Rant about the Humanist Conference

[Wowbagger]

Are you going to enlighten us as to the reason for the stunt?

I planned to with my dang article, that I just now finished proof reading. Give me a bit more time to get the whole thing on the net. But, here is a relevant excerpt:

Dr. Wilson had published a book, whose target audience are Southern Baptists, entitled The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth. The word "creation" was chosen essentially for diplomatic reasons.

Greg Epstein had used the phrase "Save The Creation", the previous day, during the video link, to maintain that same level of diplomacy. I doubt he meant to imply that all of us would appreciate that wording. But, if silly, little semantic slides are the price of peace and understanding, it might be worth it.

There are roughly 30 million Baptists in the U.S., with influence, power, and resources. Wilson argued that we need them on our side, if we are going to save the planet. The 3-4% of the population whom are Humanists or atheists, are just not going to cut it.

The video conference was a gesture to publically demonstrate, to two disparate large groups, how important these issues are, and to encourage everyone to work together. I guess it was a good idea, overall. Just very poorly timed. Syncing the schedules on the two sides was not very easy.

I still don't know why Miss R.I. was necessary. But, I do hear that she was active in environmental causes. When I asked Greg if she was a Humanist, his response was a mysterious "almost".

 

[Suezoled]

Thanks much for the quick reply, Wowbagger. Although, I am still left wondering if the global warming statement was meant as a reply to those religious conservatives who say it detracts from the real issues, such as the "one nation under god" credo they keep trying to push, etc.

 

[CFLarsen]

My understanding is that Deists believe that God does not intervene, whether or not he/she/it is omnipotent or omniscient.

What's so "God" about something that isn't omnipotent/omniscient?

Another example of a religion that does not believe in a supernatural savior is Buddhism.

I'm not sure we should count Buddhism as a religion at all. It seems more to me like a fluffy collection of platitudes, dressed up as eternal wisdom.

I'm not sure I would call Dawkins a militant atheist. "Outspoken," for sure.

Who would you call a militant atheist?

If I hear rustling in the bushes, and I believe that it's a tiger, even if it isn't, that's much safer than believing it's not a tiger, when it well could be.

It could also be the game you need, in order not to starve. Or, your fellow tribesmen, out looking for you, because you got lost.

 

[FaisonMars]

What's so "God" about something that isn't omnipotent/omniscient?

If you are asking me to explain or defend Deism, I can't, in part because I am not a Deist. But you are missing my original, main point that Deists don't believe that God is going to save them or us, whether or not he/she/it can or not.

Lots of religions believe in gods that are not omnipotent/omniscient-- pagans, for example. There's a lot more to human religious belief than Yahweh!

Who would you call a militant atheist?

I would try not to call anyone a "militant atheist," any more than I would call Christians "stupid," because I think it's ad hominem and counterproductive. There are definitely examples of both atheists and religious people that I would consider "excessively confrontational."

 

[CFLarsen]

If you are asking me to explain or defend Deism, I can't, in part because I am not a Deist. But you are missing my original, main point that Deists don't believe that God is going to save them or us, whether or not he/she/it can or not.

Lots of religions believe in gods that are not omnipotent/omniscient-- pagans, for example. There's a lot more to human religious belief than Yahweh!

.....not much of a "god", then, is it?

 

[Mercutio]

.....not much of a "god", then, is it?

It is apparent that you don't like the way they define their own deity. I know it is much easier if you can define it for them, but you might have to actually argue with what they do believe, rather than what you would have them believe. Perhaps they simply recognize that our fallible human sensory and perceptual systems cannot discriminate between an omnipotent god and one who is only tremendously but not omnipotently powerful, and are perfectly comfortable not defining the thing they experience as "omnipotent". They know they experience something powerful (been there myself, back in the day), but admit they cannot know how powerful. I am a bit curious why you chastise them for not going beyond their evidence.

We often say that "the universe is under no obligation to conform to human expectations or desires"; I suggest that religious believers are under no obligation to conform to Claus Larsen's expectations or desires. If you wish to understand them, do not do so by oversimplifying their belief--rather, do so by increasing your own knowledge.

 

[CFLarsen]

It is apparent that you don't like the way they define their own deity. I know it is much easier if you can define it for them, but you might have to actually argue with what they do believe, rather than what you would have them believe. Perhaps they simply recognize that our fallible human sensory and perceptual systems cannot discriminate between an omnipotent god and one who is only tremendously but not omnipotently powerful, and are perfectly comfortable not defining the thing they experience as "omnipotent". They know they experience something powerful (been there myself, back in the day), but admit they cannot know how powerful. I am a bit curious why you chastise them for not going beyond their evidence.

