Secular Humanism / Humanists?

[Dee Ell]

I recently took that "belief-o-matic" test on Belief.net to see where I stand at this point in my life and I was 100% Secular Humanist (despite being raised in an off-shoot of Christianity and later following a meditation-based Sikh-like religion).

I'm not sure how to find a sense of Faith in Secular Humanism, though (I am extremely empathetic (in fact, often debilitatingly so) and want to help people, but I am at the same time heartbroken and often disgusted by humanity).

I mention Faith because that is what I have observed keeps people going: faith in their god(s), family, sports team, country, what-have-you. Even if it is unfounded. And most of the time it just looks like delusion to me, but it's obviously a delusion that keeps people happy! And happiness is something I have not experienced very often in my lifetime.

So I'm wondering how other "secular humanists" on this site find a deeper meaning to life - not just day-to-day goals/meaning, but a broader one. Or is that a contradiction in terms?

(I really didn't like how on that "test" there was no distinction between "not believing" in something and "not sure" about something - to me they're totally different, but I don't know where that would leave me anyway...)

So any other secular humanists out there feel like chiming in on what it means to you and how - if you don't believe in something "bigger" than yourself - you don't feel like life is without meaning or a point?

 

[Richard]

Among other topics, Humanist Manifesto III explicates the following statements:

· Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
· Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
· Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.​

 

[ravenest]

I recently took that "belief-o-matic" test on Belief.net to see where I stand at this point in my life and I was 100% Secular Humanist (despite being raised in an off-shoot of Christianity and later following a meditation-based Sikh-like religion).

I'm curious to know that off-shoot of Christianity and a meditation-based Sikh-like religion was ( because it helps to answer your question better and because I have studied Comparative Religion hence curious about such things) ?

I'm not sure how to find a sense of Faith in Secular Humanism, though (I am extremely empathetic (in fact, often debilitatingly so) and want to help people, but I am at the same time heartbroken and often disgusted by humanity).

That might be a more common sentiment than you imagine., secular view or not.

I mention Faith because that is what I have observed keeps people going: faith in their god(s), family, sports team, country, what-have-you.

I think here it is a matter of not ' who wins or looses but how you play' on a greater level. Having faith of getting a reward or avoiding punishment doesn't cut it either ... as the Sufis say ; 'Let me cast into hell for either'. ... But maybe some need that?

Even if it is unfounded. And most of the time it just looks like delusion to me, but it's obviously a delusion that keeps people happy! And happiness is something I have not experienced very often in my lifetime.

Today I have been reading up on this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia

It might put some of this in context ?

So I'm wondering how other "secular humanists" on this site find a deeper meaning to life - not just day-to-day goals/meaning, but a broader one. Or is that a contradiction in terms?

Perhaps, depends on how you look at it? Does it 'need' to have a 'meaning' ? If so, doesnt 'experience' suffice? Accruing experience, that is ... not just 'being' but 'going' ... ever moving forward and gaining experience ... even if it is about gaining experience 'just' to accrue happiness for oneself and others - the Dali Lama seems to think so ... and he is a secular humanist

(I really didn't like how on that "test" there was no distinction between "not believing" in something and "not sure" about something - to me they're totally different, but I don't know where that would leave me anyway...)

Arggggh! Dont start me on tests and quizzes

So any other secular humanists out there feel like chiming in on what it means to you and how - if you don't believe in something "bigger" than yourself - you don't feel like life is without meaning or a point?

Hard to answer (like a quiz question) because I am not sure how big 'myself' actually is on the one hand and on the other, there are forces MUCH bigger than myself which need not be strictly seen as 'non-secular'.

I have my own little Tree that I use. Its a bit complex for here ... the above ( including the post above this) pretty much sum it up ... add a few processes for balancing disturbed psyches .

I found the comment interesting made by a renown 'atheist' when fronted by a religionist that without religion people would all do horrible things to each other and society would collapse, etc. He replied offended that he didnt have a religion and he wasnt a criminal, he didnt need a religion to know to be nice and help others it was an instinct ...and in a world full of religion, things looked pretty horrible from where he stood.

