[net.religion] The Annotated Humanist

lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (04/20/84)

[A commentary on 550@uofm-cv.UUCP "Humanistic faith." Since the article
long, I will split my reply over several articles.]

> I agree with Protagoras that "the human is the measure of all things"

Which human - of 6000 years ago, of 2000 years ago, of last century, or
one of the varieties today?

> ... the purpose and practice of humanism is to ...
> (b) seek to elicit the possiblilities of life ...

This paragraph in Winsor's article is exactly Tenet 15 of the 1933
Humanist Manifesto. Paralleling this are
  8. Religious humanism considers the complete realization of human
    personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development
    and fulfillment in the here and now. ...
  9. ... the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a
    heightened sense of personal life ...
  12. ...encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.
Basically, if it gives you pleasure, do it. Forget the future, forget if
it's perverted - go to it!

> (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for
>     all, not merely the few.

So if you conflict with my satisfaction, kiss your life good-bye.

> "human beings are responsible for their own destinies."

Responsible to whom? Other humans? Also, Clarence Darrow (I think it was
he) argued a case regarding a teen-ager caught in some heinous act; he
told the court that if they allowed the books that the boy got his ideas
from into the public library, how can they accused someone who acted on them?

> humanism is "an accomplishment, not a doctrine."

Fertilizer. For someone who is in full agreement with the Humanist
Manifesto and all its "Humanism {believes,asserts, recognizes, maintains}"
this is a flat-out contradiction.

> ... the scientific method is the best means we have for advancing truth.

To quote Pilate, "What is truth?"

> humanism ... sees the human being as the highest form of life, an end
> not a means, the creator of moral values, ...

If we are the end, can evolution (the foundation of humanism) take us no
farther? (You mean no Khan? :-) Are we so omniscient that no other
branch of the evolutionary tree will supersede us?

Man as the creator of moral values is more moosepoop. Man of himself can
do nothing better than relativistic morality => circular reasoning. Then
again, humanism admits that there are no "cosmic guarantees of human
values..." (Tenet 5) => Not even life is sacred.
-- 
				The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
				{decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab
				decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA

lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (04/20/84)

[Part 2 of 4-part commentary on "Humanistic faith."]

> Materialistic humanism asserts that matter comes before spirit ....
> ... simple matter ... proceeds to develop ... a spiritual dimension.

How can materialism even assert that the non-material exists?

> ... the stuff of which this world is composed is the necessary context
> for the ideas and ideals that enrich human life.

In other words, whatever pleasure is available to you, go for it. Forget
what the someone thinks, no matter how perverted your pleasure is.

> In every infant we stand before the mystery of this process.

What - doesn't your holy scientific method have all the answers? :-)

> The natural world is the only one there is.

The book of Ecclesiastes deals with this - and the inevitable futility -
at length.

> Nature is unified ... its laws regular ....

Order from chaos? Why should *anything* be regular?

> Religion is a human enterprise.

Man-deification. More of it later.

> It is the human race that is concerned with ethical values.

What is the basis for ethics, for good and evil, right and wrong, etc?

> We desire to increase the measure of the good and the true and the
> beautiful in the lives of all people.

Whatever perversion gives pleasure...

> Albert Schweitzer ... spoke not of a humanism that worships humanity
> but a humanism that seeks, without creedal test or ritual requirement,
> to treasure each human being as a center of meaning and value.

Self-contradictory. Where your treasure is, there also is your heart.

> The adventure of religion is not in the discovery of Eternal Truth or
> Absolute Meaning - arenas in which humans do not and cannot deal ...

Phew - the cattle don't smell this bad. If there are no absolutes,
circular reasoning is all that's left. But then, humanism asserts many
bottom-line values, implying some sort of Absolute.

> ... - but in our individual and communal search for and creation of
> meanings and values that dignify and enhance life.

More evidence of man-deification. Again, choose your pleasure.

> I am a humanist because humanism does not rely on tradition, a special
> book or person, "what I'm feeling right now," ...