We often say that "the universe is under no obligation to conform to human expectations or desires"; I suggest that religious believers are under no obligation to conform to Claus Larsen's expectations or desires. If you wish to understand them, do not do so by oversimplifying their belief--rather, do so by increasing your own knowledge.

It's not a question about me liking their definition.

It's a question of what happens when god becomes indistinguishable from man. If that is the case, what is the purpose of god? What is the purpose of believing in such a god?

Is believing in man religious?

 

[FaisonMars]

. If you wish to understand them, do not do so by oversimplifying their belief--rather, do so by increasing your own knowledge.

And in particular, "supernatural" does not necessary mean "an omnipotent/present god." Ghosts are supernatural, but not omnipotent.

 

[CFLarsen]

And in particular, "supernatural" does not necessary mean "an omnipotent/present god." Ghosts are supernatural, but not omnipotent.

If you believe the psychics, they sure are omnipresent! (except when there's a skeptic in the room, of course...)

 

[Mercutio]

It's not a question about me liking their definition.

Merely challenging it because it does not match yours.

It's a question of what happens when god becomes indistinguishable from man. If that is the case, what is the purpose of god? What is the purpose of believing in such a god?

Are you saying that this is an accurate description of their belief? Do you think they believe their god is indistinguishable from man? Or are you imposing your notions on this analysis? I sincerely cannot see how you got to this "question" from any religious person's statements.

As for purpose, I think an argument could be made that organized religion is another form of government (in that its intent is to govern, or control the behavior of, adherents); as such, the purpose is functional. It provides a structure for the control of people, just as other belief systems might propose "natural rights" as structure for building a system of control. Of course, this imposes my own view--the fact that I can interpret their behavior and structure this way does not mean I am right. I disagree with both you and them, to start with, so mine is not the only possible interpretation.

Is believing in man religious?

As we use the word, the only proper answer is "yes and no". By some definitions, humanism is a religion (definition 3 in my dictionary); by other definitions, it clearly is not.

FWIW, I find it silly to get hung up on the word "religious" here. There are enough commonalities between belief systems (religious, scientific, superstitious, etc.) to make a scientific study of "belief" that can use any of these as subjects. One person's belief in god and another's in science may have come about through remarkably similar processes. (I very much offended Cleopatra on another thread, comparing christianity and superstitious belief, until she realized that I was not speaking of either of them derogatively, and that "belief" can be studied independently of what is believed.

 

[FaisonMars]

One way of linking CFL's points to the topic of religious humanism is to discuss the issue of working with religious moderates. Dawkins and Harris think that religious moderates are dangerous because they empower religious extremists. (Darwin doesn't like them because they are neither hot nor cold, but they are lukewarm, and therefore he spits them out of his mouth.) I strongly disagree with this. Yes, if you are an atheist, you should figure it out and not be ashamed of it, but there's a lot more to religion than doctrine. Pagan religions were not about doctrine at all, but about practice, so there was no problem with holding many different religious beliefs and worshiping many gods. (Dawkins celebrates Christmas-- by doing so is he empowering extremists?)

Religious humanists are even more liberal in that humanism is non-theistic (it has to be in order to believe that humans are their own salvation). What does it mean to be a secular Jew? How can you be Jewish and not believe in Yahweh? Go look at the Humanistic Judaism website (http://www.shj.org/)- it's about culture and history and philosophy of life. So if it's not about God, why still refer to it as a religion? Because religion never was just about what you believe about omnipotent/present supernatural beings. (Indeed, Judaism was always more about practice than belief, at least when compared to Christianity.) It's appropriate to still refer to what they do as Judaism, even though it's non-theistic. Secular Jews.

Regrettably, many people associate "atheism" with a culture and philosophy of life that they do not like or agree with. So they do not want to be associated with atheism, and Dawkins and Harris are not going to convince them. Nevertheless, those who are humanists have a rational world view and do not see a supernatural savior coming to solve their problems.

It would be very stupid for those of us who do have a rational worldview to not all work together to solve our problems and instead bicker over culture or doctrine.

 

[CFLarsen]

Merely challenging it because it does not match yours.

Say again?

Are you saying that this is an accurate description of their belief? Do you think they believe their god is indistinguishable from man? Or are you imposing your notions on this analysis? I sincerely cannot see how you got to this "question" from any religious person's statements.

I am not getting to that question from any religious person's statements. I'm going with the notion of a watered-down deity, to a degree where it becomes indistinguishable from man. Then, what? Is it still religion? Why, then, everything is "religion". And thus, it means nothing.

As for purpose, I think an argument could be made that organized religion is another form of government (in that its intent is to govern, or control the behavior of, adherents); as such, the purpose is functional. It provides a structure for the control of people, just as other belief systems might propose "natural rights" as structure for building a system of control. Of course, this imposes my own view--the fact that I can interpret their behavior and structure this way does not mean I am right. I disagree with both you and them, to start with, so mine is not the only possible interpretation.

