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.
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.
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.
Anonymous said…
A religious worldview need not entail superstitious beliefs.

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

What is Humanism?

What is Humanism? “Humanism” is a word that has had and continues to have a number of meanings. The focus here is on kind of atheistic world-view espoused by those who organize and campaign under that banner in the UK and abroad. We should acknowledge that there remain other uses of term. In one of the loosest senses of the expression, a “Humanist” is someone whose world-view gives special importance to human concerns, values and dignity. If that is what a Humanist is, then of course most of us qualify as Humanists, including many religious theists. But the fact remains that, around the world, those who organize under the label “Humanism” tend to sign up to a narrower, atheistic view. What does Humanism, understood in this narrower way, involve? The boundaries of the concept remain somewhat vague and ambiguous. However, most of those who organize under the banner of Humanism would accept the following minimal seven-point characterization of their world-view.

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o