That last is humanism exactly.

> [Humanism] relies on reason, thought, the human mind as the best means
> of discovering truth and promoting justice.

Can I make it through another 80 lines of this stench? There has to be
truth to base reason on. Further, the mention of "truth" and "justice"
added to Norman Lear completes the triple corruption of Superman's purpose.
-- 
				The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
				{decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab
				decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA

lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (04/20/84)

[Part 3 of 550@uofm-cv.UUCP, with my comments]

> The face of this planet is scarred with pain and sorrow. ... I see no
> evidence of a deity at work trying to ease that suffering.

Try opening your eyes. Even as Darwin wrote to Fegan, "We have never
been able to reclaim a drunkard, but through your services I do not know
that there is a drunkard left in the village." Or maybe you don't want
to know *why* there is pain and sorrow?

> We must act to stop the wars and the crimes and the brutality of this
> and future ages.

Lotsa luck. There are two ways to do it: from the inside, as God does
it, or from the outside, as your inevitable tyranny will do it.

> We have a high degree of freedom in choosing what we will do.

Read: opportunity for others to exploit us.

> If each of us really did the best we could do, it would be a very
> different and a much better world than it is.

But not even the humanists do. And as long as people are free to exploit
others, the world won't get one bit better.

> Such a splendid picture [the view from the godhead] has not been
> vouchsafed to me nor do I believe it has been granted to anyone else.

So you have a priori rejected divine revelation. You have beforehand
decided that it could never be vouchsafed to you. Hardly reasonable :-)

> Humanism is also the broadest possible perspective for us in the sense
> that any other definition of our position limits us and excludes others.

I wouldn't say that it would "limit" you - maybe expose you for what you
really are ...

> ... a hundred years ago ... Christian writers were describing [all the
> varied world religions] as stages on the way to Christianity.

What "Christian" writers have you been reading? "All the varied world
religions" are NOT "stages on the way to Christianity" - they are all
headed in the other direction. But you forced yourself to that
conclusion since you have a priori rejected divine revelation.

> We need to find way of celebrating ... without harming others as we do so.

Impossible with this planet of humans. Either that, or you've got a
*very* short-sighted definition of "harm."

> Humanism is the best perspective from which to view and to work on
> this task.

Humanism won't change man's basic nature. Until you do that, forget it.
-- 
				The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
				{decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab
				decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA

lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (04/20/84)

[Part 4 of 4, comments on Humanistic faith 550@uofm-cv]

> What matters is that we join with each other in seeking *to do justice
> and to love mercy, walking humbly with* one another ...

The *ed part is taken directly from Micah 6:8, but the conclusion reads
	"...and to walk humbly WITH THY GOD."
Text out of context => pretext. Justice is impossible without absolutes.
Mercy is possible only *after* sentence has been passed.

> ... in full respect of the preciousness and worth of every human life.

Check _Byrn vs. NYC Health and Hospital Corp._, in which the New York
Court of Appeals distinguished between "human beings" and "persons" - or
rather, gave the legislature the power to distinguish. The humanistic
philosophy has given us abortion on demand, euthanasia, and other
things. Since the underlying principle of humanism is evolution, man is
therefore just an animal to be controlled as others are. Too many
babies? Kill some. Too many people on Social Security? Kill some -
Occam's Razor at its most perverse. That's how Hitler reasoned things.

> That is the faith of humanist.

That's hardly the whole story. Looking over Humanist Manifesto I, one
realizes that it is not only opposed to the free enterprise system, but
wants to enforce communism. It wants a one-world government, removing
our ability to operate locally. It attempts to minimize death and holds
contradictory values of human life.

Christianity teaches responsibility and ultimate accountability. It
balances rights and responsibilities. It emphasizes the family and the
growth of love therein. It teaches that God sends no trial but that He
also provides the grace for us to handle it correctly. It teaches that
responsibility must accompany authority, and, accordingly, respect for
the authority, since the authority must account for itself. With the
increased personal involvement, the need for government intervention is
decreased, and government can concentrate on more necessary things.

