On Humanism & Religious conformity
A Humanist group was formed recently in Singapore, and I had the privilege of attending their first meeting. I thoroughly enjoyed myself, thanks to the superb organization by the organizer (I will ask him if he wishes to be named, before I do so), and the great conversation we had amongst all who came.
Since all the participants got together via FB, we all did not know each other, nor did we know the organizer. We turned up at the café at the appointed time, and after 15 min, R, the organizer, was now where to be seen. All of us began wondering if that was the organiser’s introduction to us to agnosticism. Does R exist? That was our question, and we began to ask each other what evidence we each had for his existence, and we all discovered all each of us had was online communication – was that real? The waiter then came along, and he said R was real – they had met on an earlier day when R came to recce the place. Was the waiter a reliable witness? R did turn up in the end. But that was an interesting introduction to the concept of God and agnosticism.
I have been asked to comment on some of the tenets of Humanism, which I am very honored and happy to do so:
From http://www.meetup.com/Singapore-Humanism/pages/Humanism_and_its_aspirations/ , who in turn quotes the American Humanist Association (www.americanhumanist.org)
Humanism and its aspirations
“Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfilment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.”
mathialee: I agree that supernaturalism is unnecessary for people to lead responsible and ethical lives for the good of humanity. I disagree with the word “progressive” though, because it labels/implies that those who disagree with Humanism are regressive – it’s a tad disrespectful for my liking.
“The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.”
Mathialee: Agreed. Applicable to most other religious philosophies as well.
“This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:”
“Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.”
mathialee: I’ll agree with above, with a small but significant modification. Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, rational analysis, AND PERHAPS MORE PROCESSES. I believe that if we exclude the possibility of gaining knowledge through other means from the very start, then by that very mindset, we will never learn anything from any other process. I also disagree that science is the BEST method – it is a good method, but BEST? The longer I am a scientist, the more I doubt the scientific method, as it is practised in real life (and question mark to the method, as idealised too). Science is based on observation, logical and rational thought alone, but observation, logical and rational thought is not based on science alone.
“Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.”
Mathialee : am amused by this statement because it contradicts the last. I don’t think science has, and can ever prove, whether or not evolutionary change is guided or unguided, neither can it prove that nature is or is not self-existing. I think the only scientific statement we can make is, there is no scientific evidence for or against these claims.
“Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.”
Mathialee: Agreed, completely.
“Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.”
Mathialee: I feel uncomfortable with anyone / any philosophy dictating how I ought to find fulfilment in life, just because I identify/agree with certain tenets it purports.
“Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.”
Mathialee: See above comment again. I feel this statement might be discriminatory to people with Aspergers or any other personalities that do not enjoy social interaction. But for myself, yes I do aim to practise the above in my life.
“Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.”
mathialee: Again, my discomfort at anyone telling me how I should be happy. I’m more comfortable with groups that say “be happy in your own way, but not at the expense of my happiness” That said, yeh, practising the above does make me happy.
“Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.
Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.”
mathialee: Agreed.
My personal discomfort with religion, or any other identity groups (race, nationality, sexual orientation, social class etc etc) stems from the demand for group members to conform, not to just the defining tenet/characteristic, but also a whole list of other unnecessary baggage. In some cases, this is an outright demand, in other cases, it is a stereotype everyone imposes.
For eg. I’ll align myself with the defining tenet of Humanism, that humans can be good without bringing any god into the picture. Because I hate the idea that “being good” has to come together with “being religious” .But please don’t ask me to agree with every other tenet.
My discomfort has never really been whether or not God exists – I think I’m a rational agnostic and a faithful Jesus-dependant subjectivist.
Based on Christianity’s defining tenet , believing (unscientifically) that God exists in the person of Jesus, I should call myself a Christian. But I am wary of doing so, because I don’t see why, just because Jesus is God, it means I should discriminate against homosexuals, Israel should bomb the shit out of Gaza, I should enjoy singing and speaking in language no one uses etc etc. Neither do I believe that a Christian belief is necessary for a person to be good. The moment I identify myself as a Christian, people assume I am all these as well – which I am so not. So I’ll rather call myself a Jesus-dependant subjectivist.
In the same way, being malay and muslim is often lumped together, being gay and promiscuous is often lumped together, being feminist and independent is often lumped together. While these associations may be observed in an overwhelming percentage of members, demanding that members have to conform to the unnecessary stereotyped associations is an infringement of personal freedom of thought and autonomy.
It’s as absurd as a Human Rights Activist saying “I’ll kill you if you don’t support Human Rights”
Like this:
8 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
“I disagree with the word “progressive” though, because it labels/implies that those who disagree with Humanism are regressive”
Please check what progressive philosophy means before writing such sentences.
