Please educate me: What is so terrible about secular humanism?

[kalanamak]

 

I also believe that secular humanism tends to lend itself to a de-valuation of human life and tyranny when used by those in power (very close to communism). In believing that there is no higher power and we are not created in the image of god, then by default humans are no better than animals to be used, treated and controlled as such. Think of Hitler killing Jews because he felt they were 'vermin'. Not that all secular humanists all think this way, but I do think it can become a slippery slope when practiced by those in power/government.

 

Let me try a 180 on this: X religion tends to lend itself to the absolute belief one's religion is THE religion and those not following it are dangerously incorrect. Since X is so true and important, we can bully, outlaw, forcibly convert, deport, invade etc. those who aren't followers. Not all religious people feel that way, but I do think it can become a sippery slope when practiced by those in power/government.

 

And I love a reductio ad Hitlerum here! It is rare to see one without swear words included.

 

:) <-----------------very rare smiley icon

[PariSarah]

Secular humanism isn't a religion.

 

Well, you have to have a restrictive definition of religion to make that claim. That's fine, and if we restrict ourself to that narrow definition of religion, you're absolutely right. Secular humanism punts on the question on non- or extra-material reality.

 

But you only need that restrictive definition if you're trying to separate religion from culture. I don't believe those two are so easily separated. "Culture" is what you have when beliefs-and-opinions-in-general are lived out; "religion" is what you have when your views on the divine or spiritual are lived out. But it's almost impossible to separate those aspects of our lives that we enact because of the part of our worldview that derives from "religious" (narrowly defined) principles and those that aspects that are lived out of convictions that are (supposedly) merely philosophical. How you treat your mother, what you wear every day, how you cook your food, and how and with whom you have sex are all 100% cultural (influenced by the "wisdom of the tribe") and 100% religious (influenced by your views on non-material reality, even/esp. when your view is that there is no non-material reality).

 

And in any case, any time you have morality, you have something very close to religion: you are making decisions about what is of ultimate worth, and there are no "scientific" or "objective" ways to justify those kinds of values. This is why Nietzsche, actually, railed against secular humanist philosophies--he saw them as bastard children of Christianity. They adopt the values of Christianity, which are just as non-rational for secular humanists as they are for Christians. (So it's not just Christians who find it expedient to call secular humanism a religion.)

 

When secular humanism is enacted in the political sphere, you have the further complication that it makes political demands on other religions--it tells people of faith how they can and can't practice their religion. In that sense, it makes religious claims. It stands in judgment on other religions. But the status of other religions is itself a religious claim, so as soon as you put secular humanism into the political sphere, it functions as a religion, whether or not its proponents are aware of it as such.

[Mekanamom]

Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix. For example, in Lindbeck's Nature of Doctrine, religion does not refer to belief in "God" or a transcendent Absolute. Instead, Lindbeck defines religion as, "a kind of cultural and/or linguistic framework or medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought… it is similar to an idiom that makes possible the description of realities, the formulation of beliefs, and the experiencing of inner attitudes, feelings, and sentiments.â€[6] According to this definition, religion refers to one's primary worldview and how this dictates one's thoughts and actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

 

 

 

LOL! That's it! I'm not a secular humanist, I'm an anthropologist! ;)

 

(Well... actually... I do have a degree in the Social Sciences with an emphasis on Psychology and Sociology and a minor in Anthropology... but, er- that was quite a few years ago now, and I'm a little rusty these days.)

 

I do tend to see organized religion as a social construct. I suppose secular humanism does fall under the same type of description.

 

I agree with this part: (emphasis mine) "Sociologists and anthropologists tend to see religion as an abstract set of ideas, values, or experiences developed as part of a cultural matrix."

 

But I have a problem with this part: (emphasis mine) "...medium that shapes the entirety of life and thought…" I just can't see religion as the entirety of one's worldview. It seems that there would then be no religion, but as many worldviews as there are people. Don't we each add some individuality to everything we're part of? It could just be that I'm not thinking broadly enough here.

 

Because the Psych in me is shouting "cognitive dissonance!". I think religion and/or philosophy is a part of what shapes the entirety of life and thought. But not the total. We also of course have other societal norms and mores that help shape who we are, how we think, what we believe... and sometimes those norms are in direct opposition to certain "religions". And many people experience cognitive dissonance over it.

 

"Cognitive dissonance is a psychological state that describes the uncomfortable feeling between what one holds to be true and what one knows to be true. Similar to ambivalence, the term cognitive dissonance describes conflicting thoughts or beliefs (cognitions) that occur at the same time, or when engaged in behaviors that conflict with one's beliefs. In academic literature, the term refers to attempts to reduce the discomfort of conflicting thoughts, by performing actions that are opposite to one's beliefs."

