I was hopeful, Yuyutsu, when I got to "…and science is only good within the realm of existence," expecting the dichotomous "and religion is only good within the realm of nonexistence". But no.

That you are seeking "rather to point out that the religious perspective stands on the same logical footing as the humanist perspective" was one of those "What the…?" moments for me. I think we've reached the stage where you need to supply a primer for the rest of us who think that, for public discourse, it's important the use of the words "logical, reason, reality and indeed God" are not contorted into nonsense.

To paraphrase William James, "the use of a given object, like a word, may be lost by the mind. We may lose our acoustic idea or our articulatory idea of it; neither without the other will give us a proper command the word. And if we have both, but have lost the paths of association between the brain centres which support the two we are in as bad a plight."

What you have demonstrated without doubt is the apparently infinite capacity of the human brain for imagination.

But I'm biased in my perceptions – having reached a conclusion so far, that religion is the result, and is analogous to an optical illusion, when our conscious minds try to cope attempting to comprehend our mortality. It seems there's something there but it's not real.

Pericles questions yuyutsu:- "And the "unprovable metaphysical assertion" upon which humanism is based is... what, exactly?"
He explained this on page two, or thereabouts, with words to the effect that Humanists make the unprovable metaphysical assertion that humans are the most important objects for our study and reverence, and they base their actions on what is of benefit to humans, instead of the entire living world. And therein lies a problem for a finite planet in which the natural world is on the verge of irreparable damage.
Animism is the answer.

I've always considered Buddahism as a religion yet it has no diety. A religion is a method of worship / devotion to a belief system that gives answers to existence and purpose. What one is devoted too as one's highest ideal of behaviour and character is one's religion.

Ybgirp,

Too clever !

Your slide from a very debatable 'Humanists make the unprovable metaphysical assertion that humans are the most important objects for our study and reverence,'

to

'they base their actions on what is of benefit to humans, instead of the entire living world....'

begs the question. In my limited understanding, and perhaps with some wishful thinking, humanists are concerned about ALL of the natural world, of which humans are a necessary component, and perhaps the only component which can do much about fixing up the damage, after as well as before the event, that all species have - usually unintentionally - wrought on the planet.

Yes, humans are a major part of humanist thinking if only because we humans have the means to do either great harm or, hopefully, great good - turtles and mosquitoes don't yet have the technology to counter global warming or Third World poverty, but we have the potential to develop it - at the same time as we are finding ways of protecting the existence of those turtles and, to a lesser extent, mosquitoes. In the case of turtles, stopping their killing using power-boats and spear-guns would be a start.

So the teaching of religion, as a precautionary tale so to speak, and of ethics, human core values, is vital in schools.

Children must understand the limits of superstition and a child-like belief in the supernatural, and that there is nobody to save the world from the damage that may be wreaked on it, except us: not to leave it up to either some imagined god or to the turtles. Us, we, have the responsibility, and the potential.

Schoolchildren must get an initial understanding of why and how that damage is taking place, and whether or not humans can devise social and other systems to overcome, minimise and avoid such problems in the future.

And obviously, only atheists and humanists are able to do any of that impartially.

Joe ;)

Loudmouth,
You make the unfounded claim, "And obviously, only atheists and humanists are able to do any of that impartially".

Please give your reasoning for such a claim and demonstrate by examples.

Most religions believe god created all things and has given man ultimate responsibility to manage and preserve and sustain all life. That is the original commission given to man which Jews and Christians uphold. The Hebrew Scriptures gives instructions on land maintenance to retain productivity 1000 BC. These instructions are linked to religious practise. These were also in existence in Mesopotamia and Egypt prior to that and are deeply religious States.

Hi Josephus,

All religious people are entitled to believe in whatever rubbish they like, magic, spirits, sorcery, miracles, the smiting of this or that city and burning bushes.

But by definition, any one religious person could not be impartial towards the beliefs of other religions: one only has to think of the innumerable religious wars to be aware of that ghastly defect in some humans.

So clearly, only people like atheists or humanists, who are above all of that squabbling and back-biting and incipient warfare, can be in a position of impartiality.

So they are the only people who should be allowed anywhere near schoolchildren to teach them ethics or respect for other people, and for the natural world.

Cheers,

Joe ;)