“The longer I am a scientist, the more I doubt the scientific method, as it is practised in real life”
He,he, I’m really curious what is that you define as scientific method and what is that you practice in “real life”.
“I think the only scientific statement we can make is, there is no scientific evidence for or against these claims. ”
Except that this is not a scientific statement.
The rest tl;dr, again.
Hi Softmat, I do agree with you at definations of the term used are necessary for us to know what each other is discussing, and I’ll agree that I’ve not been very thorough with the definations (given that it’s already tl;dr) , so thanks for pointing that out.
“progressive” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_education. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive. Given that there can be multiple interpretations of the term , I assume here that the author was taking the defination ” characterized by willingness to question tradition, acceptance of human diversity, and strong emphasis on social justice ”
I admit , and here correct , as a mistake, the term “regressive”. What I meant when I used the therm “regressive”, was the opposite of the above definations of “progressive”. But apparently, there is a branch of philisophy called “regressive philosophy” (https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/5304) and that was not what I was refering to.
The idealised “Scientific method” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
(if you wonder why I choose to rely on wiki so much, it’s because I think wiki’s technology ensures that it reflects the most well accepted view)
Science, as practised in real life, is subjected to the pressures of funding, market forces, laws, politics, the pressure to publish, to graduate etc etc. Truth is very vulnerable and subject to distortion by these pressures. Scientific findings are highly subject to confirmation bias ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias) . Taking a famous example : Many people have wondered how Mendel could be so lucky to be observing traits that were independently inheritated, and at such beautiful ratios. (google Mendel fraud)
“I think the only scientific statement we can make is, there is no scientific evidence for or against these claims. ”
If you set up a Hypothesis “there is scientific evidence for/against these claims” and your null hypothesis “there is no scientific evidence for/against these claims”, you will find that it is a scientific statement, because it is a testable hypothesis, and is falsifyable. Method : Analyse every single scientific article published, or more realistically, analyse every single scientific article published that claims to provide evidence, evaluate its validity, and then test that hypothesis.
Reading the rest of the article before commenting might allow you to find that what you are puzzled about is already explained there.
That said, I’m flattered, and hence appreciative of your effort to even come back here to read more of my articles = )
“if you wonder why I choose to rely on wiki so much, it’s because I think wiki’s technology ensures that it reflects the most well accepted view”
Wikipedia articles represent only the views of Wikipedia editors. No, wait, even worse – they reperesent the most accepted views of Wikipedia editors. It is a common mistake to assume that there is some sort of “collective knowledge” at work. Well, there isn’t, and the article on the “Scientific Method” is no exception. It is a disaster, as one of the editors admit. A link to Wikipedia give you always -10 points in any flame.
“Science, as practised in real life, is subjected to the pressures of funding, market forces, laws, politics, the pressure to publish, to graduate etc etc. Truth is very vulnerable and subject to distortion by these pressures. Scientific findings are highly subject to confirmation bias.”
You clearly confuse research with science.
“Analyse every single scientific article published, or more realistically, analyse every single scientific article published that claims to provide evidence, evaluate its validity, and then test that hypothesis”
Please, and how exactly you will prove that you did just that (that you analysed _every_ single scientific article)? You simply can’t.
I would gladly read your articles but their are slightly to much tl;dr, and most importantly after reading them I’m still not sure what are your personal opinions on the subject. Excess of ctrl-c ctrl-v doesn’t help either.
Can you think of a better way to derive knowledge of the world than “observation, experimentation, and rational analysis”? Other methods have been tried and they don’t work. It’s the same reason why Alternative and Complementary Medicine are rubbish. Of course, they can be shown to work, but that would be through “observation, experimentation, and rational analysis” and then they’d cease to be Alternative and Complementary. And science is the best method based on those principles – not the other way around.
“Science… does indeed teach values. Those values, among others, are honesty, doubt, respect for evidence, openness, accountability and tolerance and indeed hunger for opposing points of view… It is no coincidence that these are the same qualities that make for democracy.”
Sure science is fallible, but is there a better alternative to it? See: Churchill on Democracy
And strictly speaking science does not prove anything, but strictly speaking we can’t be sure of anything except that we exist (in some form or other) – for all you know we may be brains in vats. Thus, we can’t say anything for sure.
I do not see why the definition of humanist is discriminatory. It’s just part of the definition. If we define an athlete as someone who works out, does this discriminate against the sloths?
How can you be both “a rational agnostic and a faithful Jesus-dependant subjectivist”?! The terms are mutually exclusive.
And I can’t imagine a feminist who isn’t independent.
