Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
From ourselves, basically. I don't think the species can sustainably improve.
Evolution ... actual species evolution ... is a VERY slow process. This is the only kind of evolution that will truly "improve" the species but it takes hundreds of thousands of years to even begin to notice subtle changes.
Evolution in the sense of one group or tribe having better living conditions, higher levels of happiness / self-actualization, prosperity, peace, compassion, etc is absolutely possible and can happen pretty quickly at times but the dynamic tends to be that after a generation or two of all this ease you have a young generation that takes it for granted, you have wealth concentration/ exploitation and inequities starting to develop, and there are strong tendencies for "evolution" in this sense to unwind, sometimes dramatically, in meta cycles of maybe a century or so. Back and forth.
Personal evolution ... that is where there's the potential for a steady progress throughout one's life.
The way I look at it, humanity has an overall "set point" that tends to hold subgroups and individuals from rising (or sinking) beyond a certain distance from that set point for any length of time. The reason individuals can sustain improvement is because a single human lifespan is short relative to the above-mentioned century-scale meta cycles and it's even possible to swim counter to a downward trend in the surrounding culture / society. But my guess is that if people achieve biological immortality where they had hundreds of years to live, there are limits to how far an individual could progress independent of the limitations and instabilities of subcultures and the species as a whole.
Do we strive to save ourselves from ourselves or from everyone else?
I hesitate to speculate about all this from the standpoint of all humanity or our species generally speaking, but this reminds me of my nephew who likes to lump all us Baby Boomers into one lump as if we are all the same or have all done the same thing to make America what it is today. I don't in any way feel responsible for any of that. My focus has for the most part been to do the best I can despite all the rest going on around me that is out of my control. Most of which is entirely out of my control in fact. Other than what I can do as an individual for me, those I love, and perhaps my fellow man here and there in relatively small ways.
I can speak to living conditions, happiness, self-actualization, prosperity and all the rest as it relates to my personal circumstances. Otherwise, we may speculate away. Hope for the best, and who knows how many days we will be allowed to do so before the next unexpected turn of events is likely to happen? For better or worse.
The limits of human existence gives it value. Only the evolved survival instinct of fear of death, the unknown and the uncontrollable gives superstition (including religions) power, authority and false solace. Understanding removes fear, knowledge gives understanding and learning gives knowledge. We accept that one day it will all be gone or at least utterly changed and it does not lessen the value of a pizza or Lasagne or indeed a symphony or good show that it is not going to go on for ever.
I learn from myself but much more from others. The problem is those who think they know it all and don't need to listen to anyone. The easiest and most dangerous form of this is the Dogmatist and the ones who think everything that pops into their head is put there by a higher power.Usually gods, but sometimes flying saucer pilots sending prophetic telepathic messages.
Yes, I am reminded of those nutjobs every time I hear a Prophetic preacher.
The limits of human existence gives it value. Only the evolved survival instinct of fear of death, the unknown and the uncontrollable gives superstition (including religions) power, authority and false solace. Understanding removes fear, knowledge gives understanding and learning gives knowledge. We accept that one day it will all be gone or at least utterly changed and it does not lessen the value of a pizza or Lasagne or indeed a symphony or good show that it is not going to go on for ever.
I learn from myself but much more from others. The problem is those who think they know it all and don't need to listen to anyone. The easiest and most dangerous form of this is the Dogmatist and the ones who think everything that pops into their head is put there by a higher power.Usually gods, but sometimes flying saucer pilots sending prophetic telepathic messages.
Yes, I am reminded of those nutjobs every time I hear a Prophetic preacher.
In another thread (about my Ten Truths), all this is excused away with the human nature defense. Can't blame religion or anything else for these sorts of dangers. No. The "culprit" is human nature! Any further distinctions or observations as to cause/effect therefore pointless. Religion, you are free to go.
Might as well just enjoy the pizza or lasagna and think about other things, but at least that's still thinking...
In another thread (about my Ten Truths), all this is excused away with the human nature defense. Can't blame religion or anything else for these sorts of dangers. No. The "culprit" is human nature! Any further distinctions or observations as to cause/effect therefore pointless. Religion, you are free to go.
Might as well just enjoy the pizza or lasagna and think about other things, but at least that's still thinking...
Recognizing the misuse of belief in God is NOT excusing religion. It blames religion for its misuse. Seeing that as an excuse is a non-sequitur.
Recognizing the misuse of belief in God is NOT excusing religion. It blames religion for its misuse. Seeing that as an excuse is a non-sequitur.
Is it possible that rather than "misuse of belief in God" the "culprit" is all the many different beliefs in God? About God? All of that has resulted in disagreement about all that? For reasons as firmly believed as you firmly believe what you do? None of ALL that is somewhat to blame, let alone not at all to blame? Or is all that to be excused as simply human nature? Having nothing to do with these beliefs in God and/or the religions spawned from those beliefs. Used one way or another for all manner of reasons. Right or wrong depending on who you ask. What they believe.
Should we excuse the institution of slavery on human nature in the same way?
Perhaps another time when I have more time, we should pick out just one religion for purposes of closer examination. Say the Mormon Religion for example. A good look at that history, those differences of opinion, and what came of all that for reasons I suppose anyone could argue had nothing to do with the Mormon religion itself?
