• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Humanism: On what basis they believe what they believe?

Demonslayer

Demonslayer

Well-Known Member
sayak83 said:
the empirically grounded fact of biological and psychological equality of human beings (particularly say the various so called races and women)
Click to expand...

I think some would argue that biological equality of men and women is an empirical fact. Women, on average, are shorter and have less upper body strength than men...the basis for some people to say women shouldn't be soldiers.

I think that's preposterous because who cares about "on average?" You can have a 5'9" male who can bench press 150lbs in the army and not a 5'9" woman who can bench press 150lbs?

But that's just my opinion. :)
 
icehorse

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Shadow Wolf said:
My position regarding morality is that of moral nihilism. We cannot definitively say what is moral or not. We can only say "My way is better than yours." Morality is just far too subjective and far too relative to each culture and time to say it is anything more than what a given culture at a given time says it is. Moral Relativists claim that there is a such thing as moral and immoral, but we moral nihilist realize there is nothing inherently moral or immoral, that we make it up as we go, and anything claimed to be moral is nothing more than saying "my ways are better than yours," if even that much. I can say that I believe the positions that most of Western morality is based on to be superior because I believe it is superior. But there is nothing intrinsic that makes it so, only my beliefs and conclusions that would promote my views as being "moral."
Click to expand...

To me this is very similar to the relativist stance. Either one, if held strongly, can be used to scuttle any argument. The problem I have with these stances is that it's hard to get anything done. I suppose I'd be willing to say something like: "In theory I'm a nihilist, but in practice I take 'the well being of conscious creatures' as my axiom." Granted that one axiom, I think science and reason can and should have much to say about morality.
 
sayak83

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Demonslayer said:
I think some would argue that biological equality of men and women is an empirical fact. Women, on average, are shorter and have less upper body strength than men...the basis for some people to say women shouldn't be soldiers.

I think that's preposterous because who cares about "on average?" You can have a 5'9" male who can bench press 150lbs in the army and not a 5'9" woman who can bench press 150lbs?

But that's just my opinion. :)
Click to expand...
I was talking about right to work and voting rights. In terms of being in the army, the intra-gender variability is greater than the variability between men in general and women in general. So the argument is difficult to sustain. In athletics, that selects for the upper 1 percentile of the gender with regards to athleticism or physique, that mean variation does matter and hence we have a gendered separation, and rightly so. Seems justified. :)
 
sayak83

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Demonslayer said:
Not always, many belief are very well justified. The idea that all humans should have equal rights is very well justified and agree on by the majority of human beings.

Still, it is technically an opinion, not a fact. There are pockets of people who still think women shouldn't be able to vote...Ann Coulter said as much as recently as 2015. That's her opinion...not well justified if you ask me. The rest of us feel women should, of course, have the right to vote. Justifiable, if you ask me.

But still opinion, no?
Click to expand...
As long as you are saying that the belief is well justified, I am happy. English is used slightly differently by people after all.
 
Demonslayer

Demonslayer

Well-Known Member
sayak83 said:
In terms of being in the army, the intra-gender variability is greater than the variability between men in general and women in general. So the argument is difficult to sustain.
Click to expand...

I fully agree, of course.

sayak83 said:
In athletics, that selects for the upper 1 percentile of the gender with regards to athleticism or physique, that mean variation does matter and hence we have a gendered separation, and rightly so.
Click to expand...

I agree here too, though some folks are of the opinion that women should be allowed to play in men's leagues.

sayak83 said:
Seems justified. :)
Click to expand...

In your opinion anyway. :D
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Demonslayer said:
This. Religious people get hung up on the word "belief" because they take a lot of crap for their beliefs, rightly or wrongly so.
But saying "I believe all human beings should have equal rights" is a heck of a lot different than saying (for example) "I believe a deity once impregnated a human woman with a God-man hybrid who died, came back to life, physically flew off into the sky and is waiting in some other dimension to eventually return to Earth on a flying horse." The first is just an opinion that they person 'believes' is morally correct. The second is a very specific factual occurrence that the person believes has happened/is happening/will happen.
The 'belief' statements in that humanist code...of which I can only find three...are all of the first variety. "I believe that the application of science should be tempered with human values," again, is an opinion, and is a lot different than saying "I believe human beings came to be when an all powerful cosmic being called Allah fashioned figures from potters clay and mud, and then animated the figures so they came alive" which is a specific factual occurrence that is being claimed.
So I guess my answer to the original post is the basis of humanist 'beliefs' is opinion.
Click to expand...
Does one mean that Humanism is not a world-view proper but is just an opinion, not more than that?
Regards
 
Taylor Seraphim

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
George-ananda said:
Nothing. My point was good humanism and good religion will begin to look the same in their behavior and goals at the material level. Religion continues further from there.
Click to expand...

Really?

George-ananda said:
I would say neither. As I understand it, Humanism is based on the goal of achieving what is best for humanity as there is no ultimate purpose or authority. I think intelligent religion and intelligent humanism should merge into each other on their goals.
Click to expand...

If there is nothing humanism needs from religion then why should they merge?

The only other reason would be that religion actually needs something from humanism.
 
LuisDantas

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
paarsurrey said:
Amsterdam declaration of humanism* has mentioned the word “believe” three times in the first two clauses of fundamentals.
May I ask them whether their belief in these fundamentals is on the basis of religion or on the basis of science? Please
*http://iheu.org/humanism/the-amsterdam-declaration/
Regards
Click to expand...
Neither really.

Science has some contribution to make to ethics and morality, but for the most part it is a separate discipline.

Religion of course often purports to be the basis of morality and ethics, but it really isn't. Their origin is in sentience, empathy and the ability for predicting the consequences of our actions.
 
First Baseman

First Baseman

Retired athlete
paarsurrey said:
Amsterdam declaration of humanism* has mentioned the word “believe” three times in the first two clauses of fundamentals.
May I ask them whether their belief in these fundamentals is on the basis of religion or on the basis of science? Please
*http://iheu.org/humanism/the-amsterdam-declaration/
Regards
Click to expand...

Whatever their belief or anyone's belief it is always based on faith whether that faith be in men or some sort of deity.
 
Augustus

Augustus

…
Taylor Seraphim said:
If there is nothing humanism needs from religion then why should they merge?
Click to expand...

Liberal Christianity was the mother of Humanism, as such there is practically no difference between them. Even more so if you look at another offshoot of Christianity, the Quakers which would be very hard to distinguish from Humanists without being pedantic. (Other religions can also hold similar views also)

Some say 'god', the others say 'reason', ultimately though if you pretty much want the same thing then what is the point of pretending that one is better than the other?
 
George-ananda

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Taylor Seraphim said:
If there is nothing humanism needs from religion then why should they merge?

The only other reason would be that religion actually needs something from humanism.
Click to expand...
I tried to clarify in the last post what I meant by 'merge' i.e.start to look the same at the material level. That was the only sense I meant the word 'merge'/
 
Taylor Seraphim

Taylor Seraphim

Angel of Reason
Augustus said:
Liberal Christianity was the mother of Humanism, as such there is practically no difference between them. Even more so if you look at another offshoot of Christianity, the Quakers which would be very hard to distinguish from Humanists without being pedantic. (Other religions can also hold similar views also)

Some say 'god', the others say 'reason', ultimately though if you pretty much want the same thing then what is the point of pretending that one is better than the other?
Click to expand...

Because reason is a reliable and objective thing.

"god" is not because it is subjective and changes on human fancy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top