Humanism: On what basis they believe what they believe?

[paarsurrey]

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

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

It's obviously not religion, given that humanism is a secular movement, and because it states that "humanists believe that the solutions to the world’s problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention."
Humanism isn't really a scientific view, but rather a philosophical perspective. Science really hasn't said much in regards to human needs and morality, and any time someone goes on about how it does it's often nothing more than some agenda-based rantings trying to justify the superiority of a certain position (the Nazis were very much into this sort of thing, as were Eugenics, and some other pretty nasty stuff that wasn't scientific at all).

 

[icehorse]

It's obviously not religion, given that humanism is a secular movement, and because it states that "humanists believe that the solutions to the world’s problems lie in human thought and action rather than divine intervention."
Humanism isn't really a scientific view, but rather a philosophical perspective. Science really hasn't said much in regards to human needs and morality, and any time someone goes on about how it does it's often nothing more than some agenda-based rantings trying to justify the superiority of a certain position (the Nazis were very much into this sort of thing, as were Eugenics, and some other pretty nasty stuff that wasn't scientific at all).

Re: "agenda-based rantings", I will respectfully disagree. (Not about the Nazis, I agree with you there.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Re: "agenda-based rantings", I will respectfully disagree. (Not about the Nazis, I agree with you there.)

It's like Social Darwinism. It really explains nothing, but is promoted by people who have an agenda to further. Science isn't in the business of defining morality because science deals with facts and calculations, not subjective emotions and beliefs.

 

[icehorse]

It's like Social Darwinism. It really explains nothing, but is promoted by people who have an agenda to further. Science isn't in the business of defining morality because science deals with facts and calculations, not subjective emotions and beliefs.

I'm of the opinion that science and logic can and should be in the business of informing morality. Why should morality be something that allows for no expertise? I understand that traditionally morals aren't in science's wheelhouse, I just think that should change.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'm of the opinion that science and logic can and should be in the business of informing morality. Why should morality be something that allows for no expertise? I understand that traditionally morals aren't in science's wheelhouse, I just think that should change.

Morality is too subjective for proper science. We can say what we think is moral, such as various freedoms, self-determination, and so on, but there are no concrete laws or divine/cosmic forces that make it so. A fine example is a Nozick/Rand type of Libertarianism that finds any and all forms of wealth redistribution, including taxes, to be stealing and immoral, or a more Scandinavian approach which seeks to improve the lives of all citizens. To one group, a few people sitting on a mountain of wealth while everybody else fends for themselves is moral, but to the other group having people pay their "fair share" and having an obligation to help is considered moral. Any way you try to approach it, defining morality requires you to put your own personal values ahead of the values of others. That is why science cannot define morality, because it requires a subjective perspective to be used as the measuring stick, and interpreting the results in a subjective way. Eradicating poverty is a moral crusade of some, but poverty isn't even a concern for others.
We could use Nietzsche's approach to morality, or Rawls, or Hobbes, or Kant, or Jesus, or any other person. We have no actual way of knowing whose morality is better, but we could use various research methods to demonstrate different things that enhance the following of the morality of anyone you choose.

 

[idav]

Morality is too subjective for proper science. We can say what we think is moral, such as various freedoms, self-determination, and so on, but there are no concrete laws or divine/cosmic forces that make it so. A fine example is a Nozick/Rand type of Libertarianism that finds any and all forms of wealth redistribution, including taxes, to be stealing and immoral, or a more Scandinavian approach which seeks to improve the lives of all citizens. To one group, a few people sitting on a mountain of wealth while everybody else fends for themselves is moral, but to the other group having people pay their "fair share" and having an obligation to help is considered moral. Any way you try to approach it, defining morality requires you to put your own personal values ahead of the values of others. That is why science cannot define morality, because it requires a subjective perspective to be used as the measuring stick, and interpreting the results in a subjective way. Eradicating poverty is a moral crusade of some, but poverty isn't even a concern for others.

Morality can come from science. A good example is doctors taking the Hippocratic oath. It takes science to tell us what makes a healthy happy person. The subjectivity of whether the healthy person likes apples or oranges doesn't change the science of health. Using that same logic we can say that bodies, ought not be in a deathly ill states, and therefore killing, poisoning maiming etc are morally objectionable because of the science of what it takes to keep healthy systems. Even the apple orange thing isn't really subjective, they are both healthy options.

We do this with alcohol, cigarettes, we show the science and then people are able to make informed decisions. A person knowingly harming themselves is seen to me as objectionable and saying "to each their own" doesn't change the facts. Would it be much better if alcohol and cigarettes were rejected directly in the scripts like some religions already do? I don't feel that it is necessary that some religion have to say so in order to confirm it as a moral standard.

