RubySoho
Winston
Imagine A World Of Secular Humanism
November 22nd 2008 01:36
Secular Humanism is a moral philosophy concerned with reason, justice and ethics. It is a world view that champions critical thinking and rejects the idea of the supernatural and blind faith. According to the Council for Secular Humanism:
Secular Humanism is the antithesis of the common misconception of the “angry atheist”. Since Secular Humanism at its core rejects the notion of authoritarian beliefs it is erroneous and blatant defamation to claim that atheists (or nontheists as many like to call themselves), who refuse to adhere to the tenets of a religion are simply out to topple the power of religion and replace it with another, authoritarian system. Secular Humanists are just as opposed to ideological tyrannies such as Stalinism as they are to religious ones. They are not interested in control but rather in freeing humanity from the control of religious dogma. A central aspect of this philosophy is the championing of rational thought ahead of faith and superstition. According the Rationalist Society of Australia:
There are no dark and sinister plans hidden in the Rationalist and/or Secular Humanist movement. It is simply a philosophical movement that passionately believes that humans have the capacity and the means for improving their own lives and the world around them by focusing on what is tangible and what is real.
Above all Secular Humanists champion democracy. In 1980 the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism issued a declaration stating the following ideals:
Historical figures who have adhered to a secular humanist world view include Russell Bertrand and Mark Twain, but perhaps the most famous secular humanist of all was the great John Lennon. His classic song Imagine is an anthem, written in the hope that one day the world would adopt a philosophy where love, mercy and compassion come first, trumping sectarian dogma and divisions. As you can gather from the mind and mouth of John Lennon, the misconception that atheists reject morality and ignore basic human emotions is not only a ridiculous assertion, it is also as the Rationalist Society of Australia declares, “irrational!”
Please pay particular attention to the last line where Lennon declares "I hope someday you'll join us and the world will live as one". Note the use of the words "hope" and "join". Secular Humanists do not wish to take over the world by force, they have no desire to control and tyrannise. They simply hope that one day, humanity at large will realise the we have the capacity to improve our world and own lives by rejecting ideologies that divide us such as nationalism and religion and embracing in their stead, our own humanity and mortality and simply "living for today".
Can you imagine?
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
“we must take responsibility for our own lives and the communities and world in which we live. Secular humanism emphasizes reason and scientific inquiry, individual freedom and responsibility, human values and compassion, and the need for tolerance and cooperation”.
Secular Humanism is the antithesis of the common misconception of the “angry atheist”. Since Secular Humanism at its core rejects the notion of authoritarian beliefs it is erroneous and blatant defamation to claim that atheists (or nontheists as many like to call themselves), who refuse to adhere to the tenets of a religion are simply out to topple the power of religion and replace it with another, authoritarian system. Secular Humanists are just as opposed to ideological tyrannies such as Stalinism as they are to religious ones. They are not interested in control but rather in freeing humanity from the control of religious dogma. A central aspect of this philosophy is the championing of rational thought ahead of faith and superstition. According the Rationalist Society of Australia:
"Rationalism is a movement that exists to promote the role of reason in approaching and finding solutions to the wide range of issues and problems that confront us.
Rationalism argues for a rational approach to human problem-solving, suggests reasoned alternatives to religious dogmas, defends freedom of thought and civil liberties and strives for the secularisation of politics, the education system and society in general. Its members endorse a scientific approach and work to counter superstition and promote an open and just society.
Rationalists believe that one’s beliefs and conduct should be based on a combination of experience and reason. It is to a large degree a development of the ideas and values of the eighteenth century ‘Enlightenment’.
Rationalists also believe that:
1. Reason is man’s central capacity, and it enables him not only to think, but to act, correctly.
2. An open, egalitarian and secular democracy that respects minority rights and interests and champions fairness, justice and equality maximises the probability of achieving a free and rational society.
3. A universal, free and secular education system is a basic requirement for a free, democratic and rational society.
4. Free access to information and means of communication is a basic requirement for a free, democratic and rational society.
5. Beliefs are to be accepted only on the basis of reason and evidence, not on the authority of priests, sacred texts, or tradition.
6. Allegedly supernatural phenomena can be explained in naturalistic terms.
Rationalism argues for a rational approach to human problem-solving, suggests reasoned alternatives to religious dogmas, defends freedom of thought and civil liberties and strives for the secularisation of politics, the education system and society in general. Its members endorse a scientific approach and work to counter superstition and promote an open and just society.
Rationalists believe that one’s beliefs and conduct should be based on a combination of experience and reason. It is to a large degree a development of the ideas and values of the eighteenth century ‘Enlightenment’.
Rationalists also believe that:
1. Reason is man’s central capacity, and it enables him not only to think, but to act, correctly.
2. An open, egalitarian and secular democracy that respects minority rights and interests and champions fairness, justice and equality maximises the probability of achieving a free and rational society.
3. A universal, free and secular education system is a basic requirement for a free, democratic and rational society.
4. Free access to information and means of communication is a basic requirement for a free, democratic and rational society.
5. Beliefs are to be accepted only on the basis of reason and evidence, not on the authority of priests, sacred texts, or tradition.
6. Allegedly supernatural phenomena can be explained in naturalistic terms.
There are no dark and sinister plans hidden in the Rationalist and/or Secular Humanist movement. It is simply a philosophical movement that passionately believes that humans have the capacity and the means for improving their own lives and the world around them by focusing on what is tangible and what is real.