God has not asked us to sit idly by and wait for Him. He has commanded
us to "work, for the night is coming when no man can work"; "admonish
the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with
all men"; "attend to your own business and work with your own hands";
"Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for
men." The only place that the Bible records God supplying every need
without man working was during the Exodus, but even from the beginning,
man was placed on Earth "to cultivate it and to keep it."

God has also commanded us to tell others of the good news - that we who
deserved to die for our infinite crimes can obtain mercy, that we who
are slaves to our bodies can put those bodies under control, that we who
are guilty can be freed from guilt (and NOT by searing the conscience).
But He also commands to "Reprove, rebuke, exhort with great patience and
instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound
doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate
for themselves teachers in accordance with their own desires; and will
turn away their eats from the truth, and will turn aside to myths."

THAT is the faith by which I try to live my life.
-- 
				The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
				{decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!{decwrl,sun}!qubix!lab
				decwrl!qubix!lab@Berkeley.ARPA

rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/23/84)

After finding Larry's 4 part diatribe on the dangers of humanism, I
thought I might have my hands full for the next few years responding.
After reading it, though, I think I can sum up a more than adequate response
in only a few lines.

1.  Everything that goes against Larry's version of the "word of god" (he,
	like others, has yet to offer reasonable proof of its veracity) is
	perversion.  I assume by this that he means it is wrong and should
	be stopped (at what cost?  and for what reason?)

2.  Everyone that seeks their own way (contrary, of course, to Larry's way)
	is out only for themselves and would kill Larry (and others) to
	get their way.  What's more, according to Larry, they'd have a
	right (maybe even an obligation) to do so according to the
	Humanist Manifesto.

3.  Humanism is based on the selfish needs of individuals who would be left
	unchecked in their evil ways if not for a rigidly enforced system
	of imposed values that could come only from religion (from god,
	supposedly, but that's another argument...)

Who else out there has had it up to *here* ["HE HAS HIS HAND AS HIGH AS IT CAN
GO ABOVE HIS HEAD." -ED.] with those who have decided (for us, apparently)
that 1) human beings are scum; disgusting creatures who will stop at nothing
to get their way if unchecked by the will of god, 2) the only way to prevent
society from degrading to this sort of level is to impose rigid laws, and
3) the only real authority for such a set of laws would have to be a deity
since scumsucking humans would never consent to a reasonable system of rules
unless they feared divine retribution?????????

Sometimes I think that it wouldn't really matter to such religionists whether
or not there was a god, as long as people could be kept in fear, enough so
that they would adhere to *their* version of what is clearly right for
everyone.  How many times do I have to sit here and describe a society that
exists on the premise that rights end where imposition on another person
begins, and that further restrictions on rights that would exist solely for the
purpose of "keeping the society together" are bogus because a society should
exist as a means to serve the individuals in it and not the other way around???

I've sort of given up on convincing people like Larry that a rational society
with rational values (understood rather than imposed) is more mature than
a religious autocracy (I know, you want a democracy, just as long as we all
vote the way you do...).  I do hope that I've deflated his little opus enough
that people can see that Larry's picture of humanism is not based on any
rational notion, but rather on his own picture of what all human beings must
be like (looked in a mirror lately, Larry?), and (perhaps) on his own need to
see the world run by a parental god who tells him (and me and you) what to do
so that we can avoid thinking...
-- 
Pardon me for ...  oh, never mind!!
					Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr

rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/23/84)

After finding Larry's 4 part diatribe on the dangers of humanism, I
thought I might have my hands full for the next few years responding.
After reading it, though, I think I can sum up a more than adequate response
in only a few lines.

1.  Everything that goes against Larry's version of the "word of god" (he,
	like others, has yet to offer reasonable proof of its veracity) is
	perversion.  I assume by this that he means it is wrong and should
	be stopped (at what cost?  and for what reason?)

