zwaldd wrote:
Why, quantum vacuum fluctuations, of course!
I think it takes some fairly tortured arguments to claim that the principles espoused on that particular web page, by that particular organization are not pretty much in direct conflict with the known forms of theism.
About the broader term “humanism” there is no argument that it has many different meanings, but the term “secular” humanism is generally used to differentiate that specific kind of humanism from other kinds of humanism, and I don’t particularly see the value in using wordplay to erase real distinctions between different schools of thought.
It’s a free country, and Paul Kurtz isn’t going to sic the Secular Humanist Inquisition on you. A Christian who believes in infant baptism can call himself a Baptist if he so desires (after all, baptism in some form or another is pretty much universal to Christians of all stripes); however, while Baptists have also historically been a pretty diverse lot, at pretty much any Baptist church of whatever tradition, there’s going to be some confusion when he shows up at the river to have his newborn child sprinkled.
God will strike you dead for never getting my name right.
As a matter of fact, I do love myself. Of course, it’s tough love (b-doom KSSSH). I don’t go out of my way to love my fellow man. My fellow man is zero, until proven to be lovable or assoholic. I feel calmly satisfied with concluding that most of the people I have met are people I have no particular interest in loving, i.e. many of them are jerks. I have these recurring nightmares of being stuck at an office party with a whole bunch of coworkers who I don’t like and who I would normally spend no personal time with. As I sit in the corner, enjoying myself with a book, people keep trying to drag me into “mingling” because I don’t look like I’m having any fun. In waking life, I feel the same way about Jehovah’s Witnesses who show up at my door during The Simpsons.
Overall, I’m actually a pretty happy guy.
—I think it takes some fairly tortured arguments to claim that the principles espoused on that particular web page, by that particular organization are not pretty much in direct conflict with the known forms of theism.—
What exactly do you mean by “known”? You mean your stereotype of what a Christian must believe? Your limited knowledge of theism?
No tortured arguments are required (nor do you even bother to explain which arguments you think are “tortured”). The only tortured argument here is the equivocation that allows one to set up secular values in direct contrast to an entirely hackneyed definition of “religion.” There is no such necessary conflict.
—the term “secular” humanism is generally used to differentiate that specific kind of humanism from other kinds of humanism, and I don’t particularly see the value in using wordplay to erase real distinctions between different schools of thought.—
The wordplay here is in claiming exclusive control over that term, as if terms were the exclusive property of one person or group despite having an extremely diverse pedigree and a highly contentious and opinionated membership.
—A Christian who believes in infant baptism can call himself a Baptist if he so desires (after all, baptism in some form or another is pretty much universal to Christians of all stripes); however, while Baptists have also historically been a pretty diverse lot, at pretty much any Baptist church of whatever tradition, there’s going to be some confusion when he shows up at the river to have his newborn child sprinkled.—
Now you are getting disingenuous. The question here is not whether someone understands the principles of a certain sect, but whether a perfectly legitimate Christian can also be a secular humanist, meeting all the principles head on and straightforwardly. It might surprise you to learn that there are even atheist Christians out there. The point is, a hackneyed example of one incompatibility does not prove that all things you find questionable are incompatible. And it will not do you any better to play the True Scotsman game on this either.
I suspect CSH attempts to distingush SH from religion, simply because the word religion - like words such as God and worship - carry so many connotations. I suspect if you look up the word religion in most dictionaries, the first definitions will contain some reference to God or the supernatural. So the CSH chose a term like world view, which does not does not imply the supernatural, and instead, suggests a focus on this natural world. A similar issue is when folk ask “Why do UU congregations call themselves churches?” Good question. And I personally would prefer a different name. But arguig whether CSH is or is not a religion, seems to me to be spending energy on less-important aspects of CSH.
Another distinction is one common concerning Humanism. I consider it the difference between Humanism as a noun, and humanistic as an adjective. Many folk - including the Pope - consider themseles humanistic. But far fewer are aware of and agree with the specific principles as suggested on the AHA site MEB provided above.
Same with secular humanism. It can either generally refer to a type of Humanism, or it can refer to Paul Kurtz’s organization. The two are not the same.
BTW - IMO Paul Kurtz is a pretty dynamic speaker. If you have the chance to see him, consider doing so.
More on topic - when I read the OP, I interpreted it as:
*Why am I, a basically normal appearing member of my species, apparently incapable of holding a mindset that is so common among my fellows? *
I know some folk have chosen this very fact as the basis for their belief. Several billion satisfied customers cannot all be wrong, can they?
I wonder if there is an atheist out there who has not occasionally wondered why they were constructed in a manner that made them unable or unwilling to accept what the overwhelming majority of people consider correct, sensible, and desirable. What is it about us that is different from our brethren, and what - if any - other implications of this difference are there?
Dinsdale wrote:
And here I thought they were just two different, competing UNIX shells.
(When written in lowercase letters, anyway.)
----I know some folk have chosen this very fact as the basis for their belief. Several billion satisfied customers cannot all be wrong, can they?—
My favorite response to this subject is: 500,000,000,000 flies can’t be wrong: EAT SHIT!
Seriously though, the reality is that of these billions, few believe the same things, or are satisfied for the same reasons. People live different lives, and believe for a wide multitude of different reasons. It’s not strange at all that some might also not happen to have god beliefs.
—I wonder if there is an atheist out there who has not occasionally wondered why they were constructed in a manner that made them unable or unwilling to accept what the overwhelming majority of people consider correct, sensible, and desirable. What is it about us that is different from our brethren, and what - if any - other implications of this difference are there?—
I don’t consider myself very different from my bretheren at all. I forget who said it, but of 2000 possible gods/religions, almost everyone believes in only a few, or one, and doesn’t believe in all the rest. I just happen to not believe in one more god than most everyone else. As far as anything substantive, I find myself as likely to have opinions that match theists as I do atheists, which is only to say that both groups are so diverse in non-theistic opinion so as not to effectively much matter to me.
I find it interesting that you look at the issue from a perspective so different than me.
You see diversity in the fact that people believe in such a variety of gods.
I see commonality in the fact that believers all accept something supernatural - which I reject in all of its manifestations.