Above all Secular Humanists champion democracy. In 1980 the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism issued a declaration stating the following ideals:
1. Free Inquiry
We oppose any tyranny over the mind of man, any efforts by ecclesiastical, political, ideological, or social institutions to shackle free thought…Free inquiry entails recognition of civil liberties as integral to its pursuit, that is, a free press, freedom of communication, the right to organize opposition parties and to join voluntary associations, and freedom to cultivate and publish the fruits of scientific, philosophical, artistic, literary, moral and religious freedom. Free inquiry requires that we tolerate diversity of opinion and that we respect the right of individuals to express their beliefs, however unpopular they may be, without social or legal prohibition or fear of sanctions. Though we may tolerate contrasting points of view, this does not mean that they are immune to critical scrutiny. The guiding premise of those who believe in free inquiry is that truth is more likely to be discovered if the opportunity exists for the free exchange of opposing opinions; the process of interchange is frequently as important as the result. This applies not only to science and to everyday life, but to politics, economics, morality, and religion.
2. Separation Of Church And State
Because of their commitment to freedom, secular humanists believe in the principle of the separation of church and state. The lessons of history are clear: wherever one religion or ideology is established and given a dominant position in the state, minority opinions are in jeopardy. A pluralistic, open democratic society allows all points of view to be heard. Any effort to impose an exclusive conception of Truth, Piety, Virtue, or Justice upon the whole of society is a violation of free inquiry. Clerical authorities should not be permitted to legislate their own parochial views - whether moral, philosophical, political, educational, or social - for the rest of society…Compulsory religious oaths and prayers in public institutions (political or educational) are also a violation of the separation principle. Today, nontheistic as well as theistic religions compete for attention. Regrettably, in communist countries, the power of the state is being used to impose an ideological doctrine on the society, without tolerating the expression of dissenting or heretical views. Here we see a modern secular version of the violation of the separation principle.
3. The Ideal Of Freedom
There are many forms of totalitarianism in the modern world - secular and nonsecular - all of which we vigorously oppose. As democratic secularists, we consistently defend the ideal of freedom, not only freedom of conscience and belief from those ecclesiastical, political, and economic interests that seek to repress them, but genuine political liberty, democratic decision making based upon majority rule, and respect for minority rights and the rule of law. We stand not only for freedom from religious control but for freedom from jingoistic government control as well. We are for the defense of basic human rights, including the right to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In our view, a free society should also encourage some measure of economic freedom, subject only to such restrictions as are necessary in the public interest. This means that individuals and groups should be able to compete in the marketplace, organize free trade unions, and carry on their occupations and careers without undue interference by centralized political control. The right to private property is a human right without which other rights are nugatory. Where it is necessary to limit any of these rights in a democracy, the limitation should be justified in terms of its consequences in strengthening the entire structure of human rights.
4. Ethics Based On Critical Intelligence
The moral views of secular humanism have been subjected to criticism by religious fundamentalist theists. The secular humanist recognizes the central role of morality in human life; indeed, ethics was developed as a branch of human knowledge long before religionists proclaimed their moral systems based upon divine authority. The field of ethics has had a distinguished list of thinkers contributing to its development: from Socrates, Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Epictetus, to Spinoza, Erasmus, Hume, Voltaire, Kant, Bentham, Mill, G. E. Moore, Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, and others. There is an influential philosophical tradition that maintains that ethics is an autonomous field of inquiry, that ethical judgments can be formulated independently of revealed religion, and that human beings can cultivate practical reason and wisdom and, by its application, achieve lives of virtue and excellence. Moreover, philosophers have emphasized the need to cultivate an appreciation for the requirements of social justice and for an individual's obligations and responsibilities toward others. Thus, secularists deny that morality needs to be deduced from religious belief or that those who do not espouse a religious doctrine are immoral.
For secular humanists, ethical conduct is, or should be, judged by critical reason, and their goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their own choices in life based upon an understanding of human behavior. Morality that is not God-based need not be antisocial, subjective, or promiscuous, nor need it lead to the breakdown of moral standards. Although we believe in tolerating diverse lifestyles and social manners, we do not think they are immune to criticism. Nor do we believe that any one church should impose its views of moral virtue and sin, sexual conduct, marriage, divorce, birth control, or abortion, or legislate them for the rest of society. As secular humanists we believe in the central importance of the value of human happiness here and now. We are opposed to absolutist morality, yet we maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation. Secular humanist ethics maintains that it is possible for human beings to lead meaningful and wholesome lives for themselves and in service to their fellow human beings without the need of religious commandments or the benefit of clergy.
5. Moral Education
We believe that moral development should be cultivated in children and young adults. We do not believe that any particular sect can claim important values as their exclusive property; hence it is the duty of public education to deal with these values. Accordingly, we support moral education in the schools that is designed to develop an appreciation for moral virtues, intelligence, and the building of character. We wish to encourage wherever possible the growth of moral awareness and the capacity for free choice and an understanding of the consequences thereof. We do not think it is moral to baptize infants, to confirm adolescents, or to impose a religious creed on young people before they are able to consent. Although children should learn about the history of religious moral practices, these young minds should not be indoctrinated in a faith before they are mature enough to evaluate the merits for themselves. It should be noted that secular humanism is not so much a specific morality as it is a method for the explanation and discovery of rational moral principles.
6. Religious Skepticism
As secular humanists, we are generally skeptical about supernatural claims. We recognize the importance of religious experience: that experience that redirects and gives meaning to the lives of human beings. We deny, however, that such experiences have anything to do with the supernatural. We are doubtful of traditional views of God and divinity. Symbolic and mythological interpretations of religion often serve as rationalizations for a sophisticated minority, leaving the bulk of mankind to flounder in theological confusion. We consider the universe to be a dynamic scene of natural forces that are most effectively understood by scientific inquiry. We are always open to the discovery of new possibilities and phenomena in nature. However. we find that traditional views of the existence of God either are meaningless, have not yet been demonstrated to be true, or are tyrannically exploitative. Secular humanists may be agnostics, atheists, rationalists, or skeptics, but they find insufficient evidence for the claim that some divine purpose exists for the universe. They reject the idea that God has intervened miraculously in history or revealed himself to a chosen few or that he can save or redeem sinners. They believe that men and women are free and are responsible for their own destinies and that they cannot look toward some transcendent Being for salvation.
