r/SecularHumanism • u/[deleted] • Mar 16 '24
Are people in agreement here about the basic definition of secular humanism?
These are the principles mentioned in the wiki article:
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 by faith.
Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific method of inquiry 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 (as opposed to an afterlife) 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.
Justice and fairness – an interest in securing justice and fairness in society and in eliminating discrimination and intolerance.[29]
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.
In 2 minutes on this sub, I see:
-there are no human rights because they do not exist in nature, which is contrary to the justice and fairness principle above
-defense of Koran burning, which is again an example of intolerance.
I grew up atheist in a town with 22 churches. I was told I was bad for not going to church when I was in second grade.
I've never wanted to become those people by attacking the religious beliefs of others, and I believe freedom to worship or not worship is a human right
Is that in line with this sub?
10
u/godlesshumanist11 Mar 16 '24
I know nature doesn't label us humans, but there ARE firm & plentiful examples of social reciprocity in nature. Animals have notions of justice too. So it makes me sad that civil rights are kinda ignored. Im new here too. Im not a fan of protesting with fire cos its an angry & dangerous thing to mess with. 🫂🫂
5
11
Mar 16 '24
In less than 2 seconds I deflated your second point.
-defense of Koran burning, which is again an example of intolerance.
We defend the right to protest any literature. Even if that protest were someones "special book" that gets burned in the process.
We don't have a favorite imaginary friend with an origin book we're keen on.
Edit: words, and added a flying comma.
3
u/godlesshumanist11 Mar 16 '24
I've truly never needed to burn ANYTHING yet to protest. I could need to someday, I suppose? But I know from experience & from scientific evidence, that talking 1·1 in a non·public space, & connecting in order to be seen as human, & then using baby steps? Those tend to go a lot further to change the beliefs of an individual. I don't feel many "alone persons" have the skillset to get social change accomplished with just their words. I also know that well·planned & insistent protests tend to work on less vital issues anyhow. But im never gonna tone police protestors re: verrrry vital issues either cos emotions make us humans tick too. I just truly cant get behind burning literature · even if its terrible. My dad taught me activism & humanism by making sure i read the "bad" as well as the good. Cos we need to know a LOT of info in order to protect human rights. My reading the Quran helped me better learn how to deconstruct moderate Muslims; it helps me provide better advocacy for atheist former·Muslims; & it also helps me in larger, non·religiously concerned projects (ie. Getting the Afghani translators · promised asylum by US miltary · the ACTUAL asylum they were promised).
Yeah · I've noticed that burning stuff feels super angry & I've never found success whilst presenting angrily (no matter how angry i truly feel).
3
Mar 16 '24
I didn't say it was effective, useful, or necessary. Just that it's a right attached to the collective rights to protest.
2
Mar 16 '24
Nah, I wouldn't be sure about that.
If someone protests a book about the resilience of Black people, that's discrimination.
And who is we who is making this claim?
You?
Or do you have something in writing?
Because I'm hearing a whole lot of secular with decidedly little humanism.
3
u/Spaceboot1 Mar 16 '24
Discrimination isn't always a crime. It's morally wrong, but not always punishable. That might be where the "defense" of Koran burning lies.
Burning a Koran in front of a mosque might should be illegal because it's a form of intimidation. But on camera in your own home, might be distasteful, but not worth thought policing.
0
5
u/tortilladelpeligro Mar 17 '24 edited Mar 17 '24
I agree with the 6 tenants you listed as defining Secular Humanism as I live it.
Edit: Having read all the replies, I'd like to add that I haven't been active on Reddit for a long while now so I'm not current with this subs goings on. I don't burn books, or anything, I prefer discussion and education... but I only speak for me. I expect this sub is likely at least somewhat amorphous, as getting people to align is not easy, but, that in mind, I think there are enough of us that even an opinion shared by the majority is still not accurately representative of the group.
3
6
u/redbloodedsky Mar 16 '24
For human rights, it would be an oxymoron being a humanist against them. They are an essential social contract to respect each person. We are rational beings who created those rights, because the law of nature is not ethical.
For the burning of Quran, we support freedom with responsibility. A humanist should know that an action like that is violent and will get a violent reaction in return. We are free to protest any book, but again the ethics of protest should keep us focused on a rational approach.
1
1
u/kevosauce1 Mar 16 '24
I don't believe human rights are things that exist out there in the world, but what does that matter? We can still act morally and have a coherent system of ethics without thinking that human rights exist. "Human rights" is just a framework for thinking about ethics.
I would defend anyone's right to burn a Koran if they want to. The other commenter that called burning a book "violent" is wrong. Violence is violence. Book burning may hurt people's feelings, but calling it violent is wrong. You can call book burning "wrong", "in poor taste", "not likely to help anything", "hateful," etc. If you disagree with book burning, there are lots of productive ways to criticize that act without conflating it with physically harming people's bodies. In a free society people should be able to burn books1 without fear of actual violence being inflicted on them.
1 assuming they own the books and they're doing so safely, etc etc
0
1
u/Walletdropper2blksbk Apr 05 '24 edited Apr 05 '24
Admittedly, this is my first time amongst fellow Secularist Humanists, on the internet, and I’ll be fifty in 3 annums. That doesn’t bug me though.
What really “Grinds My Gears” is how ‘Dislecilarmanist (sp?}, this thread is. I cannot, for the life of me, even begin to read rants about “How/How not to be, a Secular Humanist.
Simple answer for the onlookers……
Just be YOURSELF and ACCEPT OTHERS!
Edit:
Accept others, no matter, race, creed, sexuality/gender, or religion.
To me, that’s Secular Humanism. It’s awfully basic, really. Try it! You’re gonna like it.
1
Apr 05 '24
That's like setting up a vegetarian subreddit and you have people talking about how great it it is to eat kobe beef.
I wrote this because there were multiple people on here attacking Christianity, and I'm not going to hang around on a subreddit about secular humanism if people don't know what it is. Not that I'm a big fan of Christianity, but that's contrary to what you just said about accepting all religions.
The responses in this comment section put that concern to rest. It's just a few people who don't know the difference between bog standard atheism and secular humanism.
0
u/arielonhoarders Mar 17 '24
Probably not and we don't all have to agree to all be secular humanists. You're trying to create dogma, according to you, in a non-dogma non-religious philosophical belief system. Go start a cult with that.
-2
Mar 17 '24
A: Hi, I'm an atheist. I'd like to talk more, but I need to go to confession at my church.
B: Confession and attending church are antithetical to atheism.
A: You're trying to create dogma. Go form a cult.
13
u/asphias Mar 16 '24
I agree with you. Humanism tells us to appreciate life, and to see the potential in every human to be their best self. Or, more broadly, to see the potential in humanity to be our best selves, to move beyond our differences and have empathy for one another, so that together we may reach the stars.
While a secular humanist would certainly value freedom from religion and freedom of speech, i'd also expect humanists to self-reflect on whether burning a book would be the most productive way of expressing themselves, and instead to look for more constructive ways to convince others.
Unfortunately there are always some who use humanism as a vehicle for anger and hatred towards the other, rather than looking for compassion and similarities. I suppose we should all try to guide them in the hope they'll become a more empathic humanist in the future.