Softmat:
“A link to Wikipedia give you always -10 points in any flame.”
Hahha, oh, Softmat, is this what all your comments are about? A flame war? Oh I am very amused and flattered, truly. As a matter of fact, you’ve intrigued me enough to make me really curious to know what you’re like, what you’re really thinking, what your expression is as you type all this….. If you’re ever interested to do me the honor of having a chat over coffee, do let me know ; ) mathialee@yahoo.com
That said, I’ll like to respond to your points still, not because I’m into engaging in some flame war with you, but because I truly believe (ah, what a statement of faith!) that there are readers who wonder the same things that you do.
Agagooga:
Knowing the quality of your reading material, and your own personal writings, I am very very honored that you have actually taken the time to read my work, and even comment. Thanks! = )
It’s a long reply , I’ll reply to both of you together, by topic.
Wikipedia as a Reference:
The reliability of Wikipedia? I read that on average, it has 3 more mistakes than Britannica per article and that Britanica is trying to go the Wiki way. But of course, an source of info has its bias, and you pointed Wiki’s out. Even the most rigorous science papers have their bias, which few understand. That’s why it’s important for us to cite our source. It allows everyone to understand the limitations of the blog post. And of course, why would I spend the effort going for obscure references when Wiki already lists my definations?
The reliability of science in practice:
Science vs research? Well unless you clearly state your definations for both, this is going to be an argument of semantics, which I’m not too keen on getting into. My point is simply that many non-scientists have lots of faith in not just the scientific method, but scarily, also the information that is published by the scientific community. When I started my research work 10 years ago, I used to think that my professors/ senior scientists were incredibly arrogant for the way they criticized articles in the top-tier journals. Jealousy, that’s what I thought it was. Today, I see firsthand, and so understand and propagate this skepticism. And I hope to create more awareness for it.
Analysing _EVERY_single scientific article:
You assert that I simply can’t prove that I analysed _every_ scientific article? That’s exactly what patent offices do all over the world, every single day. To issue a patent, you have trawl and make sure that the invention has NEVER been published before, in the world, in history. The same applies for all published scientific articles – you can only publish what has NEVER been published before, and to do that , you, and your peer reviewers, have to do that thorough literature survey. Tough work, but has to be done.
(On a side note by the way, for those of you that know me personally, yes this is the exact reason I’m taking so long to finish that damn thesis. Ok , ok, plus the blogging. And FB. And MSN. And ….)
Better methods than the scientific method:
I bet you there are clerics in parts of the world today saying
“Can you think of a better way to derive knowledge of the world than “through reading our holy texts”?
And the rest of the world wonders why they never look beyond their holy books for knowledge.
My point is not that I know of better methods than the scientific method.
Honestly, I don’t, although I do know its limitations
My point is that just because (we believe) no one in this world knows a better method, does not mean there cannot be. I think it would be safer for humanity if we were more open-minded and less arrogant to claim we already know the best knowledge-derivation method there could ever possibly be. There’s still much room in the field of epistemology.
I guess my training as a scientist has made me think this way.
Unlike a Physician, who would tell his patient “This medicine does have its side effects, but it’s the best in existence, so I’ll prescribe it for you”, the Scientist will always tell you “This may be the best medicine in existence, but this cannot be the best medicine possible. In fact, I will not even accept that there can ever be such a thing as the “best medicine possible”. Hence, I and/or my colleagues will always work on a better medicine for you, funds be willing.
a rational agnostic and a faithful Jesus-dependant subjectivist:
How can I be both? I think you gave the answer here
“And strictly speaking science does not prove anything, but strictly speaking we can’t be sure of anything except that we exist (in some form or other) – for all you know we may be brains in vats. Thus, we can’t say anything for sure.”
So strictly speaking, rationally, you’re a Agagooga-agnostic, just as I am a Mathialee-agnostic. We’ll both admit that rationally, strictly speaking, we can’t be sure even of the form that we exist in. But both of us still go about living our lives as if we are sure. Our lives are our own constructs of reality that we put our faith in. Out of sheer practicality, we assume our reality is really real. Our reality is subject to our own assumptions and treatment of reality.
In that same way, in the religious sense, I’m a rational agnostic, but I choose to subject my faith/assumption-based religious reality on the existence of Jesus. And I do recognize that this “Jesus-dependant” religious interpretation is uniquely my own, and that what other Christian believers believe in, is not the real Jesus, but their understanding of their interpretations of their pastors’ understanding of his interpretation of his textbook author’s understanding of his interpretations of ……. You get the gist….
