In the information that I’ve read about Secular Humanism (in particular a book called “A Case for Humanism: An Introduction” by Austin Dacey and Lewis Vaughn) I get the feeling that issues (such as justice) are based upon current laws and ethics systems(that’s my explanation of it and I recognize it’s not a great one).

Not current laws and ethics systems, some current laws and ethics systems meet the criteria. Laws and ethics on a rational basis, using reason and evidence. Humanism rejects supernatural beliefs (superstition, ignorance) involvement in resolving human affairs.

The biggest thing is, what happens when you come upon something that you can’t explain?

Certainly not make something up, that’s what religion does. Try to explain it using the evidence available would be the humanist plea. If you can’t explain something, that’s not the end of the world, but it’s important to try. Faith is a licence to give up trying to explain, and just make something up.

In addition, what about the sense of community? I know this is become more prevalent to a degree but as far as I can tell secular humanists tend to be loners.

I accept your first statement, not your second. I think it’s a good thing. I bet there aren’t as many (proportional to population) “secular humanist” children as there are “christian, muslim and sikh children”. Nationalism also brings with it a sense of community but I don’t much like it either.

Secular people aren’t usually brought up in communities of secular people, many come from religious families, they’re separated geographically. There are few buildings that are secular humanist for people to go. Where there are secular groups and buildings, secular people do go, they are not loners. A lot of the time your born and indoctrinated into religious communities, but secular people don’t have a unified doctrine.

Honestly I am having a hard time figuring out the positive in this belief system. I’m sure there is, but I cannot for the life of me figure it out.

Most religious moderates and religious humanists I’ve heard from agree with secular humanists that church should be separated from state, and that law and ethics shouldn’t be based on supernatural beliefs and authority.

Negative in Islam (for wikipedia) Islamic tradition holds that Judaism and Christianity distorted the messages of these prophets over time either in interpretation, in text, or both.[5] It seems unlikely that they themselves haven’t done the very same thing considering how there are multiple different ways of interpreting passages in the Quran. The positive is that among the five pillars of islam there is a specific decree to give to people who are poor. True it also is a missionary aspect but some might translate it more as help for those who need it rather than a missionary “tithe.”

They believe they’re right as Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc… believe they’re right. I don’t think any interpretation is necessarily true, because I don’t think the existance of God is likely, and their gods even less so. One interpretation of the text is going to be correct, given that each text had an author, or mulitple, with further editing and translation from more authors. Just because there are multiple interpretations doesn’t mean that they’re likely incorrect. Just that it’s possible, given that there are more than one interpretations.

Then after all of they people play the “My God is better than your god” game and have for centuries been killing each other over this and I don’t know why, esp in this day and age. Before Roman Christianity became dominate, Christians were killing each other just as Islamics do. There was once many sects of Christianity- Gnostic, Mystery, Saviour, Marcion, and many other Christian cults. Then Roman took over and dominated. Of course then we had the Reformation and we now have many sects again. Once again none of them agree with each other and sometimes even within the sects, like the Anglican Communion, they don’t agree with each other. The liberal Episcopalians want to be more humanistic, while the conservatives want to be… well more traditionally conservative and literal.

The thing is, and I heard this also on an Episcopal podcast too, the religious texts were written for a different time, a different group of people, and a different culture. We can’t take religious texts seriously or literally, though some people would disagree. Those in the podcast may have been laughing when they said a Bible study with an Episcopal priest never works if you believe the Bible, but it’s true. Take a look at Bishop Spong, Anthony Freeman, Tom Harpur, Dan Cupitt, etc if you don’t believe me. I’ve been watching the out come of what is happening in the Episcopal Church and the House of Bishops have been getting praise for their response to the Archbishop’s communique from those in Ireland, Australia, Canada, etc., while those in Africa and alike along with the conservatives have been critical. I think the House of Bishops are right about treating everyone with human dignity, ministering to the GLBT groups, etc. They did not promise to never have public gay union celebrations or never again to ordain gay ministers, but they did say they are willing to chill out until there is a consensus to do so. They did what they had to do to stay in the Communion though, but the conservatives would love to see the Episcopal Church U.S.A. thrown out of the Communion because what was said was just not good enough for them.

On Air America, when asked if the Episcopal Church was compromising their position, the reply from the guest speaker was, “This bishop thinks so.” I think they are too, but they don’t like to make waves.

The point is, when it comes to religion, I don’t think anyone agrees, esp if they take the Bible literally and as the inerrant word of God. It’s all insane and IMO, it’s taken far too literally instead of being thought of as ancient literature.