 

I can't stand the feeling of cognitive dissonance, and that is a large part of why I am very comfortable just saying "I don't have all the answers, and I don't know that anyone does" and just accept myself as an agnostic. (Hee hee, and maybe also as an anthropologist, and possibly even a secular humanist... I'd have to ponder that for a while first.)

[Fourmother]

Well, you have to have a restrictive definition of religion to make that claim. That's fine, and if we restrict ourself to that narrow definition of religion, you're absolutely right.

 

The danger in a broad definition of religion is that almost any "ism" can fit. Is feminism a religion? It certainly colors the way its adherents choose to act in the world. Yes, humanism like chauvinism, vegetarianism, racism and nationalism can determine what one values, eats, buys, votes for, prays to or who one loves. I have even heard people argue that capitalism is a religion, that financial institutions are its temples, and that we are proselytizing by promoting free trade all over the world. (If this were true, we'd have a little bit of a problem with the separation of church and state. LOL!) By this broad definition any of these isms could be a religion. Where does it end? This is why I find the broad definition to be unwieldy and impractical.

[CLHCO]

I totally agree that it is wrong to limit personal expressions of faith. However, "Merry Christmas!" is short for, "Have a merry Christmas," which means "go and enjoy this Christian holiday," which really means, "go and do what Christians do." In other words, you're essentially cheerfully telling someone, "Be like me!" If someone came up to you and merrily exclaimed, "Be like me!" you'd think they were drunk, wouldn't you?

 

Here in the US the vast majority celebrate Christmas, many of which are not even Christains. My husband grew up in an atheist home and they always said Merry Christmas without assuming it was a religious observance. It was their culture and heritage.

 

I'm honestly curious about this statement. If you were in a predominant Muslim area and they greeted you according to their Ramadan well wishing, in Israel and they wished you a delightful Hanukkah, or perhaps in China during the Chinese New Year and they said "Happy New Year" when your culture celebrates it at a different time, would you be uncomfortable? Would you correct that person and be upset that they wanted to you to be like them or adopt their customs? Would the same sense of offense be given to all?

[PiCO]

Here in the US the vast majority celebrate Christmas, many of which are not even Christains. My husband grew up in an atheist home and they always said Merry Christmas without assuming it was a religious observance. It was their culture and heritage.

 

I'm honestly curious about this statement. If you were in a predominant Muslim area and they greeted you according to their Ramadan well wishing, in Israel and they wished you a delightful Hanukkah, or perhaps in China during the Chinese New Year and they said "Happy New Year" when your culture celebrates it at a different time, would you be uncomfortable? Would you correct that person and be upset that they wanted to you to be like them or adopt their customs? Would the same sense of offense be given to all?

 

If someone wishes me a Merry Christmas, I assume she means well. Same with people saying Happy Hanukah or Happy Holidays. And I have never had someone be offended when I say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays. I usually respond in kind to whatever people say. :)

[JWSJ]

At the same time, as a Christian, with Christmas being the holiday we remember and celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior, I don't really understand why a non-Christian would want to celebrate Christmas.

 

I've asked many non-believers why they celebrate seemingly religious holidays.

 

Everytime it's the same answer:

 

They want presents too...

[Joanne]

She cannot for the life of her see that she holds a worldview as pervasive as my Catholic one. For her, secular humanists are "normal, thinking people" and religious people are bigots unless proved otherwise (meaning that they agree with her on her pet political projects). She is totally blind to her own underlying assumptions. She cannot not see that by saying "there is no God," she was articulating a theology, and that by believing that human beings can perfect the world, she is staking out a philosophical position. She actually once said to me, "Yes, but we're right and you're wrong." And that's an end to it.

 

*nods*

 

Yes, this is my experience with vocal secular humanist thinking people.

 

It's related, IME, directly to public school. I am amazed at the number of people who do not think the public schools offer a world view.

 

That said, I would not feel comfortable in a room with all secularists/atheists. I'm not into religion bashing. I see nothing wrong with calling people out on their religious statements or whatever, but to just go on some sort of witch hunt for the sake of proving one's own point of view is not something that interests me. I would defend someone's right to practice their religion of choice any day of the week before I would defend anything that aims to suppress religion. The way I look at that is that I personally want to be free NOT to believe. So forcing others to not believe is just as bad.

 

What I've observed is that the more passionately, vocally and stridently "right" a person feels about their worldview - often that person's faith is still developing and in immature stages.

 

When I was experiementing trying to find my spiritual place ( I am/was a lifelong mainline Christian, non conservative type), did a lot of research and reading. One thing I found consistently was a large percentage of earth-based spirituality persons had a severe edge to their experience. Their particular expression of Paganism (and I do believe it deserves a capital as does Jewish, etc) was over-focused on *not being Christian*. I can understand this in the early stages; we do live in a Christian overculture and many people have been hurt/abused in the name of Christianity. (I've sponsored a dozen or so of them in AA over the years.) I'm hopeful that if those individuals continue to embrace an earth based celebration, they eventually make it about what they believe and resonates in their soul rather than about not being Christian.