7. Reason
We view with concern the current attack by nonsecularists on reason and science. We are committed to the use of the rational methods of inquiry, logic, and evidence in developing knowledge and testing claims to truth. Since human beings are prone to err, we are open to the modification of all principles, including those governing inquiry, believing that they may be in need of constant correction. Although not so naive as to believe that reason and science can easily solve all human problems, we nonetheless contend that they can make a major contribution to human knowledge and can be of benefit to humankind. We know of no better substitute for the cultivation of human intelligence.
8. Science And Technology
We believe the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world. Hence, we look to the natural, biological, social, and behavioral sciences for knowledge of the universe and man's place within it... We are thus opposed in principle to any efforts to censor or limit scientific research without an overriding reason to do so. While we are aware of, and oppose, the abuses of misapplied technology and its possible harmful consequences for the natural ecology of the human environment, we urge resistance to unthinking efforts to limit technological or scientific advances. We appreciate the great benefits that science and technology (especially basic and applied research) can bring to humankind, but we also recognize the need to balance scientific and technological advances with cultural explorations in art, music, and literature.
9. Evolution
Today the theory of evolution is again under heavy attack by religious fundamentalists. Although the theory of evolution cannot be said to have reached its final formulation, or to be an infallible principle of science, it is nonetheless supported impressively by the findings of many sciences. There may be some significant differences among scientists concerning the mechanics of evolution; yet the evolution of the species is supported so strongly by the weight of evidence that it is difficult to reject it. Accordingly, we deplore the efforts by fundamentalists (especially in the United States) to invade the science classrooms, requiring that creationist theory be taught to students and requiring that it be included in biology textbooks. This is a serious threat both to academic freedom and to the integrity of the educational process. We believe that creationists surely should have the freedom to express their viewpoint in society. Moreover, we do not deny the value of examining theories of creation in educational courses on religion and the history of ideas; but it is a sham to mask an article of religious faith as a scientific truth and to inflict that doctrine on the scientific curriculum. If successful, creationists may seriously undermine the credibility of science itself.
10. Education
In our view, education should be the essential method of building humane, free, and democratic societies. The aims of education are many: the transmission of knowledge; training for occupations, careers, and democratic citizenship; and the encouragement of moral growth. Among its vital purposes should also be an attempt to develop the capacity for critical intelligence in both the individual and the community.
We oppose any tyranny over the mind of man, any efforts by ecclesiastical, political, ideological, or social institutions to shackle free thought…Free inquiry entails recognition of civil liberties as integral to its pursuit, that is, a free press, freedom of communication, the right to organize opposition parties and to join voluntary associations, and freedom to cultivate and publish the fruits of scientific, philosophical, artistic, literary, moral and religious freedom. Free inquiry requires that we tolerate diversity of opinion and that we respect the right of individuals to express their beliefs, however unpopular they may be, without social or legal prohibition or fear of sanctions. Though we may tolerate contrasting points of view, this does not mean that they are immune to critical scrutiny. The guiding premise of those who believe in free inquiry is that truth is more likely to be discovered if the opportunity exists for the free exchange of opposing opinions; the process of interchange is frequently as important as the result. This applies not only to science and to everyday life, but to politics, economics, morality, and religion.
2. Separation Of Church And State
Because of their commitment to freedom, secular humanists believe in the principle of the separation of church and state. The lessons of history are clear: wherever one religion or ideology is established and given a dominant position in the state, minority opinions are in jeopardy. A pluralistic, open democratic society allows all points of view to be heard. Any effort to impose an exclusive conception of Truth, Piety, Virtue, or Justice upon the whole of society is a violation of free inquiry. Clerical authorities should not be permitted to legislate their own parochial views - whether moral, philosophical, political, educational, or social - for the rest of society…Compulsory religious oaths and prayers in public institutions (political or educational) are also a violation of the separation principle. Today, nontheistic as well as theistic religions compete for attention. Regrettably, in communist countries, the power of the state is being used to impose an ideological doctrine on the society, without tolerating the expression of dissenting or heretical views. Here we see a modern secular version of the violation of the separation principle.
3. The Ideal Of Freedom
There are many forms of totalitarianism in the modern world - secular and nonsecular - all of which we vigorously oppose. As democratic secularists, we consistently defend the ideal of freedom, not only freedom of conscience and belief from those ecclesiastical, political, and economic interests that seek to repress them, but genuine political liberty, democratic decision making based upon majority rule, and respect for minority rights and the rule of law. We stand not only for freedom from religious control but for freedom from jingoistic government control as well. We are for the defense of basic human rights, including the right to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In our view, a free society should also encourage some measure of economic freedom, subject only to such restrictions as are necessary in the public interest. This means that individuals and groups should be able to compete in the marketplace, organize free trade unions, and carry on their occupations and careers without undue interference by centralized political control. The right to private property is a human right without which other rights are nugatory. Where it is necessary to limit any of these rights in a democracy, the limitation should be justified in terms of its consequences in strengthening the entire structure of human rights.
