MSN: Humanists call for African age of 'Enlightenment'

[alexey]

...
No one likes to hear that the group they favor is likely just as ruthless as they believe others to be. The only answer is religious freedom via inclusion and acceptance. Any group that gains a foothold that is defined by religion will IMO become decidedly less friendly to other religious beliefs. This is true in other areas as well of politics as well. I believe it to include any individual church within Christianity as well.

If the "religious freedom" in question is freedom to kill gays and albinos, inclusion and acceptance is not the answer.

If the only way to ensure religious freedom is by having a secular government, inclusion and acceptance of religion in government is not the answer.


And calls for secularism are NOT equivalent to calls for a different kind of religion.

[PeterMP]

I obviously don't know anything about this group, their longer term plans or objectives, or the ability to execute them.

But does anybody really doubt that Africa could use an Enlightment like "revolution"?

On another direction, is it dogmatic to say that dogmatism is bad?

[Yusuf06]

Apologetics already? That came sooner than expected. I'm not claiming the earth is flat, I'm claiming that people are dishonest. You're certain however that these people are genuine without having met them or knowing anything about them... All because they are pushing your belief system...

Thank goodness those atheist held a meeting and set all the believers straight in the USA. Do you even believe in religious freedom or do you simply tolerate it waiting for religions to, how did you put it, die naturally?

Me thinketh thou doth protest too much. Perhaps you might consider something before getting into such a lather, namely that to my knowledge Humanists, Freethinkers, Atheists/Agnostics have never committed the kinds of crimes against humanity that religious groups have; and no, purely political movements like communism that eschewed religion don't count. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that but I am 100% certain that stacked up side by side, religions' many historical atrocities would dwarf those of the unbelieving groups. In fairness I don't know of any such regimes in human history so having not been in power, nobody can say for sure. What I can say is that the Humanists and other such groups strongly associate themselves with the ideals of pluralism and open mindedness and unlike the religious do not consider their opposite to be "sinners" bound for hell or just inherently bad simply because theists choose to believe in something the Humanists, Freethinkers, etc. do not. I'm sure many, perhaps most consider themselves more enlightened but not so much so that any of them I know of have ever advocated violence or any kind of forced eradication of religion.

And FWIW, I'm not a Humanist myself, just part of the wide spectrum of disbelieving Heathens. However I do think their guiding principles are laudable.

[Jumbo]

I had a bumper sticker from over 30 years ago: "My karma ran over my dogma." I miss it.

Only bumper sticker I ever had.

I also miss the 1968 Ford Galaxie 500 it was on--with a custom bronze metallic paint job and a smokin' 390 CID engine (but I digress).

---------- Post added November-16th-2012 at 01:48 PM ----------

And FWIW, I'm not a Humanist myself, just part of the wide spectrum of disbelieving Heathens. However I do think their guiding principles are laudable.

I was going to express solidarity, but I misread "humanist" as "human." My bad.

[Destino]

On this matter Des, mi amigo, you are risking a sanction for your "it sickens me to read it" comment (I could let this first part go if that was all of it, but together it could be the typical week off in this particular context).

Edited. Apologies.

[Predicto]

I

I also miss the 1968 Ford Galaxie 500 it was on--with a custom bronze metallic paint job and a smokin' 390 CID engine (but I digress).

My first car was a 1966 Galaxie. God I loved that car.

[Destino]

If the "religious freedom" in question is freedom to kill gays and albinos, inclusion and acceptance is not the answer.

I'm not taking that comment seriously.

If the only way to ensure religious freedom is by having a secular government, inclusion and acceptance of religion in government is not the answer.

The only way to ensure religious freedom is to impose such a right on everyone. It's sad that we have to view allowing people the freedom to worship as an imposition but that is it's own argument. Point is, like it or not, people have the right to worship peacefully and openly.

And calls for secularism are NOT equivalent to calls for a different kind of religion.

If by secularism you mean that no religious view point is favored I agree. Assuming of course that humanism, atheism, and whatever other denomination of disbelief you wish constitute a position on the argument of religion. If you mean that any positive religious view point is rejected and that only that absence of religion is acceptable I disagree.

