Cycling UK Forum

Humanists seem to say there's no God but we should be nice anyway. Suppose people want to seek transcendence in bank robbing? Why should people be nice to fulfil a bourgeois set of feel-good values?

I can understand people being a bit wary of an old testament kick ass deity with a smiting hip and thigh reputation but not a let's be lovely because lovely's nice intellectual consensus. Surely belief in nothing is luxurious in itself without encumbering it with meaning? It seems a bit like the nice face of the void. And why don't they let say, Hindus join? Very intellectually exclusive IMO.

There's only one honest approach to these matters and that's a profound, informed and pragmatic agnosticism.

glueman wrote:Humanists seem to say there's no God but we should be nice anyway. Suppose people want to seek transcendence in bank robbing? Why should people be nice to fulfil a bourgeois set of feel-good values?

I can understand people being a bit wary of an old testament kick ass deity with a smiting hip and thigh reputation but not a let's be lovely because lovely's nice intellectual consensus. Surely belief in nothing is luxurious in itself without encumbering it with meaning? It seems a bit like the nice face of the void. And why don't they let say, Hindus join? Very intellectually exclusive IMO.

There's only one honest approach to these matters and that's a profound, informed and pragmatic agnosticism.

Iam agnostic about all that

kwackers wrote:... Why does there have to be much to understand? ...

There doesn't, but they run an Association for something that comes natural to most people.

kwackers wrote:As for a pressure group - why? I know lots of people who are humanists, but they don't advertise the fact, they just get on with their lives ...

The Humanists support or run campaigns: "The BHA devotes much of its time to campaigning and lobbying..."

The people you know, are they members of the BHA? I don't think I know anyone who is actually a member.

For those who live on the slopes of Winter Hill Bolton Museum are organising a series of meetings and lectures on Darwin. I will be at the one on 23 July.

patricktaylor wrote:The people you know, are they members of the BHA? I don't think I know anyone who is actually a member.

I went to a Central London Humanists group meeting a while back, though I'm not a member. Mostly everyone chatted about anything, about a third of the chat was in some way related to humanism.

The main issue they were concerned about seemed to be faith schools (I really don't understand why the government is promoting segregation with them). Also important was the Church of England, and its political weight (e.g. Bishops in the House of Lords).

In recent years I've been to two funerals conducted by Humanists. The first was of a friend of 50 years - she was the mother of a schoolfriend. I do not know if she was a Humanist. Last year my son's mother-in-law died in her 40s - I know she was not a Humanist.

I think that for anyone who is not a practising member of a religious body, their funeral can present a problem for their family. The established religions have the ceremonies and the experience to provide a funeral but it can be meaninglees, even hypocritical if the deceased had no religious faith. The alternative can be a DIY job which is OK if everybody is up to it but it can easily turn into a poor last memory.

In both the funerals I attended, the BHA provided somebody who simply provided a framework to ensure a dignified end. In one case, the person acted as a sort of facilitator, and a series of people spoke about the deceased's life. In the other, the Humanist did all the speaking, having visited the family to obtain their memories etc. He also read out a speech that a family member had wanted to read but who could not face it in the presence of her mother's coffin.

Although both began by introducing themselves as Humanists, Humanism was in no way advertised. One ended with a brief request that nobody should be offended by the lack of a religious ceremony but that was at the request of immediate family.

On the campaigning activities of The BHA, I do not think they try to convert people to their views, but rather press for a secular State - something that Napoleon B provided in much of Europe two centuries ago.

patricktaylor wrote:There doesn't, but they run an Association for something that comes natural to most people.

Does it? Isn't one of the reasons we're in the crap at the moment due to individual selfishness?

The Humanists support or run campaigns: "The BHA devotes much of its time to campaigning and lobbying..."

Yep, but they have no agenda in the same way religion does, they don't need to 'convert' to get a place in heaven or knock on peoples doors at all times of the day or night, tell people they're going to hell or use any other form of abuse (sometimes very personal) to get people to their way of thinking.

The people you know, are they members of the BHA? I don't think I know anyone who is actually a member.

I've no idea, they simply describe themselves as humanists (when asked). Having read all the bumf I think I might be inclined to also describe myself as such.

Having been to a friend of mines funeral (a rather splendid chap of 79) whom I didn't actually know was a humanist until then, my experience was pretty much as outlined by thirdcrank above.
Top funeral with real substance and meaning and (imo) all the better for the missing religious aspect.

kwackers wrote:... Isn't one of the reasons we're in the crap at the moment due to individual selfishness? ...

I'm not sure about that. Incompetence? (Selfishness and rampant greed aren't the same)

kwackers wrote:... Having read all the [Humanist] bumf I think I might be inclined to also describe myself as such ...

If I was forced to categorise myself, I suppose I might too, but I'm not comfortable with labels or being part of a movement just because I'm not religious. Richard Dawkins 'Selfish Gene' is one of the most persuasive and interesting books I've ever read, but that was a long time ago when he was still a scientist. Now, he's a Humanist.

It always amazes me how long these threads last on religion it seems to me that the non believers have to gather in a corner to convince themselves that there is no God.
The way I see it when I die and I find out that there is no afterlife, no heaven, no God what have I lost nothing at all, but if the church teaching have made me a better person in my life then it has won the day it is as easy as that. With out God and the church I may have been the same as I am now a normal adjusted person, but what if I wasn't.......

patricktaylor wrote:Richard Dawkins 'Selfish Gene' is one of the most persuasive and interesting books I've ever read, but that was a long time ago when he was still a scientist. Now, he's a Humanist.

Indeed.

"they run an Association for something that comes natural to most people"

Also true and incredibly English. Life is a meaningless series of events then you die - brilliant, let's make a club about it!

I'll be the first to admit that I know little about the Humanist movement.

But based on the little I do know about it, and the reasonable amount of ethnography/anthropology/sociology/archaeology/etc that I've done, I have to say that the Humanist movement does strike me as being a little devient.

It just isn't the natural state of humanity to 'be nice' to each other. That is why we have had religions and other ideologies (inc law and political systems) - they are the spit and sticky tape that allow humanity to form relitively stable society. It's all very well having these dreams of the egalitarian noble savage, and wanting to get back to the garden, but really there is no 'back' to get to.

Not that I criticise the Humanist movement: it seems to be an ideology for social control that attempts to be equally fair to all, although how far it suceeds I don't know.

numbnuts wrote:It always amazes me how long these threads last on religion it seems to me that the non believers have to gather in a corner to convince themselves that there is no God.
The way I see it when I die and I find out that there is no afterlife, no heaven, no God what have I lost nothing at all, but if the church teaching have made me a better person in my life then it has won the day it is as easy as that. With out God and the church I may have been the same as I am now a normal adjusted person, but what if I wasn't.......

Do we? I spent a fair amount of time 30 years ago, I don't need any convincing these days.

As for your second point - you don't find out, that's the finalilty of death.
However you would have wasted all that time you've spent telling somebody that doesn't exist how great he/she is.
Other than that I'm sure the church is a great social club for like minded people - just that there are similar things but without the religion.

Si wrote:I'll be the first to admit that I know little about the Humanist movement.

But based on the little I do know about it, and the reasonable amount of ethnography/anthropology/sociology/archaeology/etc that I've done, I have to say that the Humanist movement does strike me as being a little devient.

It just isn't the natural state of humanity to 'be nice' to each other. That is why we have had religions and other ideologies (inc law and political systems) - they are the spit and sticky tape that allow humanity to form relitively stable society. It's all very well having these dreams of the egalitarian noble savage, and wanting to get back to the garden, but really there is no 'back' to get to.

Not that I criticise the Humanist movement: it seems to be an ideology for social control that attempts to be equally fair to all, although how far it suceeds I don't know.

I agree it's not a natural state being 'nice' - however it's a great ideal and well worth aspiring too. The alternative is to decide "hey, we're just animals lets behave as instinct tells us".
In my view there's enough of that sort of behaviour as is, why not temper it with a bit of intelligence?

patricktaylor wrote:

kwackers wrote:... Isn't one of the reasons we're in the crap at the moment due to individual selfishness? ...

I'm not sure about that. Incompetence? (Selfishness and rampant greed aren't the same)

kwackers wrote:... Having read all the [Humanist] bumf I think I might be inclined to also describe myself as such ...

If I was forced to categorise myself, I suppose I might too, but I'm not comfortable with labels or being part of a movement just because I'm not religious. Richard Dawkins 'Selfish Gene' is one of the most persuasive and interesting books I've ever read, but that was a long time ago when he was still a scientist. Now, he's a Humanist.

Patrick

are you saying a Christian cant be a scientist?

If so you have got big problems, and I will start with lasers and global warming.

kwackers wrote:

Si wrote:I'll be the first to admit that I know little about the Humanist movement.

But based on the little I do know about it, and the reasonable amount of ethnography/anthropology/sociology/archaeology/etc that I've done, I have to say that the Humanist movement does strike me as being a little devient.

It just isn't the natural state of humanity to 'be nice' to each other. That is why we have had religions and other ideologies (inc law and political systems) - they are the spit and sticky tape that allow humanity to form relitively stable society. It's all very well having these dreams of the egalitarian noble savage, and wanting to get back to the garden, but really there is no 'back' to get to.

Not that I criticise the Humanist movement: it seems to be an ideology for social control that attempts to be equally fair to all, although how far it suceeds I don't know.

I agree it's not a natural state being 'nice' - however it's a great ideal and well worth aspiring too. The alternative is to decide "hey, we're just animals lets behave as instinct tells us".
In my view there's enough of that sort of behaviour as is, why not temper it with a bit of intelligence?

Oh, I'm all for being nice.
Just need to agree on whose defn of nice we will stick to