4. Ethics Based On Critical Intelligence
The moral views of secular humanism have been subjected to criticism by religious fundamentalist theists. The secular humanist recognizes the central role of morality in human life; indeed, ethics was developed as a branch of human knowledge long before religionists proclaimed their moral systems based upon divine authority. The field of ethics has had a distinguished list of thinkers contributing to its development: from Socrates, Democritus, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Epictetus, to Spinoza, Erasmus, Hume, Voltaire, Kant, Bentham, Mill, G. E. Moore, Bertrand Russell, John Dewey, and others. There is an influential philosophical tradition that maintains that ethics is an autonomous field of inquiry, that ethical judgments can be formulated independently of revealed religion, and that human beings can cultivate practical reason and wisdom and, by its application, achieve lives of virtue and excellence. Moreover, philosophers have emphasized the need to cultivate an appreciation for the requirements of social justice and for an individual's obligations and responsibilities toward others. Thus, secularists deny that morality needs to be deduced from religious belief or that those who do not espouse a religious doctrine are immoral.
For secular humanists, ethical conduct is, or should be, judged by critical reason, and their goal is to develop autonomous and responsible individuals, capable of making their own choices in life based upon an understanding of human behavior. Morality that is not God-based need not be antisocial, subjective, or promiscuous, nor need it lead to the breakdown of moral standards. Although we believe in tolerating diverse lifestyles and social manners, we do not think they are immune to criticism. Nor do we believe that any one church should impose its views of moral virtue and sin, sexual conduct, marriage, divorce, birth control, or abortion, or legislate them for the rest of society. As secular humanists we believe in the central importance of the value of human happiness here and now. We are opposed to absolutist morality, yet we maintain that objective standards emerge, and ethical values and principles may be discovered, in the course of ethical deliberation. Secular humanist ethics maintains that it is possible for human beings to lead meaningful and wholesome lives for themselves and in service to their fellow human beings without the need of religious commandments or the benefit of clergy.
5. Moral Education
We believe that moral development should be cultivated in children and young adults. We do not believe that any particular sect can claim important values as their exclusive property; hence it is the duty of public education to deal with these values. Accordingly, we support moral education in the schools that is designed to develop an appreciation for moral virtues, intelligence, and the building of character. We wish to encourage wherever possible the growth of moral awareness and the capacity for free choice and an understanding of the consequences thereof. We do not think it is moral to baptize infants, to confirm adolescents, or to impose a religious creed on young people before they are able to consent. Although children should learn about the history of religious moral practices, these young minds should not be indoctrinated in a faith before they are mature enough to evaluate the merits for themselves. It should be noted that secular humanism is not so much a specific morality as it is a method for the explanation and discovery of rational moral principles.
6. Religious Skepticism
As secular humanists, we are generally skeptical about supernatural claims. We recognize the importance of religious experience: that experience that redirects and gives meaning to the lives of human beings. We deny, however, that such experiences have anything to do with the supernatural. We are doubtful of traditional views of God and divinity. Symbolic and mythological interpretations of religion often serve as rationalizations for a sophisticated minority, leaving the bulk of mankind to flounder in theological confusion. We consider the universe to be a dynamic scene of natural forces that are most effectively understood by scientific inquiry. We are always open to the discovery of new possibilities and phenomena in nature. However. we find that traditional views of the existence of God either are meaningless, have not yet been demonstrated to be true, or are tyrannically exploitative. Secular humanists may be agnostics, atheists, rationalists, or skeptics, but they find insufficient evidence for the claim that some divine purpose exists for the universe. They reject the idea that God has intervened miraculously in history or revealed himself to a chosen few or that he can save or redeem sinners. They believe that men and women are free and are responsible for their own destinies and that they cannot look toward some transcendent Being for salvation.
7. Reason
We view with concern the current attack by nonsecularists on reason and science. We are committed to the use of the rational methods of inquiry, logic, and evidence in developing knowledge and testing claims to truth. Since human beings are prone to err, we are open to the modification of all principles, including those governing inquiry, believing that they may be in need of constant correction. Although not so naive as to believe that reason and science can easily solve all human problems, we nonetheless contend that they can make a major contribution to human knowledge and can be of benefit to humankind. We know of no better substitute for the cultivation of human intelligence.
8. Science And Technology
We believe the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world. Hence, we look to the natural, biological, social, and behavioral sciences for knowledge of the universe and man's place within it... We are thus opposed in principle to any efforts to censor or limit scientific research without an overriding reason to do so. While we are aware of, and oppose, the abuses of misapplied technology and its possible harmful consequences for the natural ecology of the human environment, we urge resistance to unthinking efforts to limit technological or scientific advances. We appreciate the great benefits that science and technology (especially basic and applied research) can bring to humankind, but we also recognize the need to balance scientific and technological advances with cultural explorations in art, music, and literature.
9. Evolution
Today the theory of evolution is again under heavy attack by religious fundamentalists. Although the theory of evolution cannot be said to have reached its final formulation, or to be an infallible principle of science, it is nonetheless supported impressively by the findings of many sciences. There may be some significant differences among scientists concerning the mechanics of evolution; yet the evolution of the species is supported so strongly by the weight of evidence that it is difficult to reject it. Accordingly, we deplore the efforts by fundamentalists (especially in the United States) to invade the science classrooms, requiring that creationist theory be taught to students and requiring that it be included in biology textbooks. This is a serious threat both to academic freedom and to the integrity of the educational process. We believe that creationists surely should have the freedom to express their viewpoint in society. Moreover, we do not deny the value of examining theories of creation in educational courses on religion and the history of ideas; but it is a sham to mask an article of religious faith as a scientific truth and to inflict that doctrine on the scientific curriculum. If successful, creationists may seriously undermine the credibility of science itself.
10. Education
In our view, education should be the essential method of building humane, free, and democratic societies. The aims of education are many: the transmission of knowledge; training for occupations, careers, and democratic citizenship; and the encouragement of moral growth. Among its vital purposes should also be an attempt to develop the capacity for critical intelligence in both the individual and the community.
imagine...just imagine
Historical figures who have adhered to a secular humanist world view include Russell Bertrand and Mark Twain, but perhaps the most famous secular humanist of all was the great John Lennon. His classic song Imagine is an anthem, written in the hope that one day the world would adopt a philosophy where love, mercy and compassion come first, trumping sectarian dogma and divisions. As you can gather from the mind and mouth of John Lennon, the misconception that atheists reject morality and ignore basic human emotions is not only a ridiculous assertion, it is also as the Rationalist Society of Australia declares, “irrational!”