---------- Post added November-16th-2012 at 05:32 PM ----------

Me thinketh thou doth protest too much. Perhaps you might consider something before getting into such a lather, namely that to my knowledge Humanists, Freethinkers, Atheists/Agnostics have never committed the kinds of crimes against humanity that religious groups have; and no, purely political movements like communism that eschewed religion don't count. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that but I am 100% certain that stacked up side by side, religions' many historical atrocities would dwarf those of the unbelieving groups. In fairness I don't know of any such regimes in human history so having not been in power, nobody can say for sure. What I can say is that the Humanists and other such groups strongly associate themselves with the ideals of pluralism and open mindedness and unlike the religious do not consider their opposite to be "sinners" bound for hell or just inherently bad simply because theists choose to believe in something the Humanists, Freethinkers, etc. do not. I'm sure many, perhaps most consider themselves more enlightened but not so much so that any of them I know of have ever advocated violence or any kind of forced eradication of religion.

And FWIW, I'm not a Humanist myself, just part of the wide spectrum of disbelieving Heathens. However I do think their guiding principles are laudable.

This road leads to "they did it for stalinism/communism not atheism" and there will be no resolution at the end of it. What I ask is that you look at the logic of your own argument.

"What I can say is that the Humanists and other such groups strongly associate themselves with the ideals of pluralism and open mindedness and unlike the religious do not consider their opposite to be "sinners" bound for hell or just inherently bad"

You're arguing that religious people think ill of their rivals while nonreligious people embrace "pluralism"... all while slamming your religious rivals. Should we talk about "opiate of the masses" and "magic man in the clouds" and other common statements made by those championing the cause of pluralism? In the end all of these insults mean the same thing "people that agree with me are better in some way than people that don't". When that mind set gains power it doesn't usually take long for bad things to start happening. Superiority always leads to atrocity.

[alexey]

I'm not taking that comment seriously.

Are you arguing for inclusion and acceptance of current religious practices in Africa?

The only way to ensure religious freedom is to impose such a right on everyone. It's sad that we have to view allowing people the freedom to worship as an imposition but that is it's own argument. Point is, like it or not, people have the right to worship peacefully and openly.

I like people having the right to worship peacefully and openly.

I also like people having the right not to worship and not to get harassed (or worse) for their disbelief. This is why I agree with the message of these Humanists.

You're arguing that religious people think ill of their rivals while nonreligious people embrace "pluralism"... all while slamming your religious rivals. Should we talk about "opiate of the masses" and "magic man in the clouds" and other common statements made by those championing the cause of pluralism? In the end all of these insults mean the same thing "people that agree with me are better in some way than people that don't". When that mind set gains power it doesn't usually take long for bad things to start happening. Superiority always leads to atrocity.

If you have some ideas of what is true, and these ideas contradict with some other people's ideas of what is true, then you have a situation.

Can this situation be handled without thinking ill of rivals, feeling superior, better, etc? I think it can be.

However, I think that handling this situation properly requires openness and honesty.


Take a simple case of an obviously wrong superstition or an energetic evolution denier. Their claims are clearly wrong. Their arguments are clearly faulty. Is there an appropriate way to point these things out in Destino's universe?


Am I supposed to handle a faith-based position in the same way that I handle an evidence-based position?

Am I supposed to give same level of automatic respect to every idea, regardless of its contents?

Am I not allowed to carefully voice my views on a validity of an idea?




I disagree with many religious teachings and I find many of them immoral. However, I try to communicate that disagreement respectfully. I may make fun of Zeus using language, for example, that I will not use towards Jesus. However, as long as I am civil, I think I have the freedom to say what I think and why... and I will support other people's attempts to advance this freedom in their countries.

[Special K]

This article talks about religious extremism being a problem in Africa and about Humanists speaking out from secular Enlightenment values.

As far as I know religious extremism is a real problem in Africa.

I can definitely attest to the truth in this in a few different health/community development projects I have been involved with in Africa and SE Asia. Religious extremism is a major barrier to progress in a plethora of sectors in developing countries. That's kind of why I left a rather sarcastic comment about the humanists' likelihood of success in getting their viewpoint across in many of these cultures.

Obviously religious extremism needs to be overcome, it's just discouraging to see how big of a mountain that is to climb...particularly in countries where groups of people are kept isolated from each other due to lack of transportation, media, farming, pretty much everything infrastructure.

I am not disparaging them trying, just pessimistic about the likelihood of any semblence of success.

[Predicto]

Superiority always leads to atrocity.

