[MD] Modern American Humanism and MOQ

[Jan-Anders]

Ham

Thanks a lot for your summary.

During that period the objective for humanity has balnced over from worship of God to worship of economic wealth or just greed.

The theological evolution is diminishing. The economic theories and the permanent open market operations are more important news today than calculations of the date for the resurrection of jesus christ.

One day the economic system will be so great and the system so efficent so it can satisfy all our needs, feed all the poor and free gasoline and electricity for all, mortgage and price crises will be historic matter. Just as our ability to build houses and electric guitars are satisfying already. The Gibson Les Paul model is now such a solid high quality product that their life cycle is prolonged to eternity. Nearly none of them at all will be trashed and recirculated. Jimi Hendrix tried to burn and crash some Fender Stratocasters but they are all resurrected and preserved by collectors and musicians. This means that eventually the whole earth will be covered by a thick layer of electric guitars.

"If you can buy it" will be the ultimate criteria for anything to be in existence in the end of the era of economics.

Scientific sects are going under by degeneration and age or cut into intellectual gems by smart quality-conscious advocates.

Humanism will eventually be so human that it will afford a sense of humour about itself. Until that it will suffer from the pain of powerful proper bores. Humanism will eventually evolve by it's methamorphosis and change it's name to Humourism. Just give me a reason to laugh at life. The most real and useful valuable commodity in the future.

Going to zero or 1, seize or stay, reality divided by possibility.

That's my profecy

yours sincere

J-A

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 01:03:09 -0500
From: "Ham Priday"<hampday1 at verizon.net>
To:<moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Subject: Re: [MD] Modern American Humanism and MOQ
Message-ID:<541D9A44EF9D43AB921A2FA30128995D at hamPC>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=Windows-1252;
	reply-type=original

Mark and All --


I've been wondering what prompted all this fuss about Humanism, and figure
it must mean that the folks here are of the opinion that the MoQ is a
humanist philosophy.

Regarding the Manifesto, Craig said: "I think all the points are right on."
Well, that depends on where your priorities are.  If you are a logical
positivist, a naturalist, or a utilitarian, the points fit you like a glove.
If you are a philosopher, theist, or an artist, however, they reject the
very heart of your reality.  My own attitude toward humanism is ambivalent.
I endorse the idea that humankind is unique in this world, and that science
is the best method for solving its problems.  On the other hand, I abhor the
the blind submission to evolutionary theory and outright rejection of
spirituality.  Like Platt, I'm also skeptical of the collectivist (Marxist?)
implications in the last plank which states: "We seek to minimize the
inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution
of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort."

In the event that some of you don't have a handle on this philosophy and the
belief system it fosters -- frankly, I didn't -- the following is a digest
of two days of research on the Internet.

Cultural Humanism started in the 18th and early 19th centuries as a
grass-roots movement promoting human betterment and the dissemination of
knowledge.  Following the French Revolution, Rousseau's idea that virtue
could be created by human reason alone was vigorously attacked by religious
and political conservatives. Edmund Burke and Joseph de Maistre, among
others, condemned it as the "deification of man," and the ecclesiastical
establishment opposed the political and social reforms that it foreshadowed.
One liberal reformer of the time, Ernest Renan in 'The Future of Knowledge:
Thoughts on 1848', wrote: "It is my deep conviction that pure humanism will
be the religion of the future, that is, the cult of all that pertains to
man ? all of life, sanctified and raised to the level of a moral value".  In
Germany, the "Left Hegelians" Arnold Ruge and Karl Marx were developing
humanism as a "progressive" philosophy centered around mankind (as opposed
to institutionalized religion) in an evolutionary universe.

Modern Secular Humanism actually had its roots in the Renaissance, and
focused on the split between reason and religion.  It challenged the
church's authority in two vital areas: Galileo's support of the Copernican
revolution in science, and Roman Catholic adherence to Jerome's Vulgate in
opposition to the theories of Aristotle in religion.  In theology, the Dutch
scholar Erasmus with his new Greek text showed that scriptural translations
were frequently in error, driving a wedge between "reason" and "authority",
as they were then understood.

The humanists have been interested in public education for nearly a century.
John Dewey, a principal founder of America's educational system, was one of
the chief signers of the 1933 Humanist Manifesto, and the humanists have
been eminently successful in teaching children that God is imaginary and
contrary to 'science'.  Secular Humanism is Evolutionary Theory, and to
satisfy the fundamental question "Where did we come from?" children are
taught the doctrine of Evolution.  Creation Science has been excluded from
the public school curriculum by the ACLU and other liberal-progressive
organizations on the grounds that Creation is religious, and the government
should not support religion in any fashion.

I found this ideological profile of the humanist in the website of
atheism.about.com, and I think it succinctly summarizes the worldview we are
talking about:

"Humanists don?t have what would be considered a typical metaphysical
outlook because humanists don?t normally accept the existence of anything
which isn?t a part of nature (or, if they do, they don?t believe that it is
?more real? than our own existence).  Humanists are essentially naturalists,
explaining the nature of reality in naturalistic and materialistic terms."

As I said above, whether you are a humanist or not "depends on where your
priorities are".  If the show fits . . .

Essentially spreaking,
Ham