Just more human nature and/or misuse of another religion? Talk about the non-sequitur...
Perhaps another time when I have more time. Check that. Why waste still more time? No doubt we've both got better things to do and better reasons to do them.
I've hesitated to jump in to this (and any of the other atheist) discussions but a thought (simplistic as it is) occurs to me that the founding kernel of the idea of religion was based solely as a means for man to control mankind, through fear and intimidation. Period.
Which, I think, is why I have formed such a disdain for religion - all religion - and all of those in charge of its perpetuation. and the older I get the more it repels me.
Oh, and WE DO HONOLULU BLUE - RESTORE THE ROAR - GO LIONS!
I've hesitated to jump in to this (and any of the other atheist) discussions but a thought (simplistic as it is) occurs to me that the founding kernel of the idea of religion was based solely as a means for man to control mankind, through fear and intimidation. Period.
Which, I think, is why I have formed such a disdain for religion - all religion - and all of those in charge of its perpetuation. and the older I get the more it repels me.
Oh, and WE DO HONOLULU BLUE - RESTORE THE ROAR - GO LIONS!
Carry on.
How do you know that it isn't the other way around, a means for man to control mankind was a byproduct of religion instead of it being the sole basis of religion?
To return to the OP of this thread ... the central question is, "is humanism just another religion?"
I think it was conceived as such or at least as a direct substitute, per the first humanist manifesto. It has gotten away from wearing that on its sleeve with manifestos 2 and 3, while simultaneously dialing down its initial sunny optimism about what was possible in what sort of time frame.
I have argued that it believes in a form of salvation for humanity or from the human condition, that I (and I believe the OP) cannot embrace. This isn't the same as seeing no point in living at the individual level, BTW.
This reminds me of another issue that comes up sometimes in conversation about what's wrong with the world and how the world might be improved: a tendency to confuse a rational assessment of what is possible or likely, or of how trends are progressing, with pessimism or hopelessness or "nihilism", should that assessment be, shall we say, "insufficiently hopeful".
I'd argue that religion generally is triumphalist in nature. Its basic product is hope despite anything that's not going well.
I'd argue that humanism, lacking a deux ex machina (e.g., an afterlife, or the promise of divine intervention of some kind) into which to deflect hopes that aren't or can't be realized in one's lifetime, of necessity must retain some optimism about human potential because it has to at the very least convince adherents that humanity is improvable, however glacially slow the process might seem to be, therefore, one's efforts to inspire human improvement will, at least for future generations, be a worthwhile investment.
My counterargument is that human nature is for all practical intents and purposes fixed (it can only change over eons via evolution), and like a dog returning to its vomit (to borrow a biblical metaphor), humanity, collectively, will always snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, despite always trying to transcend itself.
From this it does not follow that there's no point for individuals to improve themselves. It is just a question of expectations. I don't believe that there is a utopia some generations hence where humans will stop being crappy to each other by default. I believe those of us who manage not to do that are keepers of the flame, so to speak, and such people make at least sporadic freedom and peace (civil society) a reality. But to truly be our best selves, we have to not despair that we keep encountering the human shadow in all our endeavors.
In order to be humanistIC without embracing humanisM as "just another religion" we paradoxically have to stop envisioning that a human utopia or paradise is achievable. We can only achieve personal peace in the midst of the constant cycle of building and tearing down that is the human enterprise.
How do you know that it isn't the other way around, a means for man to control mankind was a byproduct of religion instead of it being the sole basis of religion?
Is it possible that rather than "misuse of belief in God" the "culprit" is all the many different beliefs in God? About God? All of that has resulted in disagreement about all that? For reasons as firmly believed as you firmly believe what you do? None of ALL that is somewhat to blame, let alone not at all to blame? Or is all that to be excused as simply human nature? Having nothing to do with these beliefs in God and/or the religions spawned from those beliefs. Used one way or another for all manner of reasons. Right or wrong depending on who you ask. What they believe.
Should we excuse the institution of slavery on human nature in the same way?
Perhaps another time when I have more time, we should pick out just one religion for purposes of closer examination. Say the Mormon Religion for example. A good look at that history, those differences of opinion, and what came of all that for reasons I suppose anyone could argue had nothing to do with the Mormon religion itself?
Just more human nature and/or misuse of another religion? Talk about the non-sequitur...
Perhaps another time when I have more time. Check that. Why waste still more time? No doubt we've both got better things to do and better reasons to do them.
Cheers and speaking of things to do, GO 9RS!
We can debate everything we humans do that is problematic and try to blame the various institutions that are involved but it would not remove the PROXIMAL cause which is our human nature. That is and will remain the "culprit." This does not mean we do not try to change what we can to mitigate or minimize the effects of that nature. But if we misidentify the "culprit" as anything other than our human nature, we will choose stupid and ineffective solutions or policies or whatnot as we have consistently done with government policies.
Human nature will be with us for the foreseeable future in relatively unchanged form. We need to be intelligent about what we institute to mitigate or minimize its destructive impacts and encourage and promote productive impacts. We need to know and understand that nature to do so. Dealing with all the externalities is just confusing and distracting and more often than not worsens the problems as is evident in many of our social policies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