Please pay particular attention to the last line where Lennon declares "I hope someday you'll join us and the world will live as one". Note the use of the words "hope" and "join". Secular Humanists do not wish to take over the world by force, they have no desire to control and tyrannise. They simply hope that one day, humanity at large will realise the we have the capacity to improve our world and own lives by rejecting ideologies that divide us such as nationalism and religion and embracing in their stead, our own humanity and mortality and simply "living for today".
Can you imagine?
Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one
Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world
You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one
| 181 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Mike Crowl
Webitz
Work Report
Comment by mistersmith
First of all, let me just get something out ... John lennon is the most overrated musical 'genius' in the history of the western world. His lyrics have no depth. Imagine sounds like it was written by a 14 year old. I was a 14 year old when I first heard that song. It sounded pathetic then and it sounds pathetic now, not idealistic. And what a whiny voice. And besides that, he was very unattractive with his beady eyes, his lank hair and his pasty complexion. His ongoing appeal is a complete mystery to me. I think it is just a reputation that continued because of the era of peace & love, blah,blah,blah. Sounds like he was sorely lacking on a personal level (and, since you also mention Bertrand Russell, he treated the women in his life very badly) Now I feel better. Thank you.
To the topic of your post. Going only on the information you have provided, I see a contradiction in the principles of Secular Humanism and that is:
It professes to be open and egalitarian yet denies the existence of the supernatural. The idea that education or policy making might be in the hands of Christian Fundamentalists (or any other religious or dogmatic group) worries me as much as any sane person but Secular Humanism certainly does not sound like the open and enquiring alternative that it professes to be. An insistence that belief can only be accepted on the basis of reason and evidence imposes dogma of a different sort.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Comment by Journeywoman
Great Hair Style Tips
I Dream of Hollywood
Australian Chick
Fashion Peach
And for what it's worth, I love John Lennon's 'Imagine'. I don't think it's childlike as mistersmith said - it's succinct. It's an uplifting song, because it gives hope for the possibility of a different future.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
great summary!
when the USA tried to deport John Lennon he declared himself a citizen of his own nation Nutopia
http://www.joinnutopia.com/
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
Comment by CraigH
Legal Herald
Australian Constituency
Sights of Dubai
Australian Tales
We seem to have settled on democracy as the only way of life. It is interesting to remember that Plato, in his "five regimes" philosophy, stated that democracy is the fourth regime, one step above tyranny. Plato also states that the lower levels are degenerations from the highest level, monarchy.
It is a basic principle of social psychology that people want to be led. Even leaders look to a higher leader. Maybe this is where religion comes in handy - the unseeable supreme being to take the blame for harsh laws of earthly rulers.
Imagine is a great song, and Lennon a great and inspirational man of peace.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Hi Mistersmith, well it's ok if you don't find Lennon sexually attractive, i don't either and i won't say he is one of my favourite musicians. But i don't underestimate his impact on the musical world either. I think Imagine is more notable for its forthright declarations of atheism rather than the cleverness of its lyrics. Reading and hearing about atheism is fairly common now but back then, it was still pretty rare. It was supposed to be a simple song. I won't go into much detail on Bertrand Russell except to say that sometimes you have to separate the personal from the professional. Roman Polanski had sex with a 13 year old girl and there is still a warrant for his arrest in America. He also makes great films.
About your comment:
Why is that dogmatic? Isn't that how science works? Isn't that how the law works? Isn't that how education works?
Hi Ahmed, Secular Humanism isn't really an ideology, it's a philosophy. Not all Secular Humanists have the exact same set of beliefs as you would expect in an ideology. Some are atheists, some are agnostic, some are rationalists, some are skeptics. Also, even if it were an ideology, there is one key difference- they don't approve of
the use of force and they welcome differing opinions. They only ask for the right to scrutinise and criticise these opinions.
Comment by mistersmith
his own wisdom. And as for Lennon being a man of peace: I read that he beat up his wife and barely took any interest in his first child. Ono was the interesting one and by all accounts he could barely function without her, except when he got another Asian woman to prop him up.That love&peace thing fiizzled out pretty quickly so I am undoubtedly remembering a sense of resentment towards those bloody hippies. My hopes dashed, or something like that. Then, as much as now, it was about how things looked; what was in fashion.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Thanks Morgan! Nutopia? Can I move there?
Hi Jeff, what you say is true, and I intend to support my position very vigorously!
Hi CraigH, I agree with your assessment here:
I also think it was Winston Churchill who said "democracy is the worst form of government- apart from every other that has been tried".
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Dress it up as you want, it's like that post modernism crap, 'it's not a theory, it's... INSERT SOMETHING ODD'
I could just as well argue religion isn't an ideology, it's a way of life.
Name one religion, or heck, ideology, which contains followers who think exactly the same way.
There are like countless different sects in Islam, Judaism, Chrsitianity, Buddhism and many different kinds of democracies.
the use of force and they welcome differing opinions
Not like I haven't heard this for virtually every ideology in existence. People don't seem to realize how passively aggressive they are, believe it or not but saying 'church and state MUST be seperate' is the equivalent of dismissing and being aggressive towards people who think it should be acceptable.
Differing opinions are only ever welcomed when they belong to the same denomination within the same ideology if even that. Otherwise they are casually dismissed for blanket and ambiguous reasons 'it's unconstitutional', 'it's illogical', 'you're illogical therefore I don't need to care about addressing your opinion' and so on and so forth.
