Religion of Secular Humanism

Religion of Secular Humanism. My friends at Summit Ministries complete their series on Secular Humanism with a study of how the Secular Humanist Worldview has become a religion itself (Part 13 of 13).

Please visit http://www.Summit.org for more videos and resources for understanding Secular Humanism and developing a Biblical Christian Worldview, including various Summit camps and retreats.

Also, visit http://www.AllAboutWorldview.org for more information on the Religion of Secular Humanism, Christian Worldview, and Christian Apologetics.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Secular Humanism
• Religion
• Ideology
• Doctrine
• Humanist Manifesto
• Summit
• Worldviews
• You Tube
• Video Series
• Randall Niles

[TeachSecularHumanism]

This video just goes from one misunderstanding to the next. Secular Humanism is not the same as religious humanism.

Religion is widely described as being a supernatural belief system, this would include beliefs such as (some) Buddhism but not beliefs like Secular Humanism.

This is just another video trying to make out that Christianity is having a hard time in America; it isn't.

This really is not hard...

[Ashiman12]

Religion is threatened by secular humanism, and by atheism in general. Different religions may disgaree with each other, but they seem to have a sort of understanding. All religious are equally unprovable, equally unreasonable. A Christian can look at a Muslim, and take some comfort in that shared unsubstantiality. But doesn't play by the rules. The only way a religious person can handle it is to make humanism and/or atheism into a religion. That makes it all "okay".

[TeachSecularHumanism]

@TheDavid2222 Tell me this then, without brains capable of feeling pain/pleasure would we even have morality?

You keep saying that the grounding has to be metaphysical and now you're saying it has to be not bound by time/space. Why is this? You've only asserted it so far.

Science has always been amoral, it couldn't justify genocide! Morality will always be a philosophical topic but that doesn't mean that it can't have a basis in the real world.

[TheDavid2222]

@TeachSecularHumanism Pain and pleasure do not provide the materials upon which a morality can be established. Values are something that must come from outside of the human subject. I can't take a scientist seriously when they say they know what people should believe or do based off of scientific discovery. Besides, scientific knowledge is dependent on time and place. Science does NOT say that life is sacred. We have chosen to believe that. Science could endorse genocide.

[TeachSecularHumanism]

@TheDavid2222 I know you're talking about metaphysics but I'm providing a different basis for morality than the usual. If it is the case that pain/pleasure etc are products of the brain then there is potentially a real world basis for morality. You were saying how Humanists can't say something is a moral law and that it is subjective preference, I've given reasons why that isn't the case.

The theists give divine command theory as their answer for morality, I can't take that seriously!

[TheDavid2222]

@TeachSecularHumanism I suggest that you look at my statements again and look over them. I'm not trying to be rude, but you are bypassing my statements. I'm talking about metaphysics here, not science. Every system of thought needs justification outside of experience. Secular Humanism doesn't have justification. Theists actually do have more of a point than you realize. I suggest you take them more seriously when it comes to their criticisms of Secular Humanism.

[TeachSecularHumanism]

@TheDavid2222 It's hardly begging the question, it's neuroscience! There are some whose neurological makeup is a bit different from others so we can treat them accordingly; no problem there. You keep going on about authority, why is that? I'm used to hearing that argument from the theistic side but you don't appear to be a theist so I'm confused as to where that's coming from. My view is very utilitarian granted and utilitarianism has its problems but I still think it works well.

[TheDavid2222]

@TeachSecularHumanism your begging the question. One person's pain can be another's pleasure. Secular Humanism does not have the authority to lay down rules of any kind. Look up nihilism on youtube or something. Every important philosopher since the mid 1800's has at least addressed nihilism. Your pain pleasure measuring device is definitely utilitarian. You will certainly eventually notice that lots of people are not utilitarians. Myself included.

[TeachSecularHumanism]

@TheDavid2222 I have an unusual defence in terms of morality. Our subjective experiences of pain and pleasure and all the things inbetween refer to things that are happening in the brain (materialism wrt matters of mind). This (to me at least) bridges the gap in the is-ought problem. Essentially people's subjective feelings are something objective!

Besides Hume's is-ought referred to nature at large, with individuals it's easy to derive an ought from an is.

[TheDavid2222]

@TeachSecularHumanism David Hume famously deduced that "it is logically impossible to get an ought from an is." Secular Humanism does not have the authority to prescribe value to certain actions over others. When a secular humanist says something is a "moral law", it is really is just their subjective preference. Science can tell us what their is but not what we ought to do. Nihilism is the recognition that nothing has value. I know it's depressing. We can't give value.

[TeachSecularHumanism]

@TheDavid2222 Well that came out of nowhere. Feel free to explain why that's the case.

[TheDavid2222]

@TeachSecularHumanism Secular Humanism has NO philosophical backbone. The intellectually honest atheist is a nihilist. Secular Humanists prefer certain values, but those preferences are subjective.