Does it? Ben Franklin and the rest of the Founding Fathers, overwhelmingly influenced by the ideals of the Enlightenment, created something rather different than did Stalin and Mao. A secular government that provided religious freedom to the people. And I am pretty sure that they thought their ideas were superior to what had come before.

[Destino]

Are you arguing for inclusion and acceptance of current religious practices in Africa?

Is this supposed to be a Matlock moment where I confess to being the murderer? I'll play along! YES! Yes, of course I support the wholesale slaughter of homosexual and albinos. There can be no freedom of religion while these people prance around in the open flaunting their pale skins and possibly a stereotypical superior sense of fashion. I'd have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for... wait wait I've drifted into Scooby Doo.

I like people having the right to worship peacefully and openly.

I also like people having the right not to worship and not to get harassed (or worse) for their disbelief. This is why I agree with the message of these Humanists.

Harassed is hard to define. I'd settle for laws forbidding the government or employers from discriminating based on religious belief. Anything beyond that is difficult to nail down legally. I think atheist should have the right to say God is a silly myth in public so long as they aren't working for the government and other more specifically defined instances. Point is I don't think people have the right to avoid being insulted at the cost of shutting everyone else up. There are things that we'll run into that we don't like.

If you have some ideas of what is true, and these ideas contradict with some other people's ideas of what is true, then you have a situation.

Can this situation be handled without thinking ill of rivals, feeling superior, better, etc? I think it can be.

However, I think that handling this situation properly requires openness and honesty.

I'd say it includes respect and humility as well. When it comes to religious battle I think it's very difficult to assert truth on others without superiority showing up to the party. That's not the only situation that invites superiority however.

Take a simple case of an obviously wrong superstition or an energetic evolution denier. Their claims are clearly wrong. Their arguments are clearly faultly. Is there an appropriate way to point these things out in Destino's universe?

Simply state the case for evolution. The battle is being fought in the US right now in fact and I don't see our society falling down around us. It's when one side decides to impose that we run into the problems. Like attempting to remove evolution from text books or include unscientific theory in science classes, that is unacceptable. Just as it would be unacceptable to prohibit the teaching of creationism in a religious setting.

Just have faith that the stronger argument will out.

---------- Post added November-16th-2012 at 06:41 PM ----------

Does it? Ben Franklin and the rest of the Founding Fathers, overwhelmingly influenced by the ideals of the Enlightenment, created something rather different than did Stalin and Mao. A secular government that provided religious freedom to the people. And I am pretty sure that they thought their ideas were superior to what had come before.

The founding fathers did not banish religion from the halls of government and the country at large. Religion was practiced right in front of them in government. What they did was ban the government from favoring and specific religion, an idea that has "evolved" as time passes. Stalin and Mao decided that religions weren't to be tolerated and felt justified in being bloody about it. Their goals weren't even similar to Ben Franklin and pals.

An idea being superior is not the same as feeling superior to another person or group. The founding fathers tolerated it very easily when it came to slavery and native americans and look at the results. Today take a look at the groups we deem inferior. Until recently little girls would be arrested if caught prostituting themselves rather than be treated like victims. Hookers are almost universally viewed as scum so few cared to help.

[alexey]

Is this supposed to be a Matlock moment where I confess to being the murderer? I'll play along! YES! Yes, of course I support the wholesale slaughter of homosexual and albinos. There can be no freedom of religion while these people prance around in the open flaunting their pale skins and possibly a stereotypical superior sense of fashion. I'd have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for... wait wait I've drifted into Scooby Doo.

Gotcha!

Harassed is hard to define. I'd settle for laws forbidding the government or employers from discriminating based on religious belief. Anything beyond that is difficult to nail down legally. I think atheist should have the right to say God is a silly myth in public so long as they aren't working for the government and other more specifically defined instances. Point is I don't think people have the right to avoid being insulted at the cost of shutting everyone else up. There are things that we'll run into that we don't like.

Laws are just one piece of the puzzle. There are other pieces, but unfortunately you stated your disbelief in their existence:


- [questioning religion] can mean difficulty finding work, developing one's business, making friends and finding romantic relationships, [etc].
- The common perception is that if you do not believe in the existence of a god you must either be worshipping the devil or be an immoral person, not to be trusted.
- So often, people who break away from blind faith believe they are alone.

I'd say it includes respect and humility as well. When it comes to religious battle I think it's very difficult to assert truth on others without superiority showing up to the party. That's not the only situation that invites superiority however.

