|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 09:44:32 [Permalink]
|
Dude:
…And if not (which I suspect), then Harris may have the right of things, and we need to stick to the business of challenging the nonsense, one specific claim at a time. Which we would do anyway.... |
I think that may just be our lot in life. But on the upside, for those who engage in critical thinking, the rewards for doing that (along with the frustrations) are many. We still stand as the first line of defense against all kinds of nonsense. What we need is more exposure to demonstrate to a wider audience what it is that we are about by making positive contributions to our culture. Robert Lancaster was very successful in shedding a true light on Sylvia Brown to a wider audience than we have come to expect from a debunking, for example. We have made some headway…
Our focus, it seems to me, should be to learn how best to use the resources we have, and to educate. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 11/19/2007 : 09:48:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I guess what I am saying is I can't be bothered by how my worldview is going to be twisted by those who don't agree with me. It's going to happen. |
Sure, but with a new label, we get to start defining it as we like, and if we defend our use vigorously enough, misconceptions won't become the norm.
Look at what happens when people come in here calling themselves skeptics when they're obviously not using the tools correctly. But even then, the word met its PR abuse long before I ever got involved with skepticism, because when I did I was under the impression that "skeptic" meant something awfully close to "cynic," too.
But if we were to start calling Dude's worldview "firdnipism," with the intent that the word is ours to define, and we anticipate how people might try to co-opt or redefine it, we can maintain its meaning. By consistently and loudly asserting that firdnipism is not a religion, we can ensure that anyone who attacks firdnipists as being religious just looks a fool to everyone else, not just the firdnipists.
In my opinion, for many of the labels that already exist that we might want to use, it's already too late. Others, as Dude notes, have "PR disaster" written all over them, like "rationalist" (it'll go the way of "bright"). Those of us who'd like a term may have to come up with a whole new word. Let's just hope it's not firdnip. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 10:07:10 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | No, you shouldn't. The question is, how are you going to reclaim your identity? |
I don't need to. Google "Humanist". You will find that 8 out of the first ten are links to either wikipedia's accurate article on Humanism and some of the largest Humanist organizations in America – the American Humanist Association, the Institute for Humanist Studies, and the Council for Secular Humanism. (And the two that are not about the worldview of humanism are not anti-Humanism, they are simply about other kinds of humanism.)
Google "secular humanism" and on the first page there is only that one article you already linked to that is from a fundamentalist POV. The first link is the Council for Secular Humanism (incidentally, they are the only formal organization which uses that label. Most simply use "Humanist". On that Google search page there is a very accurate descriptions of Humanism on religioustolerance.net and beliefnet.com, both with lots of great links. There's also an article on infidels.com The only other sort of bad link on that first Google search page is an article on religious movements that is slightly inaccurate in so much as it cites Humanist Manifestos I and II as Humanism's main documents, leaving out the most updated III (put out by the AHA) and the separate 2000 Manifesto exclusively put out by the Council. Because the Council broke off from the AHA, many people still confuse the two organizations and think that Humanism and secular humanism are synonymous. Big whoop. People also confuse the various sects of Lutherans with each other, and Methodists with each other, and Buddhism, etc. And really, the differences between Humanism and secular humanism are really so miniscule, it almost doesn't matter if people confuse them. It is really nothing more than a semantics argument. If anyone is actually interested in Humanism, they will bother to learn what it is. I don't see why defamation from fringe fanatics is something for us to be shaking in our boots about.
| Nobody joins any community simply by calling themselves an atheist, but there are plenty who attack all atheists as being religious anyway. That's why Harris is arguing against using the term. |
People who attack atheists as being religious are morons. The government has framed it that way for the sake of making a distinction between what is secular and what is atheistic. We teach evolution in public school science classes not because it is atheistic, but because it is good, religiously-neutral science. We do not teach kids in public schools that there is no God because even though atheism itself is not a religion, that would violate the spirit of church-state separation. An explicitly atheistic state is just as bad as a theocratic state. What is best for everyone is secular society with religious freedom.
