Skip to main content

Are you a humanist?

Are you a humanist? Should you care? Take a look at this short, interesting video featuring some quite well known people talking on the subject, and then I'll share my thoughts with you.



Okay, what did you think? My feeling after watching it is that I quite like a lot that goes with being a humanist, apart from one huge assumption that all those taking part seem to make, which is that if you are a humanist you must be an atheist. You see, I think the most scientific religious viewpoint to take is to be an agnostic, and I don't see any conflict with being a humanist.

If you are an atheist you say 'I refuse to be open minded. I KNOW what the truth is and no evidence will sway me.' I don't think that's scientific. As an agnostic, I would say I don't think there is clear evidence either way, so it would be silly to take a Dawkinsesque stand on the subject.

Just to draw a parallel with a science issue, take the business of string theory. There is no evidence for string theory - it is totally untestable at the moment. Now the atheist view would be to say 'Because string theory is untestable, I will assume it doesn't have any validity and I will mock people who do think it's worth giving time to. We don't need string theory, we can get along perfectly well without it.' But as an agnostic I would say 'Okay, we don't have evidence either way yet, so let's suspend judgement until we do. I want to hear more about string theory and I will not mindlessly attack it. And frankly it would be very upsetting to all those people who have given their (working) lives to it, so I will be a little more considerate.' I know which sounds the better approach to me.

I have one other problem with this video, which is the section on death. I think all those smug, middle class, wealthy (mostly middle aged) people have a very specific view of how you can make the best of life and enjoy it to the full. It's a bit harder if you are a starving infant expected to die before your first birthday. I think they totally underestimate the comfort that religion has given to many people in dire conditions. This doesn't make religion true - but it does make the humanist view of death, as stated in this video, very much a view that would appeal best to a group of comfortable, privileged intellectuals with a good long life expectancy.

So will I be asking to join the British Humanist Association? I don't think so - but I genuinely thank them for a thought provoking video that raises some serious and important issues.

Comments

  1. An interesting video and an interesting take on it. I actually feel/think that spirituality can have validity in a person's life without that spirituality being attached to a specific religion. The fact that there are things in physics like string theory, etc, that we have not yet proved or disproved only further underlines the spiritual, which for me is the fact that somehow, someway, everything is connected across space and time. Great to take some time out on a busy Wednesday morning to think some big thoughts! Thanks.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope