[net.religion] rlr, part 2: fear of humanists

garys@bunkerb.UUCP (Gary Samuelson) (11/18/83)

I have already received Rich Rosen's summary; but the net being
what it is, I had already written the following, which I have decided
to post anyway, even though some of his points have been better
answered elsewhere.  (I received his response in the order 4, 2, 3,
summary.  I haven't received number 1 yet.)

In response to Rich Rosen, on the reasons why humanists fear
religion (or vice versa):

RLR:
      This is one reason why the notion of "humanism" is so frightening
      to religionists; it promotes the idea of humans being in charge
      of their own destiny, as far as their bodies and minds can take
      them, and not subject to the whims of an incorporeal entity.
      (The other reason that religionists fear humanism is that such a
      belief, if widely held, would shake their power base out from under
      them.)

GMS:
   This sort of nonsense... Let me use the same form of argument:
   "One reason why the notion of "religionism" is so frightening to humanists
   is that it promotes the idea of human beings being held responsible for
   their own actions, and accountable to a higher authority, rather than free
   to indulge their every whim, no matter what the consequences to others.
   (The other reason that humanists fear religion is that such a belief, if
   widely held, would shake their power base out from under them)."

RLR:
   Apparently there is something "nonsensical" about what I said regarding why
   religionists fear humanism.  I hope that someday garys will tell me what that
   is.

GMS:
First, it's full of undefined terms.  I keep seeing the use of the term
"humanist" criticized on the grounds that there is no definitive
identification of what a "humanist" believes.  Thus, if someone says
that "humanists want to achieve such and such an undesirable goal,"
someone always replies to the effect that one mustn't generalize
about "humanists."  Now, not only do you use a term which I have been
told has no meaning, but you make up a new one, "religionist."

Second, "humanists" have no monopoly on the goal of achieving a person's
greatest potential.

Third, you are using terms for their connotations.  Why must a divine
command be a "whim"?  What is the relevance of the fact that God is
"incorporeal"?

Fourth, and my main objection, you seem to assume that anyone who
believes, or claims to believe, in God must have ulterior motives
for doing so.  Why can't you believe that I am a Christian because
I think that Christianity is true?  You certainly didn't like it
when I suggested that "humanists" had ulterior motives for being
"humanists."

--------------------------------------------------------------

RLR:
   (1) Religionism does not promote the idea of human beings being
   held responsible for their actions; it teaches that they MUST adhere to a
   written code that they had no say in, or face eternal damnation; how is that
   responsible?

Christianity (I'm going to try to avoid the term "religionism") teaches
that people will have to "give an account" of what they say and do,
at the judgment.  That is being held responsible, or accountable;
I think the two are synonymous.

---------------------------------------------------------------

RLR:
   The tenets of humanism state that human beings determine their
   own moral code, and that it adhere to the concept that one
   person's rights end when imposition an another begins.  Thus
   it places limits on the indulging of whims.

Either I am to determine my own moral code, or I am to adhere to
an external standard.  Calling it a "concept" makes it no less
a standard, and no less arbitrary.  Have these tenets been
written down?  Then they constitute a "written code," to which
you object.  I didn't have anything to do with the development
of these tenets (I suspect you didn't either); why then should
I adhere to them?

The point is that in one breath you claim that there is no
standard by which to judge human behavior, and then in the next
you propose one.  I do not object to the existence of such a
standard; I do not even object to your saying that you think you
have adopted one superior to the one I have adopted.  But I do
object to your simultaneous claims that there is no standard
and that you have a better one.

The question is, how do we determine which of a number of proposed
standards of human behavior is the best?  Would you admit that if
an omnipotent, omniscient being existed, that that being could
develop a standard superior to what a human could?  (I'm not
asking you to admit that such a being exists, or that he has;
I'm just asking whether you think such a being would have that
ability.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
RLR:
   (2) Yes, humanists fail to see the need for people to be
   accountable to any extraspecial (ex-tra-spee'-shee-al:
   a made-up word meaning outside of the species) entity; why
   do you feel that there is such a need?; is it related to
   your low opinion of people?

When you ask why I feel that there is a need for people to be
accountable to God, it sounds like you are assuming that there
is no god, and that I am trying to invent one.  I do not say
that there should be a god to which people OUGHT
(3)  The notion of any power group fearing the loss of their power
base is a given, so TOUCHE', garys!  What is happening today is
that those who feel no need to depend on a possibly non-existent
entity for daily guidance and control are making strides in
determining their own destiny (including women, gays, atheists,
artists, and others).  The problem is that (and this is important):
	1) this causes massive changes in the fabric of society, since many
		formerly controlled people now see themselves as free,
	2) these changes affect society as a whole,
	3) those unwilling to cope with the problems associated with these
		changes (because, while they are beneficial to other
		individuals, they are detrimental to their formerly
		taken-for-granted power and status) seek to re-establish the
		"old order" as described in, guess what, the bible.