You are right that calling oneself an atheist doesn't mean joining a community. However, adding to the fear and confusion of many religious people are groups such as American Atheists and the Atheist Alliance. The problem with these groups (and why I am not a member of either of them) is that they have local chapters of organized communities and promote a particular type of worldview, and at the same time they are politically active. Think about how much this confuses things for a simple-minded Christian who isn't clear that there is a difference between secular and atheist. They think that these atheists are trying to force an atheistic worldview on society. Of course no atheist organization is doing this, but if what they want is to fight politically for secularism, why not just join Americans United for Separation of Church and State? Is it not foolhardy to fight for secularism under the banner of atheism? This is the sort of foolishness that Harris is arguing against, I think, and if so, I totally agree with him.
| Okay, we need to back up a bit. You offered up "Humanist" in response to Dude's query, "But how do we take our rationalist, empiricist, pragmatist, critical thinking, scientific, evidence based worldview and condense it down to a single word or phrase that accurately defines it?" You asked, "So what's the problem with this label?" I've been trying to tell you what the problem is, the main one being that it has already been co-opted by the religious fanatics in the culture war to mean something that it doesn't mean, just like the term "atheist" has, and the humanists aren't screaming loudly enough to win the terms back (top Google slots are dominated by fundies, and the first defense I found is from 1997 - perhaps I'm missing the battles, or the humanists really are being complacent). |
I have no idea what sort of Google search you did, but Humanists have done a wonderful job combating attacks on us from fundamentalists, and fundamentalists have totally failed to defame Humanists in the mainstream public. Atheism has a very bad connotation in mainstream society, but Humanism is still largely unheard of, and has a rather positive connotation among more educated circles of people who have heard of it.
| The word also has religious connotations (from the group's inception) that properly do not belong in the condesation that Dude is looking for. |
Again, most Humanists today do not regard it as a religion. Humanism was founded soon after Ethical Culture, and at that time they were trying to get the term "religion" to mean something more broad. That semantic push seems to have failed, and today, most Humanists call it their "lifestance" or "worldview". Also, if you look at the descriptions on the major Humanist organization's website and at the current Manifestos, you will see that it is no longer established as a religion. Yes, some Humanists do still call it that, but it is hardly necessary, and again, really just a semantics argument, not a difference in meaning.
| But you're just contradicting the fundies' "evolution is a tenet of the humanist religion," and thus from a PR point-of-view it looks like you're saying nothing more than "is not." |
No, good science (including evolution) is a tenet of Humanism and secular humanism. We don't outlaw the teaching of something in public schools just because it happens to be something that a religious group embraces. For instance, one of the major Quaker principles is "Honesty". So can we not encourage kids to be honest in school because that's a tenet of Quakerism? Public schools don't teach evolution because it is part of the secular humanist worldview. They teach it because it is good science.
| Because they agree (loudly!) that good science is good science and should be taught in school. |
Yes, and the courts say that their version of what is good science regarding evolution is a bunch of dishonest bullshit, and the judge who ruled that way here in PA's Bucks County was a Christian, not a secular humanist. The only people who fall for this bullshit coming from fundamentalist leaders are fundamentalist followers.
| They've already framed the issue that way, and are using it to attack Humanism (which they freely use as a synonym of "secular humanism"). In other words, what you've said is absolutely correct, but will have no effect because you're tacitly agreeing to argue on the slanted playing field the fundies have created for just that purpose. |
What are you proposing that Humanists do? The Council adamantly insists that it is NOT a religious organization. In fact, while it trained officiates to preside over weddings and memorials and such, its officiates cannot do legal weddings because the Council refuses to form an organization which will be legally recognized as "religious". The Humanists have taken the other approach. We have the Humanist Society, which is "religious" for legal purposes, but when people ask we're honest about how the term "religion" is being used. We're going to be attacked by fundies no matter what we do. What do you think should be done?
| Perhaps Kurtz is so much a "glory hound" that that's the story he tells, but your own quote of Justice Black comes from 1961, or eightteen years before the break between Kurtz and the AHA. |
Humanism is a young movement/worldview/network of communities, and so a lot has changed in very recent times. It used to be that Humanism was a big tent. A naturalistic belief system was part of the establishment, but so were many other things (such as a worldy, human-centered approach to ethics, strong leanings toward equal human rights, feminism, etc.), and Humanism was supposed to be anything but dogmatic. Many self-defined Humanists refused to sign the first Manifesto because they didn't want to give the impression that we were all of one mind, and those who did sign it were perfectly fine with those who didn't. In fact, that was just a further sign of Humanism being pluralistic and its members being aware of their own fallibility and uncertainty. Anyway, because it was a big tent, "secular humanist" was a term coined to separate the explicitly atheistic humanists who didn't like the idea of Humanism as a religion. Paul Kurtz was one of the leaders in the AHA, and he kept pushing to make secular humanism a more dominant aspect of the organization, but other people disagreed (not because they were theists, but because for the reasons that Sam Harris states – they did not want to be defined by what they were against). So Paul Kurtz left and took all those who agreed with his side, temporarily crippling the AHA and founding the first and only organization which uses the label "secular humanist".
Perhaps I should just outright retract my suggestion that secular humanism is an appropriate term. Maybe Harris is right about that one. But Humanism by itself stands as not having the problems that Harris states because it is a positive and fully-fleshed out worldview. I could imagine a world without belief in supernaturalism that could still include different kinds of secular fellowships. Humanism has a distinctly Western heritage, and it could easily live on beside other secular fellowships of, say, Buddhists and Confucians. In other words, religion as we traditionally know it could die out and Humanism could still have a usefulness in human society.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 10:12:53 [Permalink]
|
| I think we should just call ourselves 'Dave.' It's short, it fits good on a name tag, it's easy to remember, and it has a good history. Everybody likes the name Dave. Everybody likes someone named Dave. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 10:18:15 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | Humanism, secular humanism, aren't bad as far as that goes, but they are to soft. They seem to lack the skeptic element with regard to all claims of fact. |
How do they seem to lack the skeptic element with regard to all claims of fact? Skepticism and the scientific method as the only way for objectively knowing facts about the natural world are basic tenets of the philosophy of Humanism. I first heard a formal explanation of "logical fallacies" through a presentation for kids at Camp Quest – a summer camp for Humanist kids. The publications of the two largest Humanist organizations in the USA (the AHA and Council) are The Humanist: A Magazine of Critical Inquiry and Social Concern and Free Inquiry. Take a look at a few archived issues online and tell me that critical thinking and science aren't a major component of the lifestance. Read the most recent and updated manifestos – rationalism and naturalism are the initial foundation:
http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=affirmations
(Edited to change the second link - what I thought was a link to the 2000 Manifesto wasn't. I can't seem to find the text on the Council's website so I'm posting their affirmations instead.)
Seriously, what more do you want?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 11/19/2007 10:24:20 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 11:00:14 [Permalink]
|
Well no matter what its called, if enough vocal people hate your position it will eventually become synonymous with negativity.
However, we dont need to help their cause by using a word with a generaly negative or negativly perceived conotation, such as atheist or skeptic. Skeptic may be a neutral term to us but in our culture it has a different vibe. Of course you cant get a more positive word than 'humanist' considering the worlds love affair with itself, but even this word was easily corrupted in the minds of many. We do the same damn thing to them, so just pick something and damn the rest of it. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 12:15:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I don't need to. Google "Humanist". You will find that 8 out of the first ten are links to either wikipedia's accurate article on Humanism and some of the largest Humanist organizations in America – the American Humanist Association, the Institute for Humanist Studies, and the Council for Secular Humanism. (And the two that are not about the worldview of humanism are not anti-Humanism, they are simply about other kinds of humanism.) |
Google "humanist religion" (without the quotes) and you'll find Contender Ministries, Christian Answers and Answers in Genesis in the top ten. The first two results are from Answers.com, and so are rather non-committal. The fourth result is a BBC page that unfortunately put atheism under religion and humanism under that. It's not until the seventh result that one find Wikipedia's entry on secular humanism and the AHA appears not at all.| People who attack atheists as being religious are morons. |
That's a much more important mistake. They're not morons. What they're doing is calculated and malicious. They're framing the issues in such a way as to win over the general populace through stealth, and calling them morons simply gives them the sympathy vote, as well.| The government has framed it that way for the sake of making a distinction between what is secular and what is atheistic. We teach evolution in public school science classes not because it is atheistic, but because it is good, religiously-neutral science. We do not teach kids in public schools that there is no God because even though atheism itself is not a religion, that would violate the spirit of church-state separation. An explicitly atheistic state is just as bad as a theocratic state. What is best for everyone is secular society with religious freedom. |
This is all correct but irrelevant.| I have no idea what sort of Google search you did, but Humanists have done a wonderful job combating attacks on us from fundamentalists, and fundamentalists have totally failed to defame Humanists in the mainstream public. |
I put this event in the future. It is coming, and I still don't see the Humanists actively preparing for it.| The word also has religious connotations (from the group's inception) that properly do not belong in the condesation that Dude is looking for. |
Again, most Humanists today do not regard it as a religion. Humanism was founded soon after Ethical Culture, and at that time they were trying to get the term "religion" to mean something more broad. That semantic push seems to have failed, and today, most Humanists call it their "lifestance" or "worldview". Also, if you look at the descriptions on the major Humanist organization's website and at the current Manifestos, you will see that it is no longer established as a religion. Yes, some Humanists do still call it that, but it is hardly necessary, and again, really just a semantics argument, not a difference in meaning. |
Good grief, no! Once again, you're technically correct, but you're missing the big public-relations picture.| But you're just contradicting the fundies' "evolution is a tenet of the humanist religion," and thus from a PR point-of-view it looks like you're saying nothing more than "is not." |
No, good science (including evolution) is a tenet of Humanism and secular humanism. |
Irrelevant.| We don't outlaw the teaching of something in public schools just because it happens to be something that a religious group embraces. For instance, one of the major Quaker principles is "Honesty". So can we not encourage kids to be honest in school because that's a tenet of Quakerism? Public schools don't teach evolution because it is part of the secular humanist worldview. They teach it because it is good science. |
Again: you're absolutely correct, but that's the "is not" answer to the attack that's being made.| Because they agree (loudly!) that good science is good science and should be taught in school. |
Yes, and the courts say that their version of what is good science regarding evolution is a bunch of dishonest bullshit, and the judge who ruled that way here in PA's Bucks County was a Christian, not a secular humanist. |
Wow, now you're really missing the point. It no longer matters if ID is religion. What matters - to them - is getting evolutionary theory to be considered a religious tenet and getting it out of school, also.| The only people who fall for this bullshit coming from fundamentalist leaders are fundamentalist followers. |
You give them far too little credit. You need to read up on what happened in Pennsylvania again.| What are you proposing that Humanists do? The Council adamantly insists that it is NOT a religious organization. |
And that's the "is not" answer. They need to step up and address - loudly! - why it is that the attack is going on in the first place, and expose the fundamentalist machinations for what they are. That's the only way they're going to be able to keep the meaning they intend for their label. Simply denying whatever attacks are made on them makes them look weak and it'll only encourage the fundies to attack more, until the day comes when the majority of people on the street not only know the word "humanist" but associate it with infant sacrifice and ritual mutilations. Once that's done, they just get to sit back and say, "everyone knows that humanists are immoral slime," and heads will nod all around. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 14:03:13 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | Google "humanist religion" (without the quotes) and you'll find Contender Ministries, Christian Answers and Answers in Genesis in the top ten. The first two results are from Answers.com, and so are rather non-committal. The fourth result is a BBC page that unfortunately put atheism under religion and humanism under that. It's not until the seventh result that one find Wikipedia's entry on secular humanism and the AHA appears not at all. |
Given that someone curious about humanism is probably much more likely to Google just that word, or maybe "secular humanism" before they Google "humanist religion", I'm not really worried. Hell, if someone were to ask me what is "humanist religion" I'd assume they were referring to lowercase "h" humanism and I'd start talking about Unitarian Universalists, and humanistic Christians and Quakers.
| That's a much more important mistake. They're not morons. What they're doing is calculated and malicious. |
Okay, fine. People who do that sort of attacking are dishonest assholes, and people who swallow their bullshit are morons.
| They're framing the issues in such a way as to win over the general populace through stealth, and calling them morons simply gives them the sympathy vote, as well. |
I have yet to hear anyone from the "general populace", either on the news or in personal everyday experience, talk about "secular humanism" in a purely derogatory manner. Even if the general populace starts to notice Humanists exist, mainstream modern society in the West is instilled with the concept of religious tolerance. Atheism isn't criticized in the mainstream public for being a religion. It is criticized for being anti-religion. I don't see how fundamentalist criticism of secular humanism by labeling it a "religion" is hurting Humanists' reputation in the general populace.
| I put this event in the future. It is coming, and I still don't see the Humanists actively preparing for it. |
I guess the Secular Coalition for America and its Washington lobbyist, the AHA and the Council's involvement with the UN, our networking both nationally and internationally, and the founding of summer camps for kids, HS and college youth groups in the past decade don't count for shit, right? I'll give you that the Council doesn't do much. They are little more than a publishing company at this point (Prometheus books). But the AHA has been growing now that it has recovered from the split caused by Paul Kurtz (that really did do a huge bit of damage to the institution) and has chapters in almost all US states. There are 15 chapters in California alone. In the last 7 years the Institute for Humanist Studies has dolled out nearly a million dollars in grants to projects which promote humanist values and institutions.
We already do everything we can, and if we aren't doing enough it is only because there aren't enough of us. And there aren't enough of us because most people with our same worldview don't like groups or labels and don't feel any desire for community and this kind of activism. Unlike fundamentalists, we think for ourselves which unfortunately means that getting us to all work together in the same way is like herding cats. But we have lots of friends among UUs, the ACLU, Americans United, and the Interfaith Alliance, as well as an international community. It might be even better for us that we self-identifying Humanists are a minority among a broad spectrum of secular people. If we are small, we don't seem as scary and we can often hide un |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 11/19/2007 14:11:38 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 14:31:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave, you are asking for a teeny tiny minority of people to broadcast a fairly nuanced and complex explanation directed toward and made clear to the mainstream public. And this at a time when the media is dominated by sensationalized polarization of political/social stances. You expect a few hundred thousand nerdy, intellectual, and mostly over-the-hill Humanists to change the tide? Please! You ask the impossible. |
If they wish to give up, that's fine by me. I'm no humanist.| We spend little time if any bothering to play defense against a bunch of fringe radicals that most people don't even listen to. |
And I'm sure it's because you keep telling yourself that most people don't listen to them. But they've got the ear of the President and much of Congress. They're well-funded, utterly lacking in compassion for anyone unlike themselves and well-versed in the use of public relations campaigns to get the majority of the population to see their "bullshit" as the more reasonable position. If you think they pose little threat, you're very much mistaken.| Hamming it up a bit, aren't you? Atheists aren't even this demonized in the general public. |
Yes, I was hamming it up. But that doesn't negate my point.| Don't you think there's a reason that the religious right always criticizes secular humanism and not just Humanism? |
That CA article switches freely between "humanist" and "secular humanist" as if they were precise synonyms.| This despite the fact that most Humanists and Humanist groups don't use incorporate "secular" into their titles? I think it is because the word "Humanist" has had so many diverse and wonderful meanings that it is a word that simply cannot, by itself, be easily tarnished. |
Now, you're just dreaming. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 15:46:31 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | If they wish to give up, that's fine by me. I'm no humanist. |
Oh, come on! That's just a low blow. Did I not just list a whole bunch of pretty significant things Humanists are doing to assert ourselves as a positive, legitimate, and benevolent community and worldview? UN offices? Summer camps? Lobbyist? Youth groups? I personally am VP, webmaster, and celebrant of a local group, in addition to being pretty vocal in everyday conversation about Humanism, and trying to put a real and likeable face on us. Nobody is giving up. But you are criticizing Humanists for not doing what would most certainly require a force many times greater in numbers and many times richer. Again, I ask you, what do you expect us to do given the reality of our small numbers and small funds (at least in comparison with the religious right)?
