The following definition of Humanism (secular and religious) comes from this web site, one of many web sites on Humanism.

One of my problems here is this: if there are no Absolutes, how can we be troubled by injustice (much less be outraged by it)? Why was the Holacaust bad if there is no such thing as Evil? Weren't the Nazis just doing their thang? Who are we to judge them?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The basic ideas held in common by both Religious and Secular Humanists.:

1.Humanism is one of those philosophies for people who think for themselves. There is no area of thought that a Humanist is afraid to challenge and explore.

2.Humanism is a philosophy focused upon human means for comprehending reality. Humanists make no claims to possess or have access to supposed transcendent knowledge.

3.Humanism is a philosophy of reason and science in the pursuit of knowledge. Therefore, when it comes to the question of the most valid means for acquiring knowledge of the world, Humanists reject arbitrary faith, authority, revelation, and altered states of consciousness.

4.Humanism is a philosophy of imagination. Humanists recognize that intuitive feelings, hunches, speculation, flashes of inspiration, emotion, altered states of consciousness, and even religious experience, while not valid means to acquire knowledge, remain useful sources of ideas that can lead us to new ways of looking at the world. These ideas, after they have been assessed rationally for their usefulness, can then be put to work, often as alternate approaches for solving problems.

5.Humanism is a philosophy for the here and now. Humanists regard human values as making sense only in the context of human life rather than in the promise of a supposed life after death.

6.Humanism is a philosophy of compassion. Humanist ethics is solely concerned with meeting human needs and answering human problems--for both the individual and society--and devotes no attention to the satisfaction of the desires of supposed theological entities.

7.Humanism is a realistic philosophy. Humanists recognize the existence of moral dilemmas and the need for careful consideration of immediate and future consequences in moral decision making.

8.Humanism is in tune with the science of today. Humanists therefore recognize that we live in a natural universe of great size and age, that we evolved on this planet over a long period of time, that there is no compelling evidence for a separable "soul," and that human beings have certain built-in needs that effectively form the basis for any human-oriented value system.

9.Humanism is in tune with today's enlightened social thought. Humanists are committed to civil liberties, human rights, church-state separation, the extension of participatory democracy not only in government but in the workplace and education, an expansion of global consciousness and exchange of products and ideas internationally, and an open-ended approach to solving social problems, an approach that allows for the testing of new alternatives.

10.Humanism is in tune with new technological developments. Humanists are willing to take part in emerging scientific and technological discoveries in order to exercise their moral influence on these revolutions as they come about, especially in the interest of protecting the environment.

11.Humanism is, in sum, a philosophy for those in love with life. Humanists take responsibility for their own lives and relish the adventure of being part of new discoveries, seeking new knowledge, exploring new options. Instead of finding solace in prefabricated answers to the great questions of life, Humanists enjoy the open-endedness of a quest and the freedom of discovery that this entails.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 17, 2001

Answers

Where in this document do you get the idea that the Humanist movement would have condoned the Holocaust?

Humanists are committed to civil liberties, human rights, church- state separation, the extension of participatory democracy not only in government but in the workplace and education, an expansion of global consciousness and exchange of products and ideas internationally, and an open-ended approach to solving social problems, an approach that allows for the testing of new alternatives.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 17, 2001.

''in tune with t-day's ENLIGHTENED-society. lol lol lol man thinks he is in control. lol lol lol

no such thing as a soul. lol lol lol

-- al-d. (dogs@zianet.com), March 17, 2001.

Tarz--

I didn't say that that humanists condoned the Holocaust. I am just wondering how anyone can arbitrarily disapprove of anything if there is not an Absolute basis for doing so. The Holocaust is just an especially egregious example.

If a humanist tells me that I can't molest little girls, why can't I tell the humanist to mind his own business?

C'mon, I'm sure that you can justify opposition to the Holocaust without invoking god. I'd just like to hear the reasoning.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 17, 2001.

If a humanist tells me that I can't molest little girls, why can't I tell the humanist to mind his own business?

Because hurting another person not only hurts that individual but our society in general. When you hurt that child, you affect damage that will have repercussions immediately and in the future. Thus we must protect this child. Moreover, since there is no god or any other diety, it is up to us to ensure that we have an ordered society that exists for the benefit of all.

C'mon, I'm sure that you can justify opposition to the Holocaust without invoking god. I'd just like to hear the reasoning.