I think I agree with him.

 

[Richard]

I think that for secular humanism to work, in the sense of providing a satisfying world view, one must have 'faith' (sorry about that word) in humanity, which begins with 'faith' in oneself. Otherwise it can lead to nihilism. Not that there is anything particularly wrong with nihilism, except that it is not compatible with the instinct to sustain and propagate life.

Whatever one's philosophy, consciousness of self remains a mystery. The dance of the world is all there is, in spite of a lot of seemingly idiotic goings-on. So one may as well join in the dance. There is nothing much else going on at the moment.

 

[Dee Ell]

Among other topics, Humanist Manifesto III explicates the following statements:

· Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
· Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
· Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.​

Mahalo for sharing that LRichard - before I took that "quiz" I wasn't aware there was an actual movement of people like the Secular Humanists --- to me, this all speaks of what I consider common human decency. But obviously it's not really "common" because we see evidence of so much cruelty and neglect in this world (which is precisely why I get depressed and disgusted with humanity - though clearly not all of humanity. But it never ceases to amaze me how relatively few people abide by The Golden Rule -- "Treat others as you would like to be treated"...)

 

[Dee Ell]

I think here it is a matter of not ' who wins or looses but how you play' on a greater level. Having faith of getting a reward or avoiding punishment doesn't cut it either ... as the Sufis say ; 'Let me cast into hell for either'. ... But maybe some need that?

Yeah, I guess if that's one's definition of faith, then some probably need that, but I'm referring to something more than that. I mean, you don't exactly have Faith in family to get a reward or avoid punishment (although clearly in some cases and situations that is sadly a factor).

Today I have been reading up on this;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia

It might put some of this in context ?

hmmm... I will have to read this more deeply, but on a cursory reading it looks very interesting (and in case you don't speak/read Greek and are curious of how to pronounce that word correctly, it would be: eff thy mo NEE ah not that most english-speaking people would bother to pronounce it correctly)

Perhaps, depends on how you look at it? Does it 'need' to have a 'meaning' ? If so, doesnt 'experience' suffice? Accruing experience, that is ... not just 'being' but 'going' ... ever moving forward and gaining experience ... even if it is about gaining experience 'just' to accrue happiness for oneself and others - the Dali Lama seems to think so ... and he is a secular humanist

The "need" for "meaning" is probably just conditioning (I went to church twice a week until university and grasped at my religion as a child and young adult to make sense of the terrifying environment in which I was raised). But it's still there. And it's still a source of pain for me, in feeling like there's no real (larger) point.

I have my own little Tree that I use. Its a bit complex for here ... the above ( including the post above this) pretty much sum it up ... add a few processes for balancing disturbed psyches .

I don't understand this paragraph at all - I'm going to pm my answer to your very first question, so you can clarify in a pm reply if you'd like to elaborate on this here or privately.

I found the comment interesting made by a renown 'atheist' when fronted by a religionist that without religion people would all do horrible things to each other and society would collapse, etc. He replied offended that he didnt have a religion and he wasnt a criminal, he didnt need a religion to know to be nice and help others it was an instinct ...and in a world full of religion, things looked pretty horrible from where he stood.

I think I agree with him.

Yes, I would agree with him as well. As I mentioned to LRichard above about The Golden Rule, it has been mostly religious people (including church officials, leaders, what-have-you) that have shown the most selfish and callous behaviour towards me in my personal experience. I've observed that the self-righteousness that religion too often provides people with enables them to do horrible things in complete peace of mind. It's heart breaking and mind boggling. The worst evidence of this is when people use their beliefs to condemn, punish, and even kill others for not believing what they do. It's amazing that in our modern world this kind of thing is still happening (and I'm referring to *completely* modern countries here).

 

[Richard]

.......But it never ceases to amaze me how relatively few people abide by The Golden Rule -- "Treat others as you would like to be treated"...)