| And I'm sure it's because you keep telling yourself that most people don't listen to them. But they've got the ear of the President and much of Congress. They're well-funded, utterly lacking in compassion for anyone unlike themselves and well-versed in the use of public relations campaigns to get the majority of the population to see their "bullshit" as the more reasonable position. If you think they pose little threat, you're very much mistaken. |
Did you even read what I just wrote? I said we don't bother defending ourselves from obscure attacks, but that one of the many things we do spend our time doing is criticizing irrationality, including the scary things done by politicized fundamentalism. Offense, not defense.
That CA article switches freely between "humanist" and "secular humanist" as if they were precise synonyms.
…
Now, you're just dreaming |
Show me the writing on the wall. Show me one thing that is not from some blatantly fundamentalist publication. Show me a single thing in the mainstream media that supports your prediction that Humanists will be demonized in America as atheists. I think the idea that the scales will tip that far over to the social conservative right is ridiculous. There are simply too many forces pulling on the other side. Atheism is successfully demonized among even some educated liberals because it gets painted as nihilism. How will this be done with Humanism given the criticisms of Humanism currently used by the religious right?
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 21:42:14 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
Dave, you are asking for a teeny tiny minority of people to broadcast a fairly nuanced and complex explanation directed toward and made clear to the mainstream public. And this at a time when the media is dominated by sensationalized polarization of political/social stances. You expect a few hundred thousand nerdy, intellectual, and mostly over-the-hill Humanists to change the tide? Please! You ask the impossible.
|
Thats my point. This is the reason why "humanism" isn't a good enough way to label ourselves IMO. And when you put "secular" in front of it, the general population already has you targeted with a (to them) negative connotation.
After more pondering on this I think the main problem is that the average person doesn't have a basic understanding of the various words that describe our methodology. Rationalist, empiricist, skeptic, pragmatist, critical thinking, etc. This leaves us open to being "defined" by the opposition when we pick one of those words.
With a label like "christian" or "jew" or "muslim" the large majority of people already have the basics, so those single words make for an adequate description of a person's worldview. The same for less complex causes, like abolutionism and civil rights. People already have, mostly, the foundation to place those concepts on.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/19/2007 : 22:50:33 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | Thats my point. This is the reason why "humanism" isn't a good enough way to label ourselves IMO. |
To me this seems a Catch-22. Humanism isn't a good enough label because it is too small and obscure a concept and community to mainstream culture, but as long as most people who basically fit the description of a Humanist reject the label, it will remain a small and obscure concept and community.