Who doesn't?
Comment by mistersmith
I perceive an education that is based on reason and evidence as being narrow in the extreme. And contrary to imagining a free unshackled new world where religion no longer dictates action, the picture that springs into my mind when read about Secular Humanism is those very strict Christian sects that promoted hard work and banned idols (which they saw as evil) I see the word 'deny' That is enough.
Comment by Janet Collins
The Social Critic
Janet Collins Blog
I was brought up a Christian - Roman Catholic to be exact. Although I could not regard myself as a "practicing Catholic" I am happy that I was brought up being able to differentiate right from wrong and all the other morals that came with it.
At the same time, I believe that all other religions have their place and certainly many people in the world need to believe in something.
That also goes for anyone who chooses to not believe in any religion or be defined by one. It is - and should always be - something we all personally choose.
The trouble with reliigion is not the religions themselves but how people interpret them and use them. In Australia it was once very much a Protestant -v- Catholic thing, even though they were both Christian. Now it is more about Christian -v- Muslim. Beliefs should not come down to us-and-them, but unfortunately they do.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
The term "ideology" has a specific meaning. I am not dressing up Secular Humanism as anything. It is what it is.
Yes, I am aware of that. But followers of these countless sects adhere, or at least claim to, to the particular tenets of their sect. They are all differing ideologies.
Not like I haven't heard this for virtually every ideology in existence.
Bullshit. Religion has prided itself on its use of force over the years. How any times did you have to say La Illahah Il Allah wa Mohammed rassoul Allah before they sliced your throat? What about the Inquisition. Give me a break.
Hi Mistersmith. I really can't understand what it is you have against reason and evidence. Secular Humanists are not trying to ban religion. They just don't want it to control the world.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
haha, not true at all, not by any stretch of the imagination, Roman Catholics believe in the trinity while other sects of Chrsitianity find it blasphemous, Sunni Muslims believe it is blasphemous to attribute divinity to humans while shias believe Muhammeds family are all divine. Basic tenants? Well their name, but beyond that they tend to be fairly different especially in the 'basic tenant' department.
How can religion 'pride itself'? That is physically impossible, do you mean people?
How many times was god invoked during the bloody communist revolution which led to the deaths of millions of people? Yeah, I guess lack of religion also 'prides itself' in the systematic starvation of peasants.
Is this the part I say 'give me a break'? It's ok to get defensive when your views are called into question. It's quite typical of someone who thinks he/she holds the ideology (or whatever she likes to call it) that would lead to world peace or something.
Comment by mistersmith
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Actually all Christians believe in the trinity apart from Jehovah's Witnesses which leads other Christians to deny that Witnesses are actually Christian. I am aware of the differences Ahmed. What I am saying is Roman Catholics adhere to the tenets of their religion. As do Shia Muslims. As do Alawite Muslims. As do fill in the blanks. When have I ever said that all Christians are the same? Or all Muslims are the same? I know how much they differ and argue amongst themselves. That's one of the reason I think they are all rubbish.
Yes. Bite me.
Haha. You think you have got me. I already stated in my article that Secular Humanism is opposed to all tyrannical ideologies- Communism included.
I think you are the one who is being defensive.
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Your original argument:
and my counter, religion is the same, not all religious people have the exact same set of beliefs, 'as you would expect in an ideology'. So if religion is what you say it is then secular humanism is categorically a part of it.
I'm sorry, I forgot the part I was supposed to get emotional about this.
Kind of typical no? 'That's not true communism!' says the communist, 'that's not true islam' says the Muslim, 'that's not true Judaism' says the Jew, 'that's not true Atheism' says the atheist. Oddly enough they're all right, but they wouldn't acknowledge each others views are correct either. People who are insecure in their beliefs need to actively dismiss other peoples beliefs in order to justify their own, that is why they refuse to acknowledge each other.
But back to the point, what is the atheist in this case referring to? The Bolshevik revolution, not based in religion, but personal pride, pride in humans, the humans ability to achieve without the need to answer to a higher power. Working and toiling, so on and so forth. Reason is king? Sure, but whose reason? The peoples?
Your perfect ideologies fundamental flaw is the same as the fundamental flaw of anyone elses perfect ideology, people aren't perfect and they will manipulate their ideology to further their own ends. There is no escaping it, human nature and all. To think your ideology hold the answers makes you the same as anyone else who thinks the same of their own.
Your argument points are the same as anyone else who defends their own beliefs, I've seen. 'If only everyone agreed with me there would be peace', the response I always give 'but that's like what everyone else thinks' and it leads to the typical 'but my views are the exception'.
Oddly enough the way in which their views are an 'exception' kind of gels in with other peoples views which are an exception. Everyone tends to call the same exceptions but they refuse to acknowledge each others exceptions.
Give me a break and bite me =)
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
What are you talking about? When did I say that all of religion is just one ideology? I know not all religious people have the same beliefs. That makes them adherents to different ideologies.
An ideology is a rigid set of beliefs. A philosophy is a guide. Ergo, Roman Catholicism is an ideology. Secular Humanism is a philosophy.
I'm sorry, I forgot the part I was supposed to get emotional about this.
Actually, i think you have already gotten emotional. You are upset because I think your God is make believe. So you have to cast doubt on my intelligence. I was pointing out that your comment was not necessary. You knew exactly what i meant. You just wanted to call me on it.
Hey, I am not saying that the Bolsheviks were not atheists.
But they were not humanists. And they never pretended to be. Do I think all atheists are perfect? Heck no. Just because someone is an atheist does not mean I will automatically agree with them or like them. I think Communists are really atheists. They are also adherents to an ideology I do not agree with because it actually has the same effect as religion- it hinders freedom and free thinking. The only thing atheists necessarily have in common is they don't believe in God. Everything else is up in the air.