If science were involved more in morality then people wouldn't be coming to such drastically different preferences. You bring up the social sciences though where the ability to really apply science is rather limited. To me happiness cannot be determined on whether someone is rich and poor, in fact I think it might be hard to be happy and rich because what occurs is a never ending lack of satisfaction, where as a poor person can likely be content above that of a rich person because they don't expect more. Being rich doesn't mean the person doesn't need help just like most people, so helpingn poor is great but stepping back a bit further and just helping humanity in general ought to be the moral obligation but I would say in most cases it is moral to help anyone no matter what their predisposed conditions are.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A good example is doctors taking the Hippocratic oath.

There is nothing concrete about the Hippocratic oath. It is taken only because we think it is for the best.

It takes science to tell us what makes a healthy happy person.

Try telling that to homosexuals and transsexuals. Especially homosexuals before homosexuality was removed from the DSM, and transsexuals who are followed by psychologists who are trying to figure out what makes us happy. Here's a good thread to examine this issue:
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/transgender-and-mental-health.185881/
It doesn't take science to know that selfhood and being acknowledged as one sees oneself if a big part of happiness. But that was the "exciting" finding of people looking at the subject.

Using that same logic we can say that bodies, ought not be in a deathly ill states, and therefore killing, poisoning maiming etc are morally objectionable because of the science of what it takes to keep healthy systems.

The Spartans thought it was perfectly fine to butcher their slaves to keep their numbers down. Killing a slave was even a right of passage.

A person knowingly harming themselves is seen to me as objectionable and saying "to each their own" doesn't change the facts.

"To each their own" sums up the subjectivity of morality (as well as how poorly we have thought things through). Having a same-sex partner is just fine to homosexuals, but it is immoral to Conservative Christians.

If science were involved more in morality then people wouldn't be coming to such drastically different preferences.

If science were involved more with morality we would simply be subject to the definition of morality that the one doing the research upholds. Like it or not, "morality" is so abstract that there is nothing concrete about it. That is why "morals" vary not just from culture-to-culture, but from time-to-time within the same culture. Because there is no "2+2=4" with morality, to say something is moral is to say that your ways are better than the ways of someone else. More-or-less, we make it up as we go. When I saw equality of the sexes is moral, I am literally saying viewing men and women on equal terms is better than the views upheld by many places. When I say freedom of choice and self determination are moral, I am literally saying that those ways are superior to the views held by those who do not adhere to such things. Though I may hold working together to travel to the stars as a moral worthy goal, to many, working together and reaching the stars is immoral because of all the theft that happens to achieve those goals. To state my goal, I am having to say my views are better than the views and opinions of others.
Being selfless is often considered a moral, but it actually requires quite a bit of selfishness to say something is moral.

 

[idav]

There is nothing concrete about the Hippocratic oath. It is taken only because we think it is for the best.

Try telling that to homosexuals and transsexuals. Especially homosexuals before homosexuality was removed from the DSM, and transsexuals who are followed by psychologists who are trying to figure out what makes us happy. Here's a good thread to examine this issue:
http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/transgender-and-mental-health.185881/
It doesn't take science to know that selfhood and being acknowledged as one sees oneself if a big part of happiness. But that was the "exciting" finding of people looking at the subject.

The Spartans thought it was perfectly fine to butcher their slaves to keep their numbers down. Killing a slave was even a right of passage.

"To each their own" sums up the subjectivity of morality (as well as how poorly we have thought things through). Having a same-sex partner is just fine to homosexuals, but it is immoral to Conservative Christians.

If science were involved more with morality we would simply be subject to the definition of morality that the one doing the research upholds. Like it or not, "morality" is so abstract that there is nothing concrete about it. That is why "morals" vary not just from culture-to-culture, but from time-to-time within the same culture. Because there is no "2+2=4" with morality, to say something is moral is to say that your ways are better than the ways of someone else. More-or-less, we make it up as we go. When I saw equality of the sexes is moral, I am literally saying viewing men and women on equal terms is better than the views upheld by many places. When I say freedom of choice and self determination are moral, I am literally saying that those ways are superior to the views held by those who do not adhere to such things. Though I may hold working together to travel to the stars as a moral worthy goal, to many, working together and reaching the stars is immoral because of all the theft that happens to achieve those goals. To state my goal, I am having to say my views are better than the views and opinions of others.
Being selfless is often considered a moral, but it actually requires quite a bit of selfishness to say something is moral.