Actually, that's fine with me. There are many advantages to being under the radar. Plus, I truly do consider it a testament to the ardent individuality of Western secular folks that we simply won't agree on a single label for our worldviews.
| With a label like "christian" or "jew" or "muslim" the large majority of people already have the basics, so those single words make for an adequate description of a person's worldview. |
Eh, I gotta disagree with that one. I mean, what you are saying is true for mainstream media, but mainstream media has a terrible tendency to oversimplify and polarize reality. Plus, depending on the social context, even those religious labels have different connotations and associations. Think of conservative pundits who will use the stats which say 80% of Americans are Christian when they wants to claim America is a Christian nation, but when they want to make Christians looks like persecuted victims, all of the sudden lots of people who label themselves Christians aren't real Christians. Born agains are weird about that sort of stuff. My cousin was friggin' baptized in the Catholic church and raised religiously, but she later converted to Born Again Christianity and would talk about how she was "new at this Christianity thing". |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 11/19/2007 22:51:51 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2007 : 08:04:00 [Permalink]
|
marfknox said:
| Eh, I gotta disagree with that one. I mean, what you are saying is true for mainstream media, but mainstream media has a terrible tendency to oversimplify and polarize reality. |
Missing my point.
If you say to someone that you are a christian, odds are that they have some idea of what you mean. You believe in the divinity of jesus, resurection, etc. There is a baseline common set of data among all those who call themselves christians, and it is common knowledge among most people, even non-christians. Most everyone also knows that there are multiple sects of the major religions also, but every christian sect has jesus, every jewish sect has moses, every muslim sect has muhammed, etc.
If you say you are a skeptic, not everyone is going to grasp what you mean. Some will think you are a SFN type of skeptic, others will think you are a "9/11 truth" skeptic. If you say you are a rationalist or empiricist, most people will just look at you blankly. The common knowledge of these terms does not exist outside of the groups who identify themselves as such. The same can be said for humanism of any variety.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2007 : 08:19:09 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: If you say to someone that you are a christian, odds are that they have some idea of what you mean. You believe in the divinity of jesus, resurection, etc. There is a baseline common set of data among all those who call themselves christians, and it is common knowledge among most people, even non-christians. Most everyone also knows that there are multiple sects of the major religions also, but every christian sect has jesus, every jewish sect has moses, every muslim sect has muhammed, etc.
If you say you are a skeptic, not everyone is going to grasp what you mean. Some will think you are a SFN type of skeptic, others will think you are a "9/11 truth" skeptic. If you say you are a rationalist or empiricist, most people will just look at you blankly. The common knowledge of these terms does not exist outside of the groups who identify themselves as such. The same can be said for humanism of any variety. |
Yes, everything you say is right. But you called this a problem and I'm wondering if it is the groups that are better known with the real problem since all the important details and fine nuances of the individual groups' beliefs get lost. I think the idea of a common understanding of Christianity is part of what has led to the development of nondenominational megachurches, full of adherents who mostly have not only not read the Bible, but don't even know much about Christianity's history or the basis of the major Christian sects. So while everyone may have some basic, vague idea of what Christianity is, that idea by itself is an especially terrible type of ignorance because it is the kind of ignorance that thinks it knows about something that it really knows very little about.
I don't think it is a problem for freethinkers to be under the radar because it most people could identify us, they'd probably lump all of us into one big group, and we'd all be characterized in the public eye by whoever among us is the most loud and sensational.
Oh wait... that's starting to happen... shit.
You know, you guys are right. Sam Harris is right. But we're already screwed. The desire for freethinkers to meet each other and identify ourselves has already created something very real, and now "The New Atheists" (ironically, this includes Sam Harris) have got national media attention. I suppose we can only hope that attention paid to us was merely a fad and we will soon be forgotten, again. Then we can resume our criticism of irrationality as unidentifiable rouges, iconoclasts, and curmudgeons.  |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/20/2007 : 09:57:53 [Permalink]
|
Contemplating the last morsels of haggis on my plate whilst reading all of the above, this thought occured to me.....O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
It wad frae monie a blunder free us
An foolish notion:
What airs in dress an gait wad lea'es us,
An ev'n devotion!* |
(I'm thinking of copywriting it and adding it to a collection of my plagiarisms)
*not to worry, JohnOAS, it's public domain!
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
1 hour of unwasted time