Simple. This life is all we have, and all we will ever have, thus it is vital to not deprive anyone of it. Moreover, depriving a whole class of people of their lives diminishes all of us and if we allow it, it will encourage others who wish to do the same thing, and thus further disrupt society. Additionlly, the wholesale theft of nations out from under their rightful citizens and governments (as happened to Poland, France, Holland, and on and on) has a disruptive effect on society and commerce.

There are a million and one reasons to justify preventing the Holocaust, religious and non-religious. It's worth noting that despite these justifications however, our ostensibly Christian nation refused entry into World War II until the Japanese literally brought it to our shores. Further, despite contemporary evidence for Hitler's plan for the Jews, evidence shows that our state department blocked and refused the exit visas of an enormous number of European Jews, thus condemning them to death.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 17, 2001.

Believe it or not Tarzan, I accept that logic. Trouble is, Mr Sociopath might not accept it. So you would have to force your morality on the poor man. Isn't that what you criticize Christians for doing?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 17, 2001.

Is that REALLY you, Lars? It sure doesn't sound like it.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 17, 2001.

Yeah, it's really me. My admirer must be having dinner.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), March 17, 2001.

You're asking the wrong questions, Lars. How about: Who decides? Let's say a parent believes in spanking her children. Obviously, the child is harmed by a quick swat to the backside. Who decides if this "harm" is justified? Let's say my coworkers wants to use alcohol to excess. This is perfectly legal, but he is harming himself and possibly his family and friends. Who decides when he crosses the line and begins "hurting" other people. And here's another question, Lars: How do Tarzan and his enlightened collectivists plan to enforce this?

You see, Tarzan and his humanists cohorts are just a bit smarter than everyone else on the planet--an enlightened intelligentsia. Rather than let us muck around, they want to make decisions for us... all the wonderful name of "reason." Oh, sure, the wrapping paper on the humanist manifesto is pretty enough... but give the neo-Atheists a few minutes and they want to pass laws, form bureacracies and impose reason on a very nonrational world.

For a good read, try "Voltaire's Bastards."

-- information (findit@thelibrary.com), March 17, 2001.

Fine. Check out the thread on guns, I found some interesting facts for you.

Regarding your statement that I would impose my morality on a sociopath: a society requires laws to maintain order and to continue functioning. In a much as we wish to live in a society and be part of a community, we must abide by those rules. Of course, any individual is free to lobby to change those rules as he or she sees fit, and any other individual is free to criticize that effort. So you can push for the ability to molest children all you want, and I can oppose it, and you are free to complain that I'm imposing my morality on you. It doesn't bother me in the least.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 17, 2001.

Einstein imposed this same problem on physics when he produced his theories of relativity. There were far fewer absolutes, and everything became relative to everything else. Sacrilege!

In any case, the theists are faced with the same problem the humanists are -- what rules should be followed, and why? After a certain amount of trial and error, we found some rules of thumb that worked pretty well, and produced the greatest good for the greatest number within wide parameters.

Here the two groups split. The humanists recognize that these rules are flexible, that many diverse rule systems are perfectly workable because people are malleable, that circumstances are infinitely fine- grained, so absolute rules cannot apply absolutely. We try on rules to see if they fit, and devise feedback systems to use as mirrors. Some themes remain constant (two arms, two legs), but fashions change constantly, and always will.

Meanwhile, the theists decided to codify some early and local rules of thumb as absolutes, and convince themselves that they had a hotline to Truth. Of course, circumstances remain fine-grained, and these absolutes need a certain amount of mediation and interpretation. If we could bring the original codifyers back to life, they would no longer recognize their own "absolute" rules.

And one major difference in results is, religions that fail to adapt to the times lose adherants. Most of them are now long gone, and the tenets of the survivors have either morphed to fit as required, or been honored almost entirely in the breach.

And so humanists recognize that rules change by consensus, that we are our own ongoing experiment. We recognize that what's important isn't the rules themselves, but the way we make and change them -- the meta-rules. Absolutes are a chimera, and those who fail to recognize this can be dangerous.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 17, 2001.

Tyranny of the majority, Flint, ain't that different from the tyranny of a dictator.

Inevitably, the issue becomes not how to protect individuals in society, but how to improve individuals in society. C'mon, boys, we'll make the dour people happy; the naughty people nice. We're gonna make you wear a helmet when you ride your motorcycle, and you're gonna like it 'cause if for your own good. And we're going to ram all of these good intentions down your throat for price of about half your earnings... a deal at twice the price.

Humanists are rarely libertarians. More often, they are socialists. After all, with an idea as nifty as humanism, why not impose it on everyone?

