Ask a Question
A Call-In Radio Show featuring Atheists from the Tacoma/Seattle Area
Voice Mail Line: (206) 420-0997

  • Secular Humanism

      10 comments
      24th Jul 11
      Sam

    This week, Sam and some members of the Humanists of Washington try to figure out if Mike is a humanist or not.

      Upcoming Episodes

    • Comments (10)

    • Trackbacks (0)

    • Henry (from San Jose)

      (#4525) July 25th, 2011 at 17:57

      Regarding this week’s show, when I created the Employee Manual for my company, the template I used included a clause that prohibited selling to or proselytizing other employees, and I definitely decided to keep it. So if anyone had ever suggested saying grace before any work-related lunch or dinner, I would have quoted that clause as a way of shutting it down.

      [top]

    • Henry (from San Jose)

      (#4526) July 25th, 2011 at 18:31

      I also hope you can talk Mike into admitting he’s a Humanist because it might make him more eager to engage with critics of humanism who call in. There have been a couple of theist callers who have confused atheism with humanism and instead of defending the moral superiority of humanism, Mike has instead retreated into the “atheism is merely non-belief” trope.

      [top]

    • Mike Gillis

      (#4532) July 26th, 2011 at 00:40

      I’m still not certain I’m a Humanist, though my ethics are humanistic.

      However, atheism IS just non-belief. I can’t specifically remember any callers who criticized humanism, but I’m happy to talk about a reason and evidence-based moral system being superior to a dogma and superstition-based one.

      I can recall some callers or emailers who thought that atheism was inherently immoral or led to bad behavior, where I would have to say that atheism doesn’t really have tenets or moral rules — good or bad. No more than basic theism does. It only relates to one question.

      Most atheists tend to be humanists, but not all of us are. I’m still not sure if I am. As far as my moral or philosophical or political beliefs, I think it’s fair to say I lean towards some organized schools of thought, but they also tend to be heavily modified to fit my various quirks and opinions. Sort of “house rules.”

      In talking with Sam and others for the past couple years, my biggest divergence from humanism is that I don’t necessarily tend towards thinking that all people should be part of the solution or have value in society. Some people are just harmful and hateful assholes who I wish would move away and live on an island with the other assholes and stop being assholes near me. And also because while I respect the right of people to hold their beliefs — I don’t respect people’s beliefs as a general rule.

      Some people believe and act stupidly and I don’t have a problem saying so. I respect a belief based on its merits, not because beliefs are inherently deserving of respect because I believe them.

      Well, that’s my stream of consciousness response. I hope it made sense.

      [top]

    • Mike Gillis

      (#4533) July 26th, 2011 at 00:40

      Either way, thanks for listening! :)

      [top]

    • Zenferno

      (#4551) July 26th, 2011 at 18:46

      Henry, I don’t think anyone should really be trying to convince Mike to call himself anything. Part of the awesomeness of atheism is the freedom from subscribing to others ideals in whole or in part.

      [top]

    • Will

      (#4556) July 27th, 2011 at 06:43

      My problem with Humanism is their insistance on doing good for its own sake. I personally don’t have a problem with doing good, because doing good makes me happy. But saying that you must believe that goodness has inherent and objective value is a different animal. You guys talked about being “more altruistically aware” when you know this is the only life we have. But that awareness doesn’t necessarily follow from knowing that this is our only life. You also talked about maximizing our enjoyment and pleasure in this life. That, I think, does follow from knowing this is our only life. So if being “good” or doing “good” makes you happy, then, and only then, does goodness have value, but only for the individual who personally values “goodness”; and it may hold no value whatsoever for another individual. And of course that certainly can’t be called altruism.
      Now if by “good” humanists mean doing things and living the life that individuals subjectively value, than I have no problem with that. Human behavior, for the most part, follows a pattern and thankfully more people value helping more than hurting, but that isn’t necessary. Nietzsche said, “All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” And by “all things” here, I am talking about “goodness”.

      [top]

    • Will

      (#4557) July 27th, 2011 at 07:21

      As I continued to listen to the podcast, you spoke a little more to my last comment. It was said that one of the tenants of Humanism is that “the universe doesn’t have an opinion” and that “We create our own answer to what is the meaning of life?” But I see this as in conflict with the idea of doing good for its own sake. If doing good has objective value, then you’re saying that the universe does have an opinion. If the universe truly doesn’t have an opinion, then Hitler is just as good as Oxfam or Amnesty International.

      [top]

    • Mike Gillis

      (#4558) July 27th, 2011 at 09:55

      Will, to be clear, we’re not talking about an objective standard for good. No one said anything about an objective good.

      We’re talking about the standard of the minimization of harm, our standard. And like any moral standard, it’s subjective. It has effects that are fairly objectively measurable — infant mortality, quality of life…etc.

      The universe doesn’t have any opinion, and like human rights, any standard of morality comes from one source: people. We, as humans, define and shape our morality and we enforce it.

      I would say that someone would have a very hard time arguing that a morality system that demands that that reality conform to their own beliefs and values would be superior to one that accepts the universe on its own terms and works within it.

      [top]

    • Will

      (#4566) July 27th, 2011 at 18:10

      Mike,
      Well put that way … I think I am guilty of looking for humanism to be making an objective morality claim and misreading/hearing what was really meant. I’m reading through “On Humanism” by Richard Norman and I’m going to have to reread his chapter on morality because I may have taken away the wrong idea. This was the first “Ask An Atheist” podcast I’ve listened to, but I’ve subscribed and will keep listening!

      [top]

    • Sam

      (#4572) July 28th, 2011 at 01:24

      Thanks Will!

      I think talking about “good” in the context of humanism and atheism in important, since so many people (including in some cases, myself) see the world in terms of good and evil.

      As a humanist, I don’t believe in an objective concept of good and evil in the way “objective” is usually defined. Hitler is bad because he did bad things by my[1] standards. I think the beginnings of the standards we’re using to judge go pretty deep into our development, but they’re certainly not defined by anything inherent in physics or the creation of the universe, nor are they immutable.

      But I prefer to do “good” things because it benefits the world around me.

      [1]: Honestly, “our” rather than “my”. I didn’t define the standard, I just adopted it.

      [top]

    Write a comment




 
X

Contact Ask an Atheist