It is ironic that secular humanists are more Christ-like in their ethical standards than many Christians.

 

[Dee Ell]

It is ironic that secular humanists are more Christ-like in their ethical standards than many Christians.

Amen.

 

[ravenest]

It's amazing that in our modern world this kind of thing is still happening (and I'm referring to *completely* modern countries here).

Okay ... I wasnt going to say this .... but

Perhaps with the need for religion and when one 'supasses the need' is a matter of intellectual development ? (and spiritual development ... I mean that in a higher sense)

The least common trait of humanity, at times, seems to be common sense.

Ministers and organisers of religion that use it aversely are perhaps the most lost of all ?

I feel a mixture of real sadness for them, in their angst, but when they project that out to damage their flock ... especially in the worst and most spiritually traitorous of circumstances .... I want them to be stopped and punished (and I dont usually go along with corporal punishment) ... actually I really censored myself there by substituting the word punished with what I was going to write.

" 5. Yet, oh aspirant, let thy victories bring thee not Vanity, for with increase of Knowledge should come increase of Wisdom. He who knoweth little, thinketh he knoweth much; but he who knoweth much hath learned his own ignorance. Seest thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope of a fool, than of him. "

http://www.sacred-texts.com/oto/lib30.htm

Actually, I dont mean to be contradictory but that Christian concept of 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' IMO is flawed and leads to some of their problems;

I am born again ... I feel great and my soul is forever saved ... for living in bliss in all eternity. Thats much more important than anything that can happen in this physical life.

Ergo, if , for some reason I wasnt saved and didnt realise that ... wouldn't I want someone to help me and show me the 'truth' even though they might be annoying me in this mundane physical life ... even though they might be hounding me ... forcing me... its for my own good not their's ... and so on ... it happens today and it was the 'moral' impetus behind the inquisition, tortures and other 'niceties' like the Holy Vehm (shudder).

One could try this as a little experiment; Do unto others as they would have you do unto them. Ie. do your own true will and support others in theirs ... dont think your own true will applies to others. (The 'you' is a collective, not a personal.)

 

[Dee Ell]

Actually, I dont mean to be contradictory but that Christian concept of 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' IMO is flawed and leads to some of their problems;

I am born again ... I feel great and my soul is forever saved ... for living in bliss in all eternity. Thats much more important than anything that can happen in this physical life.

Ergo, if , for some reason I wasnt saved and didnt realise that ... wouldn't I want someone to help me and show me the 'truth' even though they might be annoying me in this mundane physical life ... even though they might be hounding me ... forcing me... its for my own good not their's ... and so on ... it happens today and it was the 'moral' impetus behind the inquisition, tortures and other 'niceties' like the Holy Vehm (shudder).

One could try this as a little experiment; Do unto others as they would have you do unto them. Ie. do your own true will and support others in theirs ... dont think your own true will applies to others. (The 'you' is a collective, not a personal.)

hmmm... that's a very interesting take on The Golden Rule and a way of looking at it I have never considered before. Personally, I don't think anyone has the right to dictate how anyone else should live, so "forcing" someone to do something *I* think is best for them is so far out of my range I couldn't interpret The Golden Rule that way. But I *can* see how fanatics would, and for me, that just goes back to self-righteousness. People thinking they know better than someone else what's best for them.

So when I talk about The Golden Rule, I'm talking about on a human level - would you want someone else to torture you for their beliefs? Of course not. People can find justifications for all of their atrocities, but I just don't see that as truly "treating someone as you would like to be treated" -- it's basic respect, compassion, and consideration that I think could really "save" humanity.

And from what I've observed - whatever motivations are professed - any "saving" of others usually isn't *really* being done for the sake of the person being "saved" -- it's done to gain God-brownie points for the person doing the "saving"!!


(so yes, it sounds like we both have the same "end result" in mind, regardless of the wording but of course people can interpret words so many different ways to suit their needs and desires!)