Is Secular Humanism a Fraud? (essay 1 now added)

[_Analytics]

Wikipedia claims that these are the tenets of secular humanism:

• Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

• Reason, evidence, scientific method - A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

• Fulfillment, growth, creativity - A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

• Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

• This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

• Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

• Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

I don't see in this a dogmatic claim that knowing the truth will magically cause you to be happy.

[_Tal Bachman]

I need a few hard ones - maybe jam me with a slurve, high and inside. Something.

That secular humanism sees the growth of knowledge and critical thinking, etc., as crucial to the expansion of human welfare, including human happiness, cannot be seriously disputed. From Enlightenment thinkers like Paine, Voltaire, and D'Holbach (who I quoted [obviously pointlessly]), to contemporary secular humanists like Richard Dawkins and Paul Kurtz, this claim has been a mainstay of the argument that reason, science, etc., should Trump religion, superstition, etc. Even Plato, who the secular humanists lay claim to, equated knowledge with both virtue and happiness.

Here, for example, is Paul Kurtz, the founder of "Skeptical Inquirer" magazine, founder of The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, former co-president of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, member of the American Humanist Association, and co-writer of the Humanist Manifesto II:

"The focus (of humanism) is upon happiness and the good life, here and now, in this life, for ourselves and for our fellow human beings...Humanists want to distribute happiness as far as possible... the good life is a life of creative joy". (See http://www.theharbinger.org/articles/plural/kurtz.html).

Maybe the presumed link between knowledge and happiness was not explicit enough in that last quote. Here is another then, from an article entitled "Godless Happiness", posted on the Council for Secular Humanism website:

"The reason so many nonbelievers report being unhappy" (!) "may have less to do with their lack of religious faith, and more to do with the fact that they lack both communities in which to interact and encouragement to pursue their own visions. But we should also focus on the happiness that comes from facing the truth and living with it". (See http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/ ... _18_3.html).

A few more tidbits, this time from Tony Hileman, executive director of the American Humanist Association:

"It was Aristotle who first introduced what I spoke of before, and will speak of again, the concept of happiness, of the good life as life’s purpose. Since then it has been in and out of philosophical fashion several times, but the battle over what constitutes happiness has raged unabated...

"Humanism derives its truth through the use of critical inquiry, reason and scientific method...On a personal level, Humanism replaces a sense of isolation in an indifferent world with a feeling of being a meaningful part of all that is...The promise of Humanism is happiness and the good life here and now...". (See http://www.ncethicalsociety.org/Hileman ... nist.shtml).

So...humanism stands for science, knowledge, critical thinking, etc., - and "the promise of humanism is happiness".

Duh.

Waiting for the slurve,

T.

[_EAllusion]

This isn't the first time you've overreached your quotes Tal.

The first quote is just an expression of a type of consquentialism humanism is associated with. It literally offers nothing to establish your point.

The second quote is talking about nonbelievers reporting unhappiness and recommends attempting to derive happiness from the knowledge one is facing the truth. If you want it put another way, they're saying, "Hey, at least you can find some comfort in the fact that you are facing the truth."

The third quote just points to the methods of truth-finding humanists tend to find agreeable then points out that humanism is about finding happiness. "THe promise of humanism is happiness" isupposed to be a reflection of that being what they are actually trying to do. Ironically, the works you quote in your above essay are using epistemic methods humanists approve of to figure out what exactly leads to human happiness, which is precisely what humanists recommend doing and is how they think such tools will achieve their ends. If you are suggesting increased knowledge about what leads to human happiness, not knowledge itself, has no meaningful connection to improving human happiness, then I suppose you are challenging the last point. However, you're still attacking a strawman then.

[_Gadianton]

And even if humanists were wrong and overconfident in their position that doesn't make them fraudulent. There are inventions and business plans that fail miserably, there are ideas which for some reason get way more hype and credit than they deserve, and then there are frauds. Even though all religions are obviously false since it's obvious there is no God, not all religions and religious ideas are pure fraud.

[_Tal Bachman]

Yes or no position question, E:

Is it your position then, that secular humanism does not take the position that science, critical thinking, knowledge (however you want to put it) are crucial to progress in alleviating human misery/increasing human happiness,?

If yes, care to produce a few quotes?

And if not, then why are you taking issue with my characterization?

[_EAllusion]

I'm sure that most humanists would agree that knowledge about what leads to happiness is important for improving human happiness. It helps to know if torturing someone will make them happy or not if you want to make people happy. That's not really what you argued against above. Likewise, I'm sure that most humanists would agree that knowledge about the world will lead to moral improvement. If you are a consquentialist, as humanists generally are, then actually understanding the consequences of acts improves one's odds of achieving desirable consequences. Again, this isn't what you were arguing against above. The quotes you used just weren't establishing what you wanted them to. I mean the first is just an expression of utilitarianism. That doesn't come close to expressing the ideas you are attacking. The second is just offering a reason to cheer up. If you want to attack the idea that knowledge about human happiness is not an important condition in improving aggregate happiness or that knowledge about what causes happiness is not crucial to this type of utilitarianism, go for it.

[_Tal Bachman]

E

I know the first quote isn't much; I just included it because it at least established that secular humanism had something to do with the goal of human happiness, something that some posters seemed to doubt.

I am not really sure at the moment how to respond; one of the central features of Enlightenment thinking, which secular humanism obviously derives from, is that religion, superstition, etc., impedes human progress and welfare (including happiness). The idea was that through the power of reason (science), a new era in peace, justice, equality, civility, well-being, happiness, etc., could be ushered in. (Hence the D'Holbach quote I began with - why no response to that?). Because secular humanist manifestos without fail cast themselves as a distillation of Enlightenment thinking, what else are we supposed to conclude other than what I've concluded?

So, I don't really get it. The whole rationale for discarding bizarre supernaturalisms in favor of hard critical thinking, science, ets., is that "the truth will make us free", and that the deepest sort of happiness comes from that freedom. It's stamped all over every humanist justification for itself...

[_Moniker]

Warning to Moniker: you may get hot reading this.

Har de har har har!

[Guest]

I'm about where guy sajer is. I didn't realize there was a specific list of things I had to agree to in order to label myself a secular humanist. I just use that label because it closely aligns with my views for the most part. I've never considered truth as necessarily leading to happiness -- if that's the case it's a no go for me!

I just view it rather simply: Humans have evolved to be social/moral without the guidance of a higher power. That political, personal, societal considerations should be approached with reason and not by some arbitrary rule passed down from a religious tenet. I believe social work is important to alleviate suffering in the world and understand that I must do all I can in the here and now -- there is no afterlife, salvation, etc... That's pretty much it.

I'm such a poor atheist and a secular humanist! No one wants me! :(

[_Bond...James Bond]

I'm such a poor atheist and a secular humanist! No one wants me! :(

We at Apatheists Anonymous will have you. If you turn down that offer from Hotties R Us.