 

I also "bristle" at the implication that cerebral, "reasoned" and "logical" is inherently more valid than "intuitive", "feeling" or "emotional". I find this is often an issue in my reaction to secular humanist thinking, and other non deity world views.

[CLHCO]

You are one of many gracious atheists I know, since obviously many in my husband's family are. All of them are gracious too. I have heard of some very vocal and angry atheists (and Christians, I might add) but it's much nicer when there can be polite dialog and everyone is slow to be offended.

 

I really wish the cultural icons our media salivated over were a little more slow to be offended. There is a place for calling someone on something obviously slandering a race or religion but the way some jump on every little thing certainly gives you a headache after awhile. Regarding this thread about secular humanists, I rarely have had any problem with them personally, though I like to joke that attending a certain Unitarian church years ago drove me back to conservative Christianity. ;) Usually it's the loud ones with an ax to grind who cause an issue where one never was before. The same can be said for certain leaders in other religious, ethnic and political arenas.

 

For what it's worth, I don't say "Merry Christmas" to strangers often. It's always been a bit more of a personal touch for me. Not necessarily personal, as in religiously personal, but instead something you say to friends. I'm sure the words themselves, in this case, mean very different things to different people. I disagree with those who shove it on people to make a point because it loses the personal touch. By the same token, I am just as unhappy with those that have been trying to strip our world of what is a natural phrase for our culture at that time of the year.

[Audrey]

The danger in a broad definition of religion is that almost any "ism" can fit. Is feminism a religion? It certainly colors the way its adherents choose to act in the world. Yes, humanism like chauvinism, vegetarianism, racism and nationalism can determine what one values, eats, buys, votes for, prays to or who one loves. I have even heard people argue that capitalism is a religion, that financial institutions are its temples, and that we are proselytizing by promoting free trade all over the world. (If this were true, we'd have a little bit of a problem with the separation of church and state. LOL!) By this broad definition any of these isms could be a religion. Where does it end? This is why I find the broad definition to be unwieldy and impractical.

 

I soooo wish this thing would let me give you more than one rep. :D

[SparrowsNest]

The danger in a broad definition of religion is that almost any "ism" can fit. Is feminism a religion? It certainly colors the way its adherents choose to act in the world. Yes, humanism like chauvinism, vegetarianism, racism and nationalism can determine what one values, eats, buys, votes for, prays to or who one loves. I have even heard people argue that capitalism is a religion, that financial institutions are its temples, and that we are proselytizing by promoting free trade all over the world. (If this were true, we'd have a little bit of a problem with the separation of church and state. LOL!) By this broad definition any of these isms could be a religion. Where does it end? This is why I find the broad definition to be unwieldy and impractical.

 

Unwieldy and impractical, yes, but we can't disregard it just because it doesn't lend itself to a simple understanding of the situation. I do think that any of the 'isms' can be religious, broadly speaking. If pressed, I would call religion the 'organizing principle of one's worldview,' (or something along those lines!) and for some women, feminism IS that principle. For some people, racism may be that principle. And because humanity is large, I don't think we're going to find neatly packaged definitions for the big issues like this. I also think that this broad understanding can coexist with a more narrow view of religion as "a set of beliefs centered upon the supernatural, specifically supernatural deities" (or something along those lines), because I think we need a term to understand those types of belief systems as well.

 

If we want to reject the broad understanding of religion and call these ideologies "worldviews" instead, that's fine, but I don't see that it makes our task any easier. We still need to understand that a worldview is centered upon *something,* that this *something* is (at least in all the ideologies I can think of) something which transcends the individual, and that whether that something is the environment, women's rights, the advancement of humanity, communism, or Jesus Christ, it provides the foundation upon which the rest of the person's worldview rests.

[Plaid Dad]

If we want to reject the broad understanding of religion and call these ideologies "worldviews" instead, that's fine, but I don't see that it makes our task any easier. We still need to understand that a worldview is centered upon *something,* that this *something* is (at least in all the ideologies I can think of) something which transcends the individual, and that whether that something is the environment, women's rights, the advancement of humanity, communism, or Jesus Christ, it provides the foundation upon which the rest of the person's worldview rests.

 

The way I usually put it is that the various -isms can function like religions by providing an organizing principle or worldview. This is not quite the same as saying that they function as religions. The point is that while they are not religions in the strict sense of that term, they can serve an analogous function in the lives of secular people (and sometimes in the lives of those who also profess religious faith!).

 

Does that help?

