Philosophy
Affirmations of Secular Humanism – #2
(This (long overdue) post is the second in a series discussing the affirmations of secular humanism. The introduction to the series can be found here, the first post here.)
We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
The first portion of this affirmation, to me, represents a delicate balancing act. We must first recognize the limits of human perception and cognitive ability, which are considerable. All around us are examples of creatures who can see better, smell better, hear better, and so on. Our cognitive limitations are perhaps best displayed when we marvel at the abilities of spelling bee participants and Jeopardy contestants. We know we’re not perfect. However, this does not make us, as theists would have you believe, “broken.” Our natural shortcomings do not place an upper limit on the potential of human intelligence. After we acknowledge our natural boundaries, we humans are at our best when we work within them to conceptualize real and metaphorical bridges, machines, cranes, and other tools to artificially expand what we can accomplish intellectually. We use reason to safeguard these devices against our natural tendency to screw up. We do not claim that human intelligence is the greatest possible intelligence, only that it and its shepherd, reason, are the best we’ve encountered so far.
That brings us to the second and third portions of the affirmation. Believers recommend that the supernatural offers a greater manifestation of intelligence than humanity could ever know. This is, of course, completely unfalsifiable and, therefore, completely useless. (To demonstrate, ask a person of faith how they determine the difference between the supernatural and the fictional.)
The second portion of the affirmation addresses beliefs, knowledge, and explanations. I believe Richard Dawkins said it best when he said, “I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.“ When human intelligence can’t yet answer a question, the only appropriate answer is, “We don’t know yet.” However, believers in the supernatural find it better in this case to create an answer out of whole cloth. This practice sets the whole of human intelligence back immeasurably. It is no different than simply giving up on knowledge. Worse yet, some believers find it better to create a supernatural answer even when a more practical, logical solution has been revealed through science and reason, as in the case of evolution.
The third portion of the affirmation addresses actions. While it is certainly damaging to human progress to perpetuate belief in the supernatural, the actions resulting from the belief can be even more harmful. Appealing to the supernatural in lieu of taking real, reasonable action has actually taken lives. Supernatural belief also perpetuates the attitude that this planet is only a temporary home for us, and we’ll somehow find one in another realm if we trash this one, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. While we should avoid alarmism, we have to be ready to take action now to fix the problems that arise in the natural here and now.
Ultimately, this affirmation refines the basic theme of the first. Given a choice between human intelligence/reason and the supernatural, we secular humanists will always go with human intelligence/reason. That is, until something better comes along.
Disclaimer: The views expressed by an individual contributor to this blog are not necessarily shared by all members of FreeThought Fort Wayne. That is what makes this organization so interesting. Commenters on the FreeThought Fort Wayne blog are expected to abide by our comment policy. About the author: Michael won't let anyone forget that he, as one of the founding members and now Vice President, came up with the name "FreeThought Fort Wayne." So there. You may contact him at vicepresident (at) freethoughtfortwayne (dot) org. Read more from this author
The Affirmations of Secular Humanism – #2 by Michael B., unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Tags: Discussion
7 comments for “Affirmations of Secular Humanism – #2”
Post a comment
Categories
Our Readers
This was a great post. It always did bother me about the difference between religions and cults. There isn’t much of one. Religions just have better PR.
I love the intention behind this. A couple objections, though:
I’ve never seen a definition of supernatural that I thought was actually useful. If something manifests in the observable world, it’s part of nature, and therefore ought to be described as natural. If spirits and ghosts and the other things people slap that label on were to exist and be intelligent agents, their minds must operate according to some kind of laws, which knocks the knees out from under all the special pleading for unpredictability and unrepeatability. The machinery of science is fully equipped to deal with such oddities and rarities, should evidence of their interactions with the world be found.
And if that evidence were found, it wouldn’t be right to prejudice oneself against them as an explanation of the universe if, in fact, they were an explanation of the universe. (Of course, they themselves would require an explanation, as a separate matter.) The greater point is that they wouldn’t automatically have any kind of moral authority or claim on your mind or your “soul.” They would be just another thing that exists, and whose actions and claims can be evaluated like any others.
None of this, of course, is what people are thinking of when they invoke God or other supernatural bugaboos in the sense that you’re rightly objecting to. In those cases God and the rest are just relabelings of their ignorance and an excuse to stop thinking, and it’s heartening that secular humanists aim to put the kibosh on that.
dystressed: I’ve always held that the difference between a religion and a cult is how long it’s been around.
Early Christianity was undoubted considered a cult.
Scientology, if it lasts a couple hundred more years, will be called a religion.
And if you’re looking for transitional forms, I offer Christian Science and Mormonism.
All their beliefs are equally goofy, the only difference is antiquity.
Or, to put it slightly differently:
Off topic, but I need clear up a matter. I had earlier offered my rather roomy home as a social meeting place. I had suggested this coming weekend.
Unfortunately, I fell while cleaning my garage this weekend and broke a rib. I’m going to be pretty useless for a while, so I’ll have to withdraw the offer for now.
Sorry. I’ll eventually make good. I promise.
John Anderson
Bummer, squared – you break a rib and we lose a chance to socialise. If I didn’t know better, I’d be tempted to think that it’s all part of God’s plan.
Don’t worry about the raincheck. These next couple of weeks are fairly busy anyway. We have a meeting on both the 10th and 16th and the live call-in show on the 15th. So, we have ample opportunities to meet-and-greet.
If there was a chance in hell that it would help, I’d pray for you to get better, but I have much more confidence in your own body’s power to heal itself.
They say that laughter’s the best medicine, but I bet they didn’t have a broken rib when they thought that up.
Sorry you were hurt, littlejohn. Homeowning seems dangerous—maybe I’ll put it off for yet another decade.