My Take On It

EXAMINING THE PRINCIPLES OF SECULAR HUMANISM FOR MYSELF

In case you haven't figured it out by now, I am on a quest. Since I have been growing frustrated with the faith that I had lived by for many years, I decided to explore if the grass is greener on the other side. Can someone be happy and fulfilled outside of Christ? Would my life be a lot richer if I didn't have the restraints of a deity? I have been doing a lot of research lately. Most of it includes testimonials of ex-born-again christians. Yes, it is possible to be one, LOL. They have discovered that what they believed was not all it was cracked up to be. In all fairness, it is possible that these people believed a bit too much. Perhaps they adhered too much into things not necessary, like no movies, or pants for women, or the concept of a young earth; thus the reason they left Christianity.

To make things more interesting, I've discovered that there are many people (including a few ex-Christians) who sing the praises of secular humanism. What exactly is it?

Council for Secular Humanism
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php

It is a world view which maintains that every belief system should be weighed and tested in order to determine its validity. We should never just accept something based on faith, but facts and evidence. They also adhere to the ethics of tolerance, free inquiry, and the betterment of humanity through humanity and not a deity. Many humanists are nontheists. I would be amiss if I did not admit that I found many humanistic ideals that are appealing to me. There is nothing wrong with that. It is healthy to acknowledge the truths we find. At the same time, I found a few things that didn't quite sit well with me. If I am free to question the faith that I have had for many years, I can and will question other world views. On that note, here are a few things that I found on The Council for Secular Humanism website. This blog contains info from A Secular Humanist Declaration and The Affirmations of Humanism.

Free inquiry requires that we tolerate diversity of opinion and that we respect the right of individuals to express their beliefs, however unpopular they may be, without social or legal prohibition or fear of sanctions. Though we may tolerate contrasting points of view, this does not mean that they are immune to critical scrutiny. The guiding premise of those who believe in free inquiry is that truth is more likely to be discovered if the opportunity exists for the free exchange of opposing opinions; the process of interchange is frequently as important as the result. This applies not only to science and to everyday life, but to politics, economics, morality, and religion.

The above declaration contradicts the declaration regarding science and technology. Secular humanists are opposed to including creationism in science curriculums. They feel that creationism should be limited to courses on religion or the history of ideas. It is the right of every humanist to believe whatever they wish. However, it is not their right to determine what the general public should view as science. After all, truth is more likely to be discovered if the opportunity exists for free exchange of opposing ideas, right? How is excluding creationism from general science curriculums a free exchange? It isn't as far as I am concerned. Allow me to make something clear. I do not believe that creationism should be forced upon anyone. However, I do believe that all viewpoints should be presented to our children within the same curriculum. It isn't up to anyone to determine what should be accepted as science, not humanists or theists. We must be exposed to all views and beliefs.

Ethics Based On Critical Intelligence

Morality that is not God-based need not be antisocial, subjective, or promiscuous, nor need it lead to the breakdown of moral standards. Although we believe in tolerating diverse lifestyles and social manners, we do not think they are immune to criticism.

What exactly are the moral standards followed by humanists? I wish this were more clearly defined on their site. Is it something determined by the individual?

The Affirmations of Humanism:

A Statement of Principles
We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.

Mature adults should express their sexual preferences? The fact is, we can't legislate what goes on in the bedrooms of mature adults. I would add in the word consenting with the word adult, but the affirmation doesn't use the word. The danger here is that nutcases can misinterpret or misuse what is being said (similar to how nutcases misuse religious texts) since the affirmation is too abstract. I believe in responsible sexual behavior. Certain types of sexual preferences are not healthy (my statement has nothing to do with my views on homosexuality, but sexual preferences in general). We should not be afraid to admit that in the name of tolerance and personal freedom. AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, and broken hearts should be enough to teach us that we should not tolerate all aspects of the expression of sexual preference. Again, sexual preference is not limited to the discussion of gays, lesbians, bi's, and straights. If the humanist council meant it as such, that should have been made clear.

We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.

Joy rather than guilt or sin? There are things that I have said and done to others that left me feeling guilty. Should I feel joy instead? I don't want to feel any joy when I do something wrong. This is not to say that the humanists believe we should feel joy about hurting others. It is to say that this word choice could lead to others interpreting it in a way that was unintended by the council. By the way, no one feels sin they commit sin.


There have been any number of distinguished secularists and humanists who have demonstrated moral principles in their personal lives and works: Protagoras, Lucretius, Epicurus, Spinoza, Hume, Thomas Paine, Diderot, Mark Twain, George Eliot, John Stuart Mill, Ernest Renan, Charles Darwin, Thomas Edison, Clarence Darrow, Robert Ingersoll, Gilbert Murray, Albert Schweitzer, Albert Einstein, Max Born, Margaret Sanger, and Bertrand Russell, among others.

Margaret Sanger?! A secular humanist?

http://blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/birthcontrol/bio-margaret-sanger.xml#1132244666315::-5699605734901894369

It would be best to make up your own mind about her. I know what I think.

Science And Technology
We believe the scientific method, though imperfect, is still the most reliable way of understanding the world. Hence, we look to the natural, biological, social, and behavioral sciences for knowledge of the universe and man's place within it.

Accordingly, we deplore the efforts by fundamentalists (especially in the United States) to invade the science classrooms, requiring that creationism theory be taught to students and requiring that it be included in biology textbooks...Moreover, we do not deny the value of examining theories of creation in educational courses on religion and the history of ideas; but it is a sham to mask an article of religious faith as a scientific truth and to inflict that doctrine on the scientific curriculum.

But here it says:

Moral Education

We do not think it is moral to baptize infants, to confirm adolescents, or to impose a religious creed on young people before they are able to consent. Although children should learn about the history of religious moral practices, these young minds should not be indoctrinated in a faith before they are mature enough to evaluate the merits for themselves.

Children should eventually evaluate the merit of ideas and beliefs when they are mature enough to do so. No question about it. The problem I have with the above is that the secular humanists appear to believe that this stance against "immoral indoctrination" should be limited to religious beliefs (whether they admit it or not). It is my humble opinion that people should be consistent in their views. To do otherwise presents an image that one feels threatened by the views of others. My problem with secular humanism is not limited to what is written in this blog. Based on all that I have discovered, secular humanism is certainly not for me.

posted by LorMarie @ 6:50 PM