2.  Everyone that seeks their own way (contrary, of course, to Larry's way)
	is out only for themselves and would kill Larry (and others) to
	get their way.  What's more, according to Larry, they'd have a
	right (maybe even an obligation) to do so according to the
	Humanist Manifesto.

3.  Humanism is based on the selfish needs of individuals who would be left
	unchecked in their evil ways if not for a rigidly enforced system
	of imposed values that could come only from religion (from god,
	supposedly, but that's another argument...)

Who else out there has had it up to *here* ["HE HAS HIS HAND AS HIGH AS IT CAN
GO ABOVE HIS HEAD." -ED.] with those who have decided (for us, apparently)
that 1) human beings are scum; disgusting creatures who will stop at nothing
to get their way if unchecked by the will of god, 2) the only way to prevent
society from degrading to this sort of level is to impose rigid laws, and
3) the only real authority for such a set of laws would have to be a deity
since scumsucking humans would never consent to a reasonable system of rules
unless they feared divine retribution?????????

Sometimes I think that it wouldn't really matter to such religionists whether
or not there was a god, as long as people could be kept in fear, enough so
that they would adhere to *their* version of what is clearly right for
everyone.  How many times do I have to sit here and describe a society that
exists on the premise that rights end where imposition on another person
begins, and that further restrictions on rights that would exist solely for the
purpose of "keeping the society together" are bogus because a society should
exist as a means to serve the individuals in it and not the other way around???

I've sort of given up on convincing people like Larry that a rational society
with rational values (understood rather than imposed) is more mature than
a religious autocracy (I know, you want a democracy, just as long as we all
vote the way you do...).  I do hope that I've deflated his little opus enough
that people can see that Larry's picture of humanism is not based on any
rational notion, but rather on his own picture of what all human beings must
be like (looked in a mirror lately, Larry?), and (perhaps) on his own need to
see the world run by a parental god who tells him (and me and you) what to do
so that we can avoid thinking...
-- 
"I'm not dead yet!"
"Oh, don't be such a baby!"	Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr

esk@wucs.UUCP (04/29/84)

[Does this bug still exist?]

Sorry if this got posted twice, I screwed up the first time.....

Some of Rich Rosen's interpretation of Larry's "The Annotated Humanist"
article:

> 1) human beings are scum; disgusting creatures who will stop at nothing
> to get their way if unchecked by the will of god, 2) the only way to
> prevent society from degrading to this sort of level is to impose rigid 
> laws, ....

Now, I'm not sure whether that was what Larry really meant or not, but
in my experience, your interpretation is not too far off track.  That
is, in general, human beings are pretty nasty creatures.  Without these
"rigid laws", human societies often (not always, mind you, but a lot of 
the time) degenerate into total anarchy.  I just don't see, looking at
the "human experience" of the last few thousand years, where you get
your very optimistic view of humanity and human nature....

> How many times do I have to sit here and describe a society that
> exists on the premise that rights end where imposition on another
> person begins, and that further restrictions on rights that would 
> exist solely for the purpose of "keeping the society together" are 
> bogus because a society should exist as a means to serve the
> individuals in it and not the other way around???

Sounds great, but I'm sorry, I just don't think the society you describe
is a real possibility.  Without restrictions for "keeping the society
together", the society won't stay together!  By living in a society, you
are going to have to surrender some of your rights to the principle of
ensuring the continued existence of the society.  Assuming that you
desire to live in a society of some type (if you don't, I'll be happy to
debate the merits of total anarchy with you later...), you are going to
be forced give up some of these rights.  (An obvious example is the
right to spend your time as you wish.  This must often be violated by a
society, for military service, and also in times of natural disasters,
to protect both the society as a whole, and its individual components.)

Although I agree that the people that make up a society are much more
important than the society itself, I think that if you desire the
society as a good thing, you are going to have to be willing to pay for
its continued existence.

Sorry if this has gotten too long, but it's late.....

						Eric Kaylor

No! I'll stop....  Please, not the thumb screws....  Noooooo.....
ihnp4!afinitc!wucs!esk