[Fourmother]

I don't think any of us will disagree that religions and various "isms" can and do form the organizing principles for both individuals and states. However, I don't agree that separation of church and state should be expanded to separation of "world view" and state because secularists don't belong to a church. The "Christian worldview" is as inextricably linked to the US government as secular humanism, perhaps even more so. Once you start eliminating the influence of world views from the state, where does it end? It is neither possible nor desirable to have a philosophically neutral state. Better to keep the narrow definition of religion, and allow world views to compete as they will in the marketplace of ideas.

 

Some states have a single overarching religion or philosophy which directs their goals and principles while others allow competing world views to hash it out. I think the US is closer to the later. There's no question that our government has been shaped and influenced by the Christianity, Judaism, federalism, and nationalism, capitalism, racism, chauvinism, etc. It will also be influenced by humanism, feminism, multiculturalism, environmentalism, socialism, Islam and more. Every group tries to put forward its own world view while bemoaning the influence others may enjoy. Some grow stronger while others lose influence over time. It's like a dance. The process is always difficult, always in flux. Absent a totalitarian regime, this is the way of things. But even absolute dictatorships must succumb to change in the fullness of time.

[PiCO]

I've asked many non-believers why they celebrate seemingly religious holidays.

 

Everytime it's the same answer:

 

They want presents too...

 

 

In my experience, most Christians don't really want to hear an answer from an atheist, and the question is often asked in a sarcastic manner. (Not saying this is what you do, but the people you are asking have probably heard sarcastic tones before.)

 

I'm not Christian, and I celebrate "Crismus," and my kids probably get fewer presents than most Christians in my area. It's not about the presents for us, it's about the magic of the season- giving, family, etc.

 

Atheists and agnostics are a widely varied group. There are self-centered shallow atheists just as there are hypocritical Christians. But not believing in any higher power does not make one self-centered or shallow. (See my post in this thread below about the reason for the season for more info on holiday celebrations.)

 

Hmmm... re-reading this post, I don't think I'm coming across how I want to. Yes, there are atheists who only do Christmas so their kids get presents. But please be assured we're not all like that.

[GothicGyrl]

In my experience, most Christians don't really want to hear an answer from an atheist, and the question is often asked in a sarcastic manner. (Not saying this is what you do, but the people you are asking have probably heard sarcastic tones before.)

 

I'm not Christian, and I celebrate "Crismus," and my kids probably get fewer presents than most Christians in my area. It's not about the presents for us, it's about the magic of the season- giving, family, etc.

 

Atheists and agnostics are a widely varied group. There are self-centered shallow atheists just as there are hypocritical Christians. But not believing in any higher power does not make one self-centered or shallow. (See my post in this thread below about the reason for the season for more info on holiday celebrations.)

 

Hmmm... re-reading this post, I don't think I'm coming across how I want to. Yes, there are atheists who only do Christmas so their kids get presents. But please be assured we're not all like that.

Precisely and said much better than I've been trying to word it for 2 days. ;) It isn't about the presents (my kids got exactly 5 things each this past holiday, from us--part of it was money and part of it was size(one kid got guitar hero))..

 

For us, Christmas or Crismus, or whatever you choose to call it, is about family. We get together with family we see everyday, we don't see, we see sporadially, etc... we eat, we drink and we are merry. We just have a lot of fun.

 

As you said--I've met both sides of the ornery part. And both sides come out with fangs sharpened. There is no reason for this, but it happens.

 

I don't believe in a higher power and I am certainly not self-centered and shallow and neither are my kids. They have more fun opening their 5 presents than they do opening 20. And it's because I pick **very much in desire** gifts, I don't just pick for the sake of the season.

 

Someday, I'll entertain you with my almost-got-arrested-in-Walmart story because I hijacked their intercom system and complained about Christmas decorations in October. ;)

[kalanamak]

In my experience, most Christians don't really want to hear an answer from an atheist, and the question is often asked in a sarcastic manner. (Not saying this is what you do, but the people you are asking have probably heard sarcastic tones before.)

 

I don't know whether they are Christians or not, but most people at work (I work with 2000 people) are surprized we don't "do" Christmas. The food, the traditions, the beauty, the anticipation, etc. I grew up in a secular household and we "did" Christmas for all of the above (and how beautiful my mother made the house, and how great her pies and breads were), for the Victorian image of it, rather than the birth of Christ.

 

When I say "We are not Christians, so we don't do Christmas" (in reply for "what are you doing for Christmas"), I ALWAYs hear "you don't have to be a Christian to do Christmas" as the reply. Always.

 

When I was married to an Indian, his family did Christmas, too. It was some guru's birthday, but the rest was amazingly similar. When in Rome....

 

We may actually "do" it this year, as kiddo may get revved up about it.