Monday, September 18, 2006

Do you have to be gullible to be a humanist

It is interesting how people who are "from Missouri" when it comes to claims about God are amazingly gullible when it comes to their understanding of human nature. In fact, when it comes to human ambitions, they seem willing to buy bridges in California and New York and oceanfront property in Arizona. As George Strait sings:

I got some oceanfront property in Arizona
From my front porch you can see the sea
I got some oceanfront property in Arizona
If you'll buy that I'll throw the Golden Gate in free

6 comments:

Blue Devil Knight said...

Here is the most recent manifesto. What, in particular, do you find objectionable. While I wouldn't sign such a document, I don't find anything obviously false in it. That's not to say I think it is all true, but I don't see the passages that inspired your accusations of rampant credulity.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it's too bad that religion has retained its headlock on humans for so many centuries. I don't think that's going to change anytime soon, however, since so many people have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Victor Reppert said...

At first glance, it looks cleaned up. I mean II, which was supposed to be more realistic than I, recommends sexual freedom heedless of the kinds of harms that can result (OK, HIV was still about 10 years away, but still), and supports a transnational federal government. So on the third try they came up with something that doesn't buy in on a ridiculously false view of human nature.

Blue Devil Knight said...

Quote from II:
We wish to cultivate the development of a responsible attitude toward sexuality, in which humans are not exploited as sexual objects, and in which intimacy, sensitivity, respect, and honesty in interpersonal relations are encouraged. Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity.

This seems pretty reasonable to me.

Victor Reppert said...

tement was: taThe full sSIXTH: In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered "evil." Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their life-styles as they desire. We wish to cultivate the development of a responsible attitude toward sexuality, in which humans are not exploited as sexual objects, and in which intimacy, sensitivity, respect, and honesty in interpersonal relations are encouraged. Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity.

VR: At least one should recognize that a good deal of sexual expression involves the breaking of sexual fidelity promises made previously. Does promise-keeping lose its importance where sex is involved?

Chesterton once said something like: "It's one thing to complain about the existence of police. It is another to complain about police as if there were no such thing as burglars." The Manifesto II seems insufficiently aware of the burglars that motivate the existence of the "repressive" police.

Mike D said...

I learned that Israel invaded Lebanon because fundamentalist Christians want Jesus to return soon!??
http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/hezisrael.php

Are all humanists this nuts?