I think your analogy of a "government" is fully appropriate. Having a church - e.g., the (RC) Christian one - was definitely to secure a straight-as-an-arrow interpretation of what the true belief was. Not that Marty Luther was any less of a control freak...

As we use the word, the only proper answer is "yes and no". By some definitions, humanism is a religion (definition 3 in my dictionary); by other definitions, it clearly is not.

FWIW, I find it silly to get hung up on the word "religious" here. There are enough commonalities between belief systems (religious, scientific, superstitious, etc.) to make a scientific study of "belief" that can use any of these as subjects. One person's belief in god and another's in science may have come about through remarkably similar processes. (I very much offended Cleopatra on another thread, comparing christianity and superstitious belief, until she realized that I was not speaking of either of them derogatively, and that "belief" can be studied independently of what is believed.

Well, as you say, we have to go with what the believers themselves put into that word. If the word - or any word, as such - can mean whatever each person wants it to be, even depending on the situation, then how are we ever going to know what our fellow man is talking about?

Understanding each other requires a common vocabulary. Otherwise, we are simply talking past each other, instead of with each other.

 

[FaisonMars]

As we use the word, the only proper answer is "yes and no". By some definitions, humanism is a religion (definition 3 in my dictionary); by other definitions, it clearly is not.

Is it a religion in the sense that if someone asked you "What is your religion?" you could answer "humanist?"

I'm inclined to support a demarcation of humanism that has a religious branch and a secular branch.

However, it's clear that some amount of faith is necessary to be a humanist. You could just as easily choose to be a nihilist.

 

[CFLarsen]

One way of linking CFL's points to the topic of religious humanism is to discuss the issue of working with religious moderates. Dawkins and Harris think that religious moderates are dangerous because they empower religious extremists. (Darwin doesn't like them because they are neither hot nor cold, but they are lukewarm, and therefore he spits them out of his mouth.) I strongly disagree with this. Yes, if you are an atheist, you should figure it out and not be ashamed of it, but there's a lot more to religion than doctrine.

I disagree. Religion is, if anything, all about doctrine. It is nothing but belief (because we still haven't seen any evidence of any deity), and belief is wholly dependent on doctrine. Or, if you like, belief is doctrine.

I don't see a problem with trying to get "lukewarm religious" (a much better term than "religious moderates"!) to make up their minds about what the heck it is they actually believe in - or what they don't believe in. And then, draw the consequences.

Pagan religions were not about doctrine at all, but about practice, so there was no problem with holding many different religious beliefs and worshiping many gods. (Dawkins celebrates Christmas-- by doing so is he empowering extremists?)

Pagan religions today are nothing but self-made-up rituals, wrapped in fuzzy NewAgey language, crystals, penchants and what-have-ya. It's doctrine on a personal level.

Religious humanists are even more liberal in that humanism is non-theistic (it has to be in order to believe that humans are their own salvation). What does it mean to be a secular Jew? How can you be Jewish and not believe in Yahweh? Go look at the Humanistic Judaism website (http://www.shj.org/)- it's about culture and history and philosophy of life. So if it's not about God, why still refer to it as a religion? Because religion never was just about what you believe about omnipotent/present supernatural beings. (Indeed, Judaism was always more about practice than belief, at least when compared to Christianity.) It's appropriate to still refer to what they do as Judaism, even though it's non-theistic. Secular Jews.

That's exactly my point: Why call it a religion, if you have removed all religious aspects of it?

Regrettably, many people associate "atheism" with a culture and philosophy of life that they do not like or agree with. So they do not want to be associated with atheism, and Dawkins and Harris are not going to convince them. Nevertheless, those who are humanists have a rational world view and do not see a supernatural savior coming to solve their problems.

The challenge for atheists - or rather, those-who-haven't-devolved-into-harboring-supernatural-beliefs, is to persuade non-atheists that there are more disadvantages than advantages in believing demonstrable falsehoods.

It would be very stupid for those of us who do have a rational worldview to not all work together to solve our problems and instead bicker over culture or doctrine.

Why? What is to work together for?

The question is, how far back should atheists bend, in order to achieve the goal of a superstition-free world?

 

[FaisonMars]

I disagree.

OK.

Pagan religions today are nothing but self-made-up rituals, wrapped in fuzzy NewAgey language, crystals, penchants and what-have-ya. It's doctrine on a personal level.

I mostly agree-- I was referring to paganism from the time of Jesus (the religions that were competing with Christianity and Judaism).

Why? What is to work together for?

