Skip to main content

Video explaining Humanism - from the BHA


Just-released video on Humanism from the BHA.

Comments

Paul P. Mealing said…
You can believe all that and be religious too. It doesn't have to be either or. Being an atheist or a theist doesn't make one superior over the other.

Regards, Paul.
July 30, 2012 at 9:05 AM
Sue G. said…
I agree with Paul [previous comment].
I also wonder why atheists feel the need to defend their atheism and attack, or in some way, try to demote theism. I do not see the reverse happening, except by a few silly American fanatics.
July 31, 2012 at 7:52 PM
Anonymous said…
While I suspect that I am broadly sympathetic with the worldview of the above two commentators, I feel obliged to play Devil’s advocate to them and to point out that a religious worldview entails superstitious beliefs whereas a strictly non-religious worldview should endeavour to oppose them. It is also true that Christians are called to evangelise, and therefore to challenge the values of the non-religious. In that sense I have no moral objection to this video.

However I do fear that the comments on Humanist morality are a tad oversimplistic. In part this is for reasons expressed in the website www.investigatingatheism.info. I would like to point out immediately that I have atheist friends whom I care for very dearly and whose friendship I value, but they are not broadly hostile to religion or to religious modes of thinking. While I recognize that not all Humanists are utilitarians, I do fear that particular ethical code can very easily degenearate into a bullies charter, which makes all the more sinister the apparent desire among some atheist thinkers to airbrush away some of the moral complications that arise from an atheistic worldview. Buddhism (I think correctly) highlights the illusion of the autonomous ‘self’ whereas Christianity declares that the last shall be first. I see no Humanist equivalent, and that is for me why faith remains philosophically the least bad option. Dogmatism is the problem, not faith per se.

As a footnote, Richard Dawkins is absolutely wrong in equating science with poetry. Science uses words (however beautifully expressed)to convey facts, whereas poetry recognizes the limitations of both facts and words. Richard explains the night sky. The poet allows his neighbour to observe the night sky and to derive his own conclusions whether scientific or mythological.

Put another way, on Wednesday I saw Diamanda Galas in concert. Only one of her songs was in English, but even without understanding, the passion was apparent. That, not Dawkins, is the spirit of poetry.
August 3, 2012 at 8:42 PM
Anonymous said…
A religious worldview need not entail superstitious beliefs.
August 6, 2012 at 4:21 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen
159 comments
Read more

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist
49 comments
Read more

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se
446 comments
Read more