Yes. That is why I don't like ideologies. Secular Humanism is not an ideology. Secular Humanism is a opposed to ideologies. It is simply a guide to approaching the world from a reasoned, rational perspective as opposed to a supernatural one. It's about thinking rather than believing.
By the way, I really don't think there would be peace if everyone thought the way i did. I'm not an idealogue. I know people will find a way to corrupt every system. I just think the world will be a better place without religion and superstition and rigid political systems. That's not to say I think everyone should be just like me. How boring!
Most of my friends are atheists. We certainly do not agree on everything. We do happen to agree on one big thing, though. So give me a break, bite me and have a nice day.
Comment by James Rickard
unlucky_ fishermen.com
Angling Fish
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
Even within the context of the exact same religion there are differences.
our argument is they follow basic tennants, and how is this different to secular humanism? What viewpoints must you adopt to be a secular humanist? Wouldn't they be 'basic tenants'?
Which elements are rigid set of beliefs and which elements are a guide?
Hang on, where did I say I was upset or even allude to being upset because you think my god is 'make believe'? Did I even make a reference to my god anywhere? You're clearly jumping to conclusions, if you didn't know me before today you wouldn't even know if I was religious. Also whose using the colourful language 'bite me' and all? Me? Or you?
If you think I'm being defensive then you're right in the sense I am debating here, if I wasn't being defensive and offensive it wouldn't be a debate. But I'm not exhibiting any traits of emotional defense/offense, I'm not using language like 'bite me' and 'that is bullshit'. I don't find the need to, I have no emotions to vent.
Debating the merits of your views is not the same as casting doubt on your intelligence, I'm sorry if you think otherwise. How else is there meant to be debate if there are no disagreements? You're taking what I say way too personally if you think i'm casting doubt on your intelligence, I'm saying your views are wrong, you're saying my views are wrong, we are discussing these contentions.
Yes, I'm making an assertion that you're being too emotional about this discussion, that is my evidence to support my assertion.
So you agree, they are not correct. They're an exception to true secular humanism.
You're arguments are circular in nature, on one hand you say that there are no rigid set of beliefs but then you talk about a rigid set of beliefs but then you argue they are not 'basic tenants' though really, isn't this secular humanity in your own words:
Therefore one can deduce that secular humanism has basic tenants, which from the paragraph are
>
>
>improve our world and own lives by rejecting ideologies that divide us such as nationalism
There probably are a few more but you get the drift.
Those are the 'basic tenants', what you do based on them would be your own philosophy. It's not different to religion at all, the basic tenants of say, catholicism is to accept Jesus Christ as your lord and saviour, the rest is your philosophy based on your own interpretations of the bible and scripture. Your philosophies will be guided by the basic tenants, same goes for secular humanism.
And this entire blog post you made advocating secular humanism means what then?
I could just as well make a post promoting Islam and be like 'I don't expect everyone to agree with me, I just want them all to be Muslim, they can think anything they want so long as they adhere to the basic tenants of Islam'.
It works just as well, because, as in your own words, 'we agree on one big thing', we all essentially think in the same way, and if everyone thought like I did their would be peace.
Well that's emotion if I've ever seen it.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
ive just been reading along with your debate . . .
this analogy may not work but ill give it a burl anyway
so lets say every religious and political sect wore different coloured shoes, every shade of the colour spectrum represented a specific religious or political leaning
Communists wore red shoes
Marxists wore brown shoes
Catholics wore purple shoes
Jews wore green shoes
Muslims wore blue shoes
you get the general idea . . .
if the sect or political faction was holding a meeting, election, or prayer-service, at their hall (or church) they would only let in the people who had the right coloured shoes
if you had blue shoes on and tried to walk into the red hall (or church) you would be shunned and ultimately turfed out
either change your shoes to our colour or leave!
the secular humanists are the people who have decided not to wear shoes anymore and the doors of their hall are open to people with any colour shoes
once you enter the secular huminist hall. if you want to kick your shoes off too you can, but its not required, you can stay for as long as you want and keep your shoes on the whole time as long as you respect that theres going to be a rainbow of different shoes walking amongst you (and more than a few barefoot people) and you must never exclude anyone based on their footwear
its like a social contract to live and let live
Comment by Lilla
Enviro Warrior
An Extra Ordinary Life
Dream Herald
Esoteric Bookshop
As a pacifist christian eccentric, who is an ecclectic buddhist at heart, I have long believed that I am possibly already belonging to the Church of Reason, as an honourary member through the way I live my life perhaps?
Like Janet, I also learnt my *right from wrong* through the doctrine of Catholic values as a young girl, many still with me today. Of course I had to change a few values along the way as one would leave the rigidity of a sexist patriarchial system behind to the deserts of Arabia, after visiting there, where they may have made more sense than 21st Century Australia. Not that there arent some great lessons of morality to be learnt there, but to me the Bible always felt more like a collection of books, *Based on true stories* rather than the absolute truth itself. Sort of popular novels of they day type thing.
Anyeewho ... I love Lennons dream (so much like Ghandi) no doubts about it, but unlike Ghandis ideal, it lacks a practical modus operandi (if you will). I am not knocking him, he was the one to inspire the thoughts for a new system, which in my mind has to come from a belief that doesnt claim ownership of God, much like Secualr Humanism promotes.
However, in point No 6 (Religious Skepticism) the humanistic proposal already falls down in my eyes because as a professional clairvoyant, I say ruling out supernatural phenomenon from the world, from those who have the second sight, or the belief that there is more than the one dimension (or beings) that we can see with the corporeal senses, again sounds like a dogma to me. No better than saying men should dominate women. People should be free to experience mystical phenomena as much as they like if a free society is to be truly free.