In theory, sure.

In practice, however, accusations of disrespect and unhumility are a natural refuge for those without good arguments, as well as a standard slandering practice against disbelievers.

Simply state the case for evolution. The battle is being fought in the US right now in fact and I don't see our society falling down around us. It's when one side decides to impose that we run into the problems. Like attempting to remove evolution from text books or include unscientific theory in science classes, that is unacceptable. Just as it would be unacceptable to prohibit the teaching of creationism in a religious setting.

I think more than just "stating the case" is needed when encountering a deliberate campaign of disinformation.

Just have faith that the stronger argument will out.

I do not need faith. Truth will win out because it is better at dealing with reality. Evolution, remember?

[Jumbo]

Edited. Apologies.

You are quite the exception to the norm, amigo. Salute'

---------- Post added November-16th-2012 at 04:28 PM ----------

I do not need faith. Truth will win out because it is better at dealing with reality. Evolution, remember?

You "need" a lot of things you may not knowingly acknowledge, and you use faith regularly in your life. Every normally functioning human does, whether their awareness of it is solid or not. And faith and truth can be in concert. Your separation of them in framing reality is silly and misplaced. As was your linkage to evolution. The relationship of the two constructs is far more complex than you present them. You have much to learn, and often appear to be as subject to self-limiting as many of the folks you critique and in much the same manner (certain cognitive behaviors--just with different styling or flavors).

Be encouraged, you have a lot to offer and yet much growth is available to you (and me and everyone else, I assume).

[alexey]

You "need" a lot of things you may not knowingly acknowledge, and you use faith regularly in your life. Every normally functioning human does, whether their awareness of it is solid or not. And faith and truth can be in concert. Your separation of them in framing reality is silly and misplaced. As was your linkage to evolution. The relationship of the two constructs is far more complex than you present them. You have much to learn, and often appear to be as subject to self-limiting as many of the folks you critique and in much the same manner (certain cognitive behaviors--just with different styling or flavors).

Be encouraged, you have a lot to offer and yet much growth is available to you (and me and everyone else, I assume).

I see faith/beliefs as high level popular psychology constructs. If you subscribe to these constructs, then you may insist that I and all other people necessarily have faith/beliefs. I do not subscribe to these constructs. I am saying that I do not have any faith or any beliefs and I am wondering how you could demonstrate otherwise.

A little while back we had a fun discussion here about the word "belief", and I remember finding this and placing myself somewhere in the bottom two (Churchland / Dennett):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#...logical_theory


I used evolution outside the biological context on purpose. I want to promote an idea that evolution is applicable in a wide range of situations. "Evolutionists" are frequently accused of over-applying evolution. I think this is a horrible ignorance-promoting accusation. Evolution is widely applicable, including to ideas, and I think that I am on the firm ground when I expect it to eventually drive ideas towards the truth of reality (this process taking some time, as well as some wrong turns and detours are expected, of course).


I certainly have much to learn and I also appreciate reminders to be humble. One area where I can clearly see my deficiencies, and it is directly applicable here, is that of kindness and tolerance. I tend to overly focus on areas of disagreement rather then trying to understand where people come from and starting there. Do not get me wrong - I think that I am plenty kind and plenty tolerant, and that accusations made against me in this thread are way off... but it would be great to build up more of that inner peace and harmony which helps me see more layers of each situation and helps everybody around get in a good mood, feel at ease, and work together without all that unnecessary bumping of heads.

[Predicto]

The founding fathers did not banish religion from the halls of government and the country at large. Religion was practiced right in front of them in government. What they did was ban the government from favoring and specific religion, an idea that has "evolved" as time passes. Stalin and Mao decided that religions weren't to be tolerated and felt justified in being bloody about it. Their goals weren't even similar to Ben Franklin and pals.

An idea being superior is not the same as feeling superior to another person or group. The founding fathers tolerated it very easily when it came to slavery and native americans and look at the results. Today take a look at the groups we deem inferior. Until recently little girls would be arrested if caught prostituting themselves rather than be treated like victims. Hookers are almost universally viewed as scum so few cared to help.

Yes. And every one of your posts assumes, without any evidence, that the awful Humanists in this thread are Stalin and Mao come back to life. And what's more, you seem to imply that this is what alexey wants.

Just telling you how it looks from outside. I'm agnostic, and I'm generally very sympathetic to religious folks of good will.