[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Except this one? A conviction that there should be no other convictions? And by what standard do you judge.

It's true that there are many secular humanists who believe there that their opinion is the only one that counts, just as there many religionists who feel the same way about their opinions; but that isn't at the heart of what secular humanism is about. Cooler heads recognize that compassionate, thinking adults can arrive at different conclusions as to the nature of ultimate reality, and are willing to seek common ground, especially where common concerns make unlikely bedfellows of groups who may strongly differ in other regards. That's why Paul Kurtz and other secular humanists have empathized working together with religious groups in situations where the goals of the groups overlap.

You seem to confuse secular humanism with the village atheism of folks like Madalyn Murray O'Haire, who was so stuck on having her own way that even other nonbelievers found it difficult or impossible to work with her.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

How about Godel's incompleteness theorem? It says that science and mathematics can never know everything.

And Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that we can never know with certainty both the velocity and speed of any particular subatomic particle, but is that a reason to throw our hands up in the air and assume nothing can be known? Are you seriously suggesting that because it's extremely unlikely that everything will ever be or even could be known that people should abandon critical inquiry and rely instead upon what—intuition? Not that intuition is useless; certainly its use has led to breakthroughs in the past and will surely do so in the future, but there are problems with intuition as the sole source of knowledge. One is that it leads different people to differing conclusions, and there is no intuitive way for a third party to discern which one is right; in such cases, the solution, if it to be found at all, lies with more empirical methods, and that requires relying on factual evidence and scientific methods. Another problem with intuition as the ultimate arbiter of knowledge is that often it relies less on information gathered subconsciously as it does on what we had for supper the previous night, or worse; opinions unthinkingly imbibed in childhood. Intuition is a valuable tool only when critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry are allowed to check its errors and excesses. The scientific method is not a perfect method for determining truth from falsehood, but I maintain that it is the best method so far devised.

No one is claiming that critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry will or can reveal every detail about reality. To assume otherwise is to create a straw man argument.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

That one bites it's own tail. What may be good for an individual may be bad for humanity in general, and vice versa. (eugenics, anyone?)

So, let me understand what you are saying: Is eugenics good for the individual, or for society? Your question seems to assume it's good for either one or the other. Although many progressives and most mainstream Protestant leaders supported the eugenics movement at one time; today not many in either group would defend that position, and most modern secular humanists would argue that's not good for either the individual or society. It is nearly universally viewed as a step in the wrong direction. Hence the emphasis there on both the individual and humankind. The concerns of the group and the individual must be respected.

No one is making the claim that it's always easy to consider the good of the many while not ignoring the needs of the one. Ethical decisions aren't always cut and dried, but secular humanists believe a best faith effort should always be made.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

There's no such thing as objective truth. Weight of measured evidence, yes, objective truth - no such animal...

I believe there is. That's a metaphysical position to be sure, but not one for which there is no evidence. I believe the sun is roughly 93 million miles from where I'm writing this post. That's an objective truth borne of countless measurements, experiments, and calculations, all agreeing with the basic premise. However, I am willing to concede that such knowledge is imperfect, and that the possibility exists, however remote, that the sun is only, in fact, five miles away, and that nature is somehow so constructed as to produce the illusion that it is otherwise. But until I see convincing evidence of that, I must accept the former estimate as being more in tune with reality. In any case, it is an objective reality that the sun is somewhere, even if I am only a brain in a vat and it is only in my mind. Hence I shall continue to strive to discover objective truth, even though my knowledge of it must always remain imperfect and tentative.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Even if the outlook of those who differ from us is to wipe us off the map and eliminate our intellectual and artistic achievements?

During the era of the Reformation and the religious wars that followed, Protestants, who took seriously the commandment to make no graven image, regularly raided Catholic Churches and destroyed countless numbers of statutes and other items of irreplaceable artwork. Catholics retaliated by the wholesale persecution of Protestants. Each group tried their best to slaughter and exterminate the other. Had not the humanist values of tolerance and pluralism ultimately triumphed in the Western world to ease the friction between the two groups, we might still be seeing that kind of vandalism and rage today. Do we need to understand the outlooks of people who would wish to wipe us and our achievements off the map? Absolutely. Those are the very people we'd better understand. To remain ignorant of their motivations is suicidal. Should we allow ourselves to be destroyed and our intellectual and artistic achievements eliminated? Of course not. We need to learn how to reach these people and convince them that there is a better way to live, just as the Catholics and Protestants had to learn that there was a better way.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Judging people? By what standard? And with or without consent of the judged? And if they don't measure up, what? Eliminate them?

How did you get judging people out of judging principles? And who said anything about eliminating anybody?

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Conviction? Belief? There's a difference? Note, I'm referring to the concept, not what the concept is applied to. Both are statements of faith. Just faith in different things...(And having watched and read about the human animal in action, just as silly)

Everyone has beliefs and assumptions upon which they operate. What differentiates a humanistic outlook from a dogmatic outlook is how those beliefs are held. Humanists understand enough about their own limitations and imperfections to recognize the possibility that their most cherished beliefs could be incomplete or erroneous; therefore all beliefs held by humanists qua humanists are tentative and subject to revision as further evidence comes to light.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Of course, I'm just a surly curmudgeon, who breaks out in hives when I hear the term "making a better world for-", because it's always been at my expense. And I'm tired of picking up the tab....

You must really despise the Bible then, for both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament are filled with exhortations to give to the poor, help the oppressed, care for the widows and orphans, and be kind to non-citizens ("remembering that you also were non-citizens in a strange land"). There is perhaps no theme in the Bible to which more words have been devoted, save for the commandments to honor God, than the imperatives to help the less fortunate. Early Christian societies were especially renowned for their charity. To God's question to Cain, "Am I my brother's keeper?" the early Church answered with a resounding, "Yes, we are."

Of course, it could be argued that the major recipients of our tax dollars under the present system are not the needy, but wealthy individuals and corporations. After all, it's self-evident that the well-paid army of lobbyists sent to Washington by Big Oil, Wall Street brokers, and the major financial institutions aren't there to lobby on behalf of the homeless and downtrodden. But that's a discussion for another thread.