To put out the fire! (e.g., to stop or counter the self-destrucive behavior of humanity, some of which is certainly due to theism, such as banning birth control or oppressing women.)

The question is, how far back should atheists bend, in order to achieve the goal of a superstition-free world?

OK, that's a good question. I am very uncomfortable with calling earth "The Creation" in order to be diplomatic with theists. Are they going to use terms like "evolution through natural selection" to be diplomatic with us? It's too much of a compromise for me.

On the other hand, I'm not going to condemn someone or call them "stupid" because they practice shabbat or zen meditation or whatever on the weekends when we still agree that science is the way to figure out how the world works and that something has to be done to stop global warming and to figure out a sane, sustainable agriculture policy...

 

[SkepticScott]

I'm not going to call someone stupid either, but working together calls for both sides to compromise. I'm confident that atheists are prepared to adapt to the evidence -- if the evidence shows humans have to give up their cars right now, I'd give up my car -- but will religious people do so? If the evidence shows we need to teach effective birth control to everyone right now, would they disregard their dogma if it says they'd be doomed to hell for teaching that? I don't think so.

 

[CFLarsen]

I mostly agree-- I was referring to paganism from the time of Jesus (the religions that were competing with Christianity and Judaism).

Ahhh.....bias alert!

Why refer to the religious beliefs that didn't have such good PR agents as "pagan"? They should be on equal foot as Christianity and Judaism, religion-wise, shouldn't they? Yet, our heritage teaches us otherwise...

To put out the fire! (e.g., to stop or counter the self-destrucive behavior of humanity, some of which is certainly due to theism, such as banning birth control or oppressing women.)

How are you ever going to sell the message of "putting out the fire" to people who have religious beliefs? They can't "put out the fire" unless they give up their religious beliefs.

OK, that's a good question. I am very uncomfortable with calling earth "The Creation" in order to be diplomatic with theists. Are they going to use terms like "evolution through natural selection" to be diplomatic with us? It's too much of a compromise for me.

I don't see any reason why atheists should be diplomatic, if it means accepting terms that imply supernatural intervention.

Atheists argue from the default position: That there are no gods. It is the theists (of any denomination) who should argue their case against atheists, not the other way around.

On the other hand, I'm not going to condemn someone or call them "stupid" because they practice shabbat or zen meditation or whatever on the weekends when we still agree that science is the way to figure out how the world works and that something has to be done to stop global warming and to figure out a sane, sustainable agriculture policy...

Again, it depends on what they know about their beliefs and how they react to rational arguments.

 

[CFLarsen]

I'm not going to call someone stupid either, but working together calls for both sides to compromise. I'm confident that atheists are prepared to adapt to the evidence -- if the evidence shows humans have to give up their cars right now, I'd give up my car -- but will religious people do so? If the evidence shows we need to teach effective birth control to everyone right now, would they disregard their dogma if it says they'd be doomed to hell for teaching that? I don't think so.

That's exactly the conundrum: Atheists are willing to give up their position, if the evidence says so. Believers won't, regardless of the evidence.

 

[FaisonMars]

If the evidence shows we need to teach effective birth control to everyone right now, would they disregard their dogma if it says they'd be doomed to hell for teaching that? I don't think so.

Religious fundamentalists definitely would not, religious humanists almost certainly would.

I think an argument can be made that it's easier to to turn religious moderates into religious humanists rather than into atheists.

 

[FaisonMars]

Why refer to the religious beliefs that didn't have such good PR agents as "pagan"? They should be on equal foot as Christianity and Judaism, religion-wise, shouldn't they? Yet, our heritage teaches us otherwise...

"Pagan" is not a derogatory term here... it's a standard term used by religious scholars to refer to the plurality of non-Abrahamic religions that were around before the Roman Christian Church almost completely wiped them out (because Roman Christianity WAS mainly about doctrine, and therefore could not co-exists with pagan religions, which could co-exist with each other).

How are you ever going to sell the message of "putting out the fire" to people who have religious beliefs? They can't "put out the fire" unless they give up their religious beliefs.

I disagree-- there are religious people who believe that we have to put out the fire ourselves. We can work to put it out together, and THEN talk in rational, civil ways about our differences in religious doctrine or practice. (Or we can talk about it while we're handling the firehoses, as long as it doesn't distract us too much from the urgent task at hand.)

I don't see any reason why atheists should be diplomatic, if it means accepting terms that imply supernatural intervention.

Agreed... but we atheistic humanists can be diplomatic with people who do not expect supernatural INTERVENTION even if they have beliefs that might based (or might have been based in the past) on supernaturalism.

Atheists argue from the default position: That there are no gods. It is the theists (of any denomination) who should argue their case against atheists, not the other way around.

Agreed.