of mammals, second perhaps only to the great apes. Yet industrialised pig farms routinely confine nursing sows inside such small crates that they are literally unable to turn around (not to mention walk or forage). The sows are kept in these crates day and night for four weeks after giving birth. Their offspring are then taken away to be fattened up and the sows are impregnated with the next litter of piglets. Many dairy cows live almost all their allotted years inside a small enclosure; standing, sitting and sleeping in their own urine and excrement. They receive their measure of food, hormones and medications from one set of machines, and get milked every few hours by another set of machines. The cow in the middle is treated as little more than a mouth that takes in raw materials and an udder that produces a commodity. Treating living creatures possessing complex emotional worlds as if they were machines is likely to cause them not only physical discomfort, but also much social stress and psychological frustration.

Just as the Atlantic slave trade did not stem from hatred towards Africans, so the modern animal industry is not motivated by animosity. Again, it is fuelled by indifference. Most people who produce and consume eggs, milk and meat rarely stop to think about the fate of the chickens, cows or pigs whose flesh and emissions they are eating. Those who do think often argue that such animals are really little different from machines, devoid of sensations and emotions, incapable of suffering. Ironically, the same scientific disciplines which shape our milk machines and egg machines have lately demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that mammals and birds have a complex sensory and emotional make-up. They not only feel physical pain, but can also suffer from emotional distress.

Evolutionary psychology maintains that the emotional and social needs of farm animals evolved in the wild, when they were essential for survival and reproduction. For example, a wild cow had to know how to form close relations with other cows and bulls, or else she could not survive and reproduce. In order to learn the necessary skills, evolution implanted in calves – as in the young of all other social mammals – a strong desire to play (playing is the mammalian way of learning social behaviour). And it implanted in them an even stronger desire to bond with their mothers, whose milk and care were essential for survival.

What happens if farmers now take a young calf, separate her from her mother, put her in a closed cage, give her food, water and inoculations against diseases, and then, when she is old enough, inseminate her with bull sperm? From an objective perspective, this calf no longer needs either maternal bonding or playmates in order to survive and reproduce. But from a subjective perspective, the calf still feels a very strong urge to bond with her mother and to play with other calves...

We can congratulate ourselves on the unprecedented accomplishments of modern Sapiens only if we completely ignore the fate of all other animals. Much of the vaunted material wealth that shields us from disease and famine was accumulated at the expense of laboratory monkeys, dairy cows and conveyor-belt chickens. Over the last two centuries tens of billions of them have been subjected to a regime of industrial exploitation whose cruelty has no precedent in the annals of planet Earth. If we accept a mere tenth of what animal-rights activists are claiming, then modern industrial agriculture might well be the greatest crime in history. When evaluating global happiness, it is wrong to count the happiness only of the upper classes, of Europeans or of men. Perhaps it is also wrong to consider only the happiness of humans.

Harari, Yuval Noah. Sapiens (pp. 342-344, 379-380) 

Edited October 13, 2021 by Analytics