The Ethical Atheistic Humanist: Murder is not mandatory
I was encouraged to look up a dictionary definistion of Humanism. Of course, there is more than one brand of Humanism, depending upon whether you are a Renaissance type, a German Movement type, A fringy like Peter Singer, an atheist, an agnostic and so on and so on. Rather than go there, I would like to present beliefs that an atheistic Humanist would be likely to hold.
1) No God. The Universe happened by chance, it wasn't created by a higher power. It was simply a Big Bang, not a Big God, that was the Initial Cause of all.
2) No absolutes. The Humanist doesn't believe any higher power has determined right and wrong and puts this ultimately in the hands of men. The end result is that each man or woman is the ultimate lawmaker for themselves. This means that there really is no sin, for who is to determine what sin would be?
3) The physical world is real, but it is the only reality we can observe. There is no room for the supernatural or any other existence other than what we can taste, see, hear, smell and touch.
4) Since man came from chance accidents and mutations and so on, via an evolutionary trail, he is simply an animal. He is the highest of animals, but he has no special worth or purpose.
5) There is therefore no particular reason to live, other than to seek pleasures. Otherwise, an evolutionary urge to pass on one's genes could be argued and not much else.
6) There is no need for salvation, for there is no afterlife and no judgment to avoid.
7) Darwin's Origin of Species is the most important/significant book in the history of mankind.
Now, I grant you that the EAE is not required to murder anyone. As stated in the previous post, he may wish to avoid being apprehended and punished by society or he may simply not wish to murder someone else. But does he recognize any moral imperative to avoid murder, or rape, or theft? Humanists will give you wishy-washy answers about a seeking for the common good, the desire to make a better society and so on. But why? How does that fit in with evolutionary thought, the survival of the fittest? If you seek pleasures above all, how does helping the guy next door accomplish this? If you wish to be number one, how can helping the neighbor up to your level fit in with that desire? If you want your genes to be passed on, wouldn't you seek to eliminate or hinder the competition rather than help them? I cannot fathom the logic of a compassionate EAE, since it is not in keeping with the precepts of evolution.
No, I think rather that the Christian ethic underlies the morality of the Western World and in fact most of the world. God's influence has cause altruistic concepts to be adopted and certainly the Biblical morality is the basis for the legal system of countries like Great Britain and the United States. Biblical morality is so intrinsic to modern society that it is often not apprehended. Unfortunately, it gets attacked and eroded with time when Christian influences are not strong.
The pure EAE only cares for those who give him some kind of pleasure and fulfillment. He has no reason to be concerned about others. He fits into the system in order to avoid troubles, or else moves on the outskirts of the system and schemes to get away with ungodly acts by subterfuge. I've yet to see any good arguments to contradict my observations!
1) No God. The Universe happened by chance, it wasn't created by a higher power. It was simply a Big Bang, not a Big God, that was the Initial Cause of all.
2) No absolutes. The Humanist doesn't believe any higher power has determined right and wrong and puts this ultimately in the hands of men. The end result is that each man or woman is the ultimate lawmaker for themselves. This means that there really is no sin, for who is to determine what sin would be?
3) The physical world is real, but it is the only reality we can observe. There is no room for the supernatural or any other existence other than what we can taste, see, hear, smell and touch.
4) Since man came from chance accidents and mutations and so on, via an evolutionary trail, he is simply an animal. He is the highest of animals, but he has no special worth or purpose.
5) There is therefore no particular reason to live, other than to seek pleasures. Otherwise, an evolutionary urge to pass on one's genes could be argued and not much else.
6) There is no need for salvation, for there is no afterlife and no judgment to avoid.
7) Darwin's Origin of Species is the most important/significant book in the history of mankind.
Now, I grant you that the EAE is not required to murder anyone. As stated in the previous post, he may wish to avoid being apprehended and punished by society or he may simply not wish to murder someone else. But does he recognize any moral imperative to avoid murder, or rape, or theft? Humanists will give you wishy-washy answers about a seeking for the common good, the desire to make a better society and so on. But why? How does that fit in with evolutionary thought, the survival of the fittest? If you seek pleasures above all, how does helping the guy next door accomplish this? If you wish to be number one, how can helping the neighbor up to your level fit in with that desire? If you want your genes to be passed on, wouldn't you seek to eliminate or hinder the competition rather than help them? I cannot fathom the logic of a compassionate EAE, since it is not in keeping with the precepts of evolution.
No, I think rather that the Christian ethic underlies the morality of the Western World and in fact most of the world. God's influence has cause altruistic concepts to be adopted and certainly the Biblical morality is the basis for the legal system of countries like Great Britain and the United States. Biblical morality is so intrinsic to modern society that it is often not apprehended. Unfortunately, it gets attacked and eroded with time when Christian influences are not strong.
The pure EAE only cares for those who give him some kind of pleasure and fulfillment. He has no reason to be concerned about others. He fits into the system in order to avoid troubles, or else moves on the outskirts of the system and schemes to get away with ungodly acts by subterfuge. I've yet to see any good arguments to contradict my observations!