In the information that I’ve read about Secular Humanism (in particular a book called “A Case for Humanism: An Introduction” by Austin Dacey and Lewis Vaughn) I get the feeling that issues (such as justice) are based upon current laws and ethics systems(that’s my explanation of it and I recognize it’s not a great one). The biggest thing is, what happens when you come upon something that you can’t explain? In addition, what about the sense of community? I know this is become more prevalent to a degree but as far as I can tell secular humanists tend to be loners. Honestly I am having a hard time figuring out the positive in this belief system. I’m sure there is, but I cannot for the life of me figure it out.

Negative in Islam (for wikipedia) Islamic tradition holds that Judaism and Christianity distorted the messages of these prophets over time either in interpretation, in text, or both.[5] It seems unlikely that they themselves haven’t done the very same thing considering how there are multiple different ways of interpreting passages in the Quran. The positive is that among the five pillars of islam there is a specific decree to give to people who are poor. True it also is a missionary aspect but some might translate it more as help for those who need it rather than a missionary “tithe.”

I also see religion as a cultural issue. From what I remember from taking a number of anthropology courses there have never been a culture where a religion is not present. I know Dawkins mentioned something about this (I think it had to do with Memes but I’m not exactly clear on his view on this). But it’s certainly something interesting to point out (and a general argument that I’ve heard more moderate religious individuals make).

If you want me to comment on the others as well I would be happy to except I think this post is long enough.

Actually my husband mentioned them (again he is definitely non-religious and according to him an atheist). The key in any conversation is to recognize the good as well as the bad in a belief system. From what you wrote Aj I get the feeling that you feel that there isn’t anything good about Christianity as a belief system (religious in nature or not). If so, please correct me.

I think religion is worthless and harmful, although I don’t think it’s particularly helpful to think of things in terms of good and bad. The Golden Rule is the only thing I find to be universal to Christians, that is good, and it’s not unique to Christianity or religion in general. How would you comment on the good and bad of Secular Humanism, Islam, and Hinduism?

Actually my husband mentioned them (again he is definitely non-religious and according to him an atheist). The key in any conversation is to recognize the good as well as the bad in a belief system. From what you wrote Aj I get the feeling that you feel that there isn’t anything good about Christianity as a belief system (religious in nature or not). If so, please correct me.

And AJ, people are indocrtinated with all sorts of stuff from language and culture to religion. So you should be more specific when you say that you don’t support the indocrination of children, because what you said literally means you think kids should be raised in the wild… alone…

We rely heavily on context using the English language.

-athenebelle

he recognizes that there are good things about it (e.x. Ten Commandments minus the “god thing”)

Is that likely? It’s strange that many Christians would hold them as a notable good thing in Christianity. I doubt many people outside of Christianity are going to see them as great in content or particulary well written. I doubt many Christians can recount them from memory.

Honor your father and your mother… It’s not a bad rule, but it seems quite specific and ambiguous, without acceptions.

You shall not murder… what killing is legal and what isn’t?*

You shall not commit adultery… includes lustful eyes! No “wife swap” parties!

You shall not steal… needs some property law then.*

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour… I see nothing wrong with this one.

You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour. Where to start! Slaves! Sexist! Suspicious preoccupation with farm animals!

*anything refering to a legal definition like theft and murder requires that definition to mean anything.

I know I would have had my husband (who is not religious) had said that to me and I’m not a “if he doesn’t convert he’s going to hell” type of religious individual (although I had a hard time understanding him when we had first started dating).

Whoops, I meant to say “I know I would have been offended if my husband (who is note religious) had said that to me and I’m not an “if he doesnt convert he’s going to hell” type of religious individual.

PrimateInRepose said,

October 5, 2007 at 3:14 pm

“Hey, how about going for an ice cream? I want to get all the coldness I can while I still have a chance.”

Exterminator, that is the funniest damn thing I’ve read all day.

As a Christian myself I felt taken aback at this joke and if he had said it to his daughter I suspect she would have felt it mocking and would not have helped things…only made a deeper wedge between his daughter and him. I know I would have had my husband (who is not religious) had said that to me and I’m not a “if he doesn’t convert he’s going to hell” type of religious individual (although I had a hard time understanding him when we had first started dating).

As I said earlier, dialogue is the key. I think much of what Hemant’s doing is perfect. I wonder if I could suggest his to the guy.

“Hey, how about going for an ice cream? I want to get all the coldness I can while I still have a chance.”

Exterminator, that is the funniest damn thing I’ve read all day.