For me that method to Lennons enlightenment is clear from his sojuourn in India, and the best modus operandi I can see here on the planet today for the 21st Century West (so far : having studied a few of them), comes from the philosophy of meditation as practices through the philosophy of Buddhism, because achievining a secualr humanistic lifestyle requires enormous amounts of compassion and self discipline (to follow your passion to death if needs be); not to beat yourself up with it, but to practice emptiness, focused on the impermanence of our lives; allowing everyone to live as one through a blend of science and ritualistic practice, but not worshiping a deity, but by ceaslessly questioning ones own mind and its false attachments to the 84,000 delusions that the ego will throw up to trap us into suffering (samsara).
(Interesting side note here that the planets energy (kundalini) is shifting again to a new spiritual cultural centre (chakra) in 2012 : yep, leaving Tibet (as the holder of sacred spiritual wisdom) to emerge with the Maya and South America *stand by* for that evolution and flood of information/wisdom).
As a spiritual person I would have to sit and meditate daily for about a week to understand what the word *HOPE* really means, until then I could not be clear and even after that, my view of it could change within a year, decade or lifetime. Like re/reading a book after 10 years. Life is not a rigid system and this secualr humanism sounds to me like it could easily end up as one through its sheer liberalism?
People need guidelines at an early age, ask any mother. It is a childs nature to push the boundaries to see where they exist, and a parents job to make them. Albeit, to date these values of where boundaries should exist have been boorishly limiting, coming down through the traditions of a monetary system, where religion suited the purpose of support in subordinating the workers to servitude or offering hope against it?
That said, a mother will often say no to protect a child from harm, I often wondered what would happen if I let the children go (all the way without caution) to suffer their own consequences? The results are all too clear in the society of today where it is not directed in positive ways, through some education of the benefits of self discipline.
So one could argue that in a non/monetary, secualr humane system (like a comunial socialism), the only boundaries needed are those which are intrinsically present in the intuition of the mother and father during the years of raising a child? Interesting, because without a higher purpose/being/deity/mystical connection with the universe in some way, it is interesting to ponder if we would become no more than human animals : *chuckle* something which we are becoming again in the west anyway through disconnection, with women moving through multiple partners bearing children to each like pack rats and men also promoting promiscuity and mutliple partners like wandering beasts. Perhaps this proves that traditional religionism is too liberal, or is it that the monetary system cares little about its workers and their habits, tolerating the promiscuity against its own doctrines, because it is another form of slavery that supports the wealthy?
For me, the study of my mind (reason) through the precepts of Buddhism offers a different way of clear seeing where morals and ethics come from self evident truths from within each of us, from the mystical *whatever* which is not questioned, merely experienced .. and for me, nothing snaps me too quicker than seeing myself clearly in the absolute moment of the infinite universe, as I live within the realm of absolute possibility of experiencing bliss, daily. Each to their own karma, live and let live, all as one.
I loved the way Lennons house in the clip, has a sign saying *This is not really here* *chuckle* Lennon wasnt killed for nothing here, I agree; and to me his dream cannot be, until the monetary system has ceased to be as it is today.
Interesting Post.
Lilla ...
Comment by mistersmith
Ahmed, the word is 'tenet' not 'tenant' Sorry, had to tell you, it was starting to annoy me.
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
I could do the blogger thing, and quote pages of his encyclical Pascendi Domenici Gregis in relation to this post, but one small section will suffice:
As for John Lennon's Imagine?
The day John Lennon was murdered he was living in a NY apartment taking a trip to and from a recording studio in his private limousene.
He certainly had a good imagination when it comes to having no possesions. I guess he had to. He didn't live without them.
Oh, but he needed them. He was a rock god. Excuse me while I write about the Catholic Church's wealth, and how obscene it is?
"Secular Humanists, our leader, and promoter of no possessions, John Lennon, will today enlighten you on his no possessions/ secular humanist policy from his NY apartment. As soon as he returns in his private limousine, and has a free love-in with Yoko Ono at $1500/night."
Comment by Ahmed
techy.Bytes
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Qwerk
Cinema Three
the secular humanists are the people who have decided not to wear shoes anymore and the doors of their hall are open to people with any colour shoes
That is not true, you're now basically saying 'wear any coloured shoes you like, so long as they're the same ones secular humanists are wearing'.
Secular humanists can claim they are following a philosophy however their philosophy and ultimately their way of thinking IS based on a rigid set of beliefs which if you don't follow (i.e. wear a different pair of shoes) will have you shunned.
And to expand my reply upon mistersmith, same goes for many religious groups who are happy to accept different religious people into their group, probably in the hopes of having them converted over. Secular humanists, showing how different they are again, no?
I've had this exact same conversation with like a million people (Muslims included) and it always ends up in bragging 'no my beliefs are like this and this and this and therefore awesome, everyone should be like me!'
Guess where this is going and has already reached?
Comment by Lady Henrietta Muddling
Potter in a Harry
And what are secular humanists doing with shoes? Aren't shoes a possession?
Why not hold the meeting naked in the open?
Oh, that's right. You can't blog without a pc.
Comment by Journeywoman
Great Hair Style Tips
I Dream of Hollywood
Australian Chick
Fashion Peach
And I thought Lennon was killed immediately after leaving Annie Leibowitz's photography studio, where he did a nude shoot with Yoko for Rolling Stone? Is that wrong Gene?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Secular Humanist prefer that we don't just accept anything as given, that each and every human has the opportunity and capacity to draw their own conclusions based on evidence and rational thinking. That does not mean that each and every secular humanist reaches the same conclusion. Can you see the difference?
And as for my comments that you keep quoting, I wrote those to counteract a common misconception about atheists, namely that we are all secretly communists or similar idealogues who have a dark, secre