-- information (lookitup@thelibrary.com), March 17, 2001.

information:

I think you are merely reflecting an aspect of human nature. Humanists want to impose on others because their ideas are nifty. Thiests *must* impose on others because their ideas are *right*! Anyone who watches children grow up recognizes that tolerance is an acquired trait, and acquired only partially, under duress, and with some difficulty.

So read #9 above. Humanists believe in civil liberties and human rights. This is good. MY idea of a humanist believes you are an idiot to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but that's your right. When you fall, you will get what you deserve. Your decision, not mine.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 17, 2001.

Anyone who watches children grow up recognizes that tolerance is an acquired trait, and acquired only partially, under duress, and with some difficulty.

I'm not convinced, Flint. I watched one of my girls playing when she was perhaps 3 years old. Strawberry Shortcake dolls were the rage at the time, and she had several of them. When she sat her dolls around a table to eat, however, she included the witch doll, the dracula doll, and the frankenstein doll. I laughed once she was 18 or so and told me how she'd gone to the DMV with Jason [an acquaintance.] Jason was wearing a dress. I thought, "She's still including frankenstein with Strawberry Shortcake."

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 17, 2001.

Flint:

The separation of church and state has kept the theists from running a "God-based" government. Instead, we have the humanists running governments based on their particular "faith." I laugh when I read people like Tarzan wetting himself over faith-based programs getting government money. Government has been running "faith-based" programs for years... all of the federal social programs are based on misty- eyed hopes, not on rational analysis. The ultimate end result of the 'war on poverty' was more poverty. What is rational about supporting agricultural products and not, let's say, women's shoes?

The humanist dogma posted on this thread reads like the communist manifesto. It reads real nice.

Hey, Flint, the communists make pretty promises, too. If you're a grad student full of idealism, naivete and pot, communism makes a great of deal sense. The problem, Flint, is you can't get people to agree on what's rational... and inevitably the "rational" people in power decide to shove it down everyone's throat.

And I agree with Anita. Children learn intolerance from their parents, and from society.

-- information (lookitup@thelibrary.com), March 18, 2001.

I laugh when I read people like Tarzan wetting himself over faith- based programs getting government money.

Actually, I'm not too worried about faith-based programs getting money. Actually, it amuses me to watch the squabbling and in- fighting. Everyone wants to get their slice of the pie, but only if they can prevent others from getting theirs. This will, of course, keep the initiative tied up in court for years before the Supreme Court eventually decides it's a violation of the first amendment.

I think this program will be Bush's Health Plan. Even Pat Robertson thinks it's a bad idea.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 18, 2001.

information:

I think I agree with you. All of our attempts to legislate morality end up victims of the Law of Unintended Consequences. We want to eliminate poverty by fiat, and end up subsidizing it and making it worse. We try to wage a war on drugs, and make drug dealing the single most profitable enterprise there is, no contest. And we get more drugs. This kind of thing happens every time do-gooders try to use government for social engineering.

Still, even though it's slow, we can recognize failure and abandon hopeless policies, and we do. We look at the results we intended, we look at the results we get, we look at the trends showing that the harder we tried the worse we made things, and sooner or later (read:later) we give up and try something else.

The "faith" lies in the philosophy that the government is the answer to all questions, the solver of all problems, the leveler of all inequities. It is this philosophy that leads us to try to do the impossible, and to make us unable to recognize that it's not working. I think the humanism part comes in with our eventual willingness to admit failure and try something else. Religious tenets, on the other hand, are simply not open to trial and error. They are *definitions*, not experiments.

But the difference can be subtle, since liberals and theists both want to force you to behave in a way they know is for your own good. The ability, when this fails, to say "Well, maybe that wasn't so good for you after all" is much better than saying "GOD demands this, so its effectiveness is NOT to be examined." What makes this difference subtle is that it takes so damn long to recognize that something isn't working, no matter how obvious this is, combined with the conviction that goverment is STILL the answer, so let's try forcing something ELSE on you that might work better.

So long as people want power because they know what's best for us better than we do, we'll have these problems.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 18, 2001.

Big Government, when directed by an enlightened, right-thinking, justice-driven intelligentsia is the only way to protect the working classes from exploitation by greedy Capitalist parasites.

-- (LeonTrotsky@Patrice_Lumumba_U.edu), March 18, 2001.

Anita,

I thought, "She's still including frankenstein with Strawberry Shortcake."

Does this thought proceed from your Dark Side, or your better half?[g]

-- Stephen M. Poole (smpoole7@bellsouth.net), March 19, 2001.