Pericles,
I agree with most of your assessments.
My major concern now is that Humanism is seen by many as a formal (dogmatic) one all encompassing definition fits all, rigid template.
To assert that it limits the concept to that equalling a religion and therefore has no place in formal 'religion free' education.

Religion (a belief in a supernatural/absolutist explanation) is in the realms of the rights of the individual and as I said to AFA has no place in public policy.
On the basis that it will be taught by non professional teachers with no set curriculum and may include proselytising/indoctrination both of which are by definition divisive (both are based on concept of separatism and superiority which is clearly counter to critical thinking…they assume an indivisible/indisputable conclusion, a factual nonsense) I too have serious concerns.

Meredith,
I have some difficulty with your ‘public’ right to be intolerant.
Here again I make a clear distinction between “private rights” and “public policy”.
Both by definition have different objectives. This subtle but definite and defining distinction is the sticking point in many debates on OLO and elsewhere.

By denying this we tend to get opinions based on nothing more than personal logically unsupportable prejudices i.e. take the topic ‘Knee-jerk insanity’(pleeese) all of the pro arguments are unsupportable in fact on many levels. Yet a poor generally directed comment inspired two respondents to take a ‘public policy’ debate personal and what followed was a series of immature pointless ad hominem insults.

I put it to you and more specifically others of the fixed opinion set that the above distinction defines the appropriateness of the acceptability of intolerance i.e. if the subject is “public policy” with its specific objectives (best for all people) then “personal” intolerances and seeking personal advantage over the greater good is indefensible and should be avoided. Reasoned debate by definition must be consistent with the objectives of the topic and all contribution that addresses the above criteria are valid. Conversely arguments that inhibit that primary objective are therefore invalid and inappropriate. Comments?

Polycarp

"Any belief system, wether mystical or not.. must exclude at least some other contrary belief systems."

Sounds like a castrated ram argument to me.

I assume you're categorizing humanism as a 'belief system'. Irrespective of whether or not such a categorization is correct or not, it is quite wrong to suggest, as you have, that humanism excludes 'other contrary belief systems'.

As stated in the principles linked to by david f, secular humanism rests on a "A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith."

Humanism, unlike your brand of Christianity, does not demand the exclusion of other belief systems. It sees a place in society for a diversity of cultural and spiritual belief. It allows for individuals to choose whichever personal belief system satisfies them, provided it is practised at an individual level and not rammed down others' throats.

What secular humanism does exclude, and quite rightly, is the attempted indoctrination of faith-based dogma by any one particular group onto other members of the community.

david f

Thank you for the link to that website. I love those secular humanist principles. I've bookmarked them - they could well become my new 'bible'!

BRONWYN SAID:

<<Humanism, unlike your brand of Christianity,..... provided it is practised at an individual level and not rammed down others' throats.>>

Bron (and David f)... u mean.. like ur trying to do to me now ? :)

David.. there are 2 types of evidence:

1/ Scientific.
2/ Legal.

The 2nd involves personal testimony.
"Scientific" cannot be used on matters of history... (other than the obvious.. archeological and that kind of thing)

Bron..the only thing more curious than the emptiness and inconstency of Humanism is it's adherents belief that they are 'open minded'.

"My" brand of Christianity is the Biblical one. (now that should just about destroy 50 keyboards in one go:) In as much as:..... I present the words of the Lord, rightly interpreted in terms of accepted principles of documentary hermeneutic. This is something I can argue on a case by case basis for particular portions of scripture.... For example... when the Lord says "No one shall see the kingdom of God unless he is born again" there is not a lot of room for 'interpretation' other than.. the clear intent of his words.

We might argue a bit on what he means by 'see'....and that is fair enough. But the context makes it clear that Nicodemus 'got it' and was only wondering about what Jesus mean't by 'born again' not 'see'.

Your quote used the words 'provided'...... 'individual'..... sorry..but that is 'ramming down the throat'.... But your use of that terminology seems to suggest that you regard R.E. as ramming unwanted ideas into children?

How does that connect with 'non compulsory' ?

Dear Polycarp,

We weren't discussing legal evidence. We were discussing scientific evidence so personal testimony is not relevant.

My people wrote the Bible and incorporated our tribal legends such as stories about Eden, the flood and Babel.

The Rainbow Serpent is in the Aboriginal creation myth. Thinking Jews and Aborigines do not confuse tribal legends with the word of God even if they believe in God. Thinking Christians can accept the message of Jesus without believing in the miracles.

I think many thoughtful believers in God think that God has set up the world so well that miracles involving suspension of natural laws are unnecessary. A miracle means God didn't foresee what was going to happen.

FYI the following describes the scientific method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

Polycarp
No one is trying to ram anything down your throat unless its an echidna on heat .:-)

In truth your argument as alway has two fatal flaws
- Religion isn't essential to a sense of morals
- That you and those who preach dogma fail to understand the issue that there is a fundamental difference between private rights and public policy .i.e. you have the right to believe what ever suits your needs however you don't have the right to enforce your views on public policy. They have two DIFFERENT, separate and conflicting OBJECTIVES.
N.B. there is difference between supporting a religious ideology that imposes both on public policy and private rights (your stance). (Judgemental)
Supporting none (in public policy) accepting individuals rights in private (my stance). (non judgemental)
Enforcing anti god (AFA Inc stance) on the individual. (Judgemental)
Note I told Pericles that although I class myself as a secular humanist I:
- objected to the secular mantra (there is no supernatural god) being forced on any public policy. Rather paraphrase the biblical quote ‘give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to the individual (god) what is the individual’s (god’s).’
- am concerned that dogmatised humanism is being taught by untrained unprofessional teachers without an agreed curriculum.

Dear David...nothing quite warms my heart than when you make stuch beautiful statements as :

"My people wrote the Bible"

Indeed they did. But when you say they incorporated 'tribal legends'...well we diverge there. I tried to raise a thread on "The Covenant" but it was rejected. I'll have a little dabble here on what I was saying because it relates to your statement above:

DEUTERONOMY 1:1-

<<1 These are the words Moses spoke to all Israel in the desert east of the Jordan—that is, in the Arabah—opposite Suph, between Paran and Tophel, Laban, Hazeroth and Dizahab. 2 (It takes eleven days to go from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea by the Mount Seir road.)>>

Clearly the insertion of an editor (probably one of the Cohens :)

<<3 In the fortieth year, on the first day of the eleventh month, Moses proclaimed to the Israelites all that the LORD had commanded him concerning them. 4 This was after he had defeated Sihon king of the Amorites, who reigned in Heshbon, and at Edrei had defeated Og king of Bashan, who reigned in Ashtaroth.
5 East of the Jordan in the territory of Moab, Moses began to expound this law, saying: >>

Then it shifts to Moses himself speaking. Most probably this refers to a record they had in the community.

MOSES: 6 "The LORD our God said to us at Horeb", .... and so it goes on.

NOTICE PLEASE the connection to:

-Real events/battles/named kings-people groups.
-Places.
-Journey times.
-Times/months etc.

ABsolutely fascinating!

EXAMY...I've never said "Religion is needed for a sense of morals"
What I DO say is: "Without Religion, the morality can be as varied as there are people" kind of thing. *slap* :)