Hypocratic oath, yes cause we think we ought to but has to be based on real facts. Thats morality coming from science and I think necessary. Science has too much power(knowledge being power) for it to just ignore moral obligations.

I actually think morality should not differ from culture to culture, I'm inclined to say someone is wrong. It is not "all good" it can't be, and without actual factual knowledge to back it up then we are just guessing.

Homosexuality is a great example where religion has one idea and science has managed to show how wrong they are.

 

[George-ananda]

May I ask them whether their belief in these fundamentals is on the basis of religion or on the basis of science?

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.

 

[sayak83]

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

Beliefs in the humanist declarations are based on rational analysis and empirical observations. You do understanding that EVERY claim held to be true by any and every human being is a belief? So the only question is whether the beliefs are justifiable or not.

 

[icehorse]

Hi Shadow Wolf,

Are you arguing from a relativist stance? If not, what axioms do you use in your argument? With few exceptions, doesn't morality usually boil down to maximizing well being?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hypocratic oath, yes cause we think we ought to but has to be based on real facts. Thats morality coming from science and I think necessary. Science has too much power(knowledge being power) for it to just ignore moral obligations.

It is that "think" part that makes things such as the Hippocratic oath seem better than the rest. What real facts promote is such? Surely the torture of a few people is all in the good when compared the whole of humanity? And that is exactly why even the Hippocratic oath is not objective, but entirely subjective. Some doctors refuse to do abortions as a part of it, while some see it as a part of it. There is nothing concrete or definitive to say who is correct.

I actually think morality should not differ from culture to culture, I'm inclined to say someone is wrong. It is not "all good" it can't be, and without actual factual knowledge to back it up then we are just guessing.

You can think morality doesn't differ, but the hard facts are that it does. An easy example is that we generally consider slavery to be bad, but not even that long ago many considered it to be proper, and even many today still believe that it is.

Homosexuality is a great example where religion has one idea and science has managed to show how wrong they are.

But that is science saying Conservative Christians are wrong. Science could also probably conclude that serial killers the happiest when left to their own ways, for a number of different reasons. That doesn't make them correct. It only means that this is what I believe, and this is the research I have done to affirm this belief.

Are you arguing from a relativist stance? If not, what axioms do you use in your argument? With few exceptions, doesn't morality usually boil down to maximizing well being?

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."

 

[Sunstone]

Humanism seems to be predicated on several assumptions. Perhaps the most important of these is that moral or ethical notions ought to be subject to rational scrutiny, rather than accepted merely on the weight of their being traditional or on the weight of authority. It should be noted, that does not mean that moral or ethical notions must be grounded in some kind of rational reason for their being, but rather merely that they must not be inconsistent with reason and empirical evidence.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

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.

What does humanism need from religion?

 

[Augustus]

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

It is an ideology that grew out of liberal Christianity (and Judaism and Greek philosophy to a lesser extent). For some reason, many Humanists really hate accepting this.

The foundations of Humanism ultimately lie in religion. Some of these:

Universalism
Sacredness of the individual
Teleological view of history (progress)
'Redemption' (science and knowledge can 'free' us and let us transcend our human nature)


“Humanism is not science, but religion - the post-Christian faith that humans can make a world better than any in which they have so far lived. In pre-Christian Europe is was taken for granted that the future would be like the past. Knowledge and invention might advance, but ethics would remain much the same. History was a series of cycles, with no overall meaning. Against this pagan view, Christians understood history as a story of sin and redemption. Humanism is the transformation of this Christian doctrine of salvation into a project of universal human emancipation. The idea of progress is a secular version of the Christian belief in providence. That is why among the ancient pagans it was unknown.”

John Gray - Straw Dogs (Thoughts on humans and other animals)

 

[Kueid]

I think the base may be history.

 

[Demonslayer]

Beliefs in the humanist declarations are based on rational analysis and empirical observations. You do understanding that EVERY claim held to be true by any and every human being is a belief? So the only question is whether the beliefs are justifiable or not.

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.

 

[sayak83]

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.

Usually opinion is thought to be those beliefs that are not well justified. In a society where morality is structured in the language of rights, the empirically grounded fact of biological and psychological equality of human beings (particularly say the various so called races and women) can be used the justify the equivalency of all human beings in terms of what rights they have. This makes the belief that "all human beings should have equal rights" , an empirically justified and a rationally consistent way to structure a rights-based value system from a non-subjective standpoint. I would hesitate to call this opinion.

 

[Demonslayer]

Usually opinion is thought to be those beliefs that are not well justified.

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?