Actually, this interpretation of Christianity is fairly new – it’s part of the Emergent / Post- Modern Christian interpretation, that fundamentalists, evangelicals etc etc are all hopping mad about because they claim to know the absolute truth, without any agnosticism.
Discriminatory criteria:
Just because I believe that goodness is independent of god (basically that’s humanism), why should I have to find meaning in social relationships? If we include that in the defination, then people with Asperger’s or autism cannot be humanists? Doesn’t sound quite right to me……..
I think sometimes, we should just have one single defining criteria, and even then, people can be so diverse. Just to share something interesting about feminism and its diversity.
All over the world, feminist organisations are divided along a particular line : whether or not feminists should allow men to join Feminists/ Women’s Rights organisations. The more moderate ones also debate about whether male members should have the full rights that the female members have, or to what extent should men in Women’s organisations be given power.
On one hand, there are those who argue that men are already so represented at all levels of society, and the purpose of having a Women’s org is so that women can have a voice, from a woman’s perspective. If men had deciding power within these organisations, then it would be the men’s perspective all over again.
On the other hand, there are those who argue that Women’s org fighting for gender equality should not be the ones to practice gender inequality! For the record, I’m with this camp. I always believed that we don’t have to be animals to fight for animal rights, we don’t have to gay to fight for gay rights and we don’t have to be women to fight for women’s rights.
Softmat:
“A link to Wikipedia give you always -10 points in any flame.”
“Hahha, oh, Softmat, is this what all your comments are about? A flame war? Oh I am very amused and flattered, truly.”
In fact, it gives you -10 points in any discussion.
“If you’re ever interested to do me the honor of having a chat over coffee, do let me know”
A coffee with a stranger met online. You are a really brave girl!
Thanks for the invitation, but I think I will pass for the time being.
“Wikipedia as a Reference: I read that on average, it has 3 more mistakes than Britannica per article and that Britanica is trying to go the Wiki way. But of course, an source of info has its bias, and you pointed Wiki’s out. Even the most rigorous science papers have their bias, which few understand. That’s why it’s important for us to cite our source. It allows everyone to understand the limitations of the blog post. And of course, why would I spend the effort going for obscure references when Wiki already lists my definations?”
You can go for any references you like, but it doesn’t work this way, that you are now covered, because Wiki says so. What you write I take as your own opinion regardless of the source you cite. Giving sources are too often treated as an excuse. Well, it ain’t.
“My point is simply that many non-scientists have lots of faith in not just the scientific method, but scarily, also the information that is published by the scientific community. ”
As do many scientists. Duhem pointed it out correctly, that science is no without a dogma.
“That’s exactly what patent offices do all over the world, every single day. To issue a patent, you have trawl and make sure that the invention has NEVER been published before, in the world, in history.”
This is clearly not what patent offices do (in theory and in practise). Otherwise there would be no patent litigations. The patent examiner just uses a database (often inferior to those available at universities) to search for certain keywords. Then the claims are checked. For patents, any previous disclosure of similar invention in the public domain make it also nonpatentable.
But hey, you didn’t answer the question how would you prove that you cheked every scientific paper?
We use rationality and empiricism because they work.
The moment something better comes along, no doubt we will move to it (eventually).
For example, a sewing pattern was published in a scientific journal. Unconventional, yes, but it was accepted because it worked (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041219170412.htm)
“Faith” is a very dodgy word, because it has multiple meanings and people slip between them. Suffice it to say that faith in gods is not the same as faith that putting my hand in the flame will burn me, or faith that I am not a brain in a vat. You are also abusing the word “agnostic” beyond its common meaning.
People with autism and asperger’s are by definition not normal/well. But not all of them are so “unwell” that they cannot be humanists.
I don’t think having a single defining criterion for anything is helpful. If you narrow it down so much you don’t get very far. But if it’s too broad it’s useless too *shrug*
Agagooga, just clarifying, do you mean to say that autistics and asperger’s who are very “unwell” cannot be humanists?
Of course rationality and empiricism work. I never argued against that. What i am saying is that the scientific method is but a subset, and I do believe we are both in agreement that the scientific method has its limitations.
In my subsequent post , on whether & how emotionally safe-sex can be achieved, I am doing a small, blog-based social experiment. Of course the experimental set up is FAR FAR from perfect, but I am waiting to see the responses before I step in ( The scientist should always be a neutral observer, with minimal interference. But I had to step in on the AWARE thingy because I don’t want to misrepresent and get sued by AWARE)
Sex and emotions are a very fascinating topic when examining the scientific method, because many people can relate to the experience of both. And we can see what can be tested scientifically, and what cannot.
Honestly, at this point, I don’t know how to respond, or draw conclusions. Perhaps, if you are interested enough, you could help me? = )