Skip to main content

Video explaining Humanism - from the BHA


Just-released video on Humanism from the BHA.

Comments

Paul P. Mealing said…
You can believe all that and be religious too. It doesn't have to be either or. Being an atheist or a theist doesn't make one superior over the other.

Regards, Paul.
Sue G. said…
I agree with Paul [previous comment].
I also wonder why atheists feel the need to defend their atheism and attack, or in some way, try to demote theism. I do not see the reverse happening, except by a few silly American fanatics.
Anonymous said…
While I suspect that I am broadly sympathetic with the worldview of the above two commentators, I feel obliged to play Devil’s advocate to them and to point out that a religious worldview entails superstitious beliefs whereas a strictly non-religious worldview should endeavour to oppose them. It is also true that Christians are called to evangelise, and therefore to challenge the values of the non-religious. In that sense I have no moral objection to this video.

However I do fear that the comments on Humanist morality are a tad oversimplistic. In part this is for reasons expressed in the website www.investigatingatheism.info. I would like to point out immediately that I have atheist friends whom I care for very dearly and whose friendship I value, but they are not broadly hostile to religion or to religious modes of thinking. While I recognize that not all Humanists are utilitarians, I do fear that particular ethical code can very easily degenearate into a bullies charter, which makes all the more sinister the apparent desire among some atheist thinkers to airbrush away some of the moral complications that arise from an atheistic worldview. Buddhism (I think correctly) highlights the illusion of the autonomous ‘self’ whereas Christianity declares that the last shall be first. I see no Humanist equivalent, and that is for me why faith remains philosophically the least bad option. Dogmatism is the problem, not faith per se.

As a footnote, Richard Dawkins is absolutely wrong in equating science with poetry. Science uses words (however beautifully expressed)to convey facts, whereas poetry recognizes the limitations of both facts and words. Richard explains the night sky. The poet allows his neighbour to observe the night sky and to derive his own conclusions whether scientific or mythological.

Put another way, on Wednesday I saw Diamanda Galas in concert. Only one of her songs was in English, but even without understanding, the passion was apparent. That, not Dawkins, is the spirit of poetry.
Anonymous said…
A religious worldview need not entail superstitious beliefs.

Popular posts from this blog

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen

Why I won't be voting Labour at the next General Election, not even to 'keep the Tories out'.

I have always voted Labour, and have often been a member of the Party, campaigning and canvassing for them. For what it’s worth, here’s my feeling about voting Labour next General Election:   1. When the left vote Labour after they move rightwards, they are encouraged to just move further right, to the point where they are now probably right of where e.g. John Major’s Tory party was. And each time the Tories go further right still. At some point we have got to stop fuelling this toxic drift to the right by making the Labour Party realise that it’s going to start costing them votes. I can’t think of anything politically more important than halting this increasingly frightening rightward slide. So I am no longer voting Labour. 2. If a new socialist party starts up, it could easily hoover up many of the 200k former LP members who have left in disgust (I’d join), and perhaps also pick up union affiliations. They could become the second biggest party by membership quite quickly. Our voting

Aquinas on homosexuality

Thought I would try a bit of a draft out on the blog, for feedback. All comments gratefully received. No doubt I've got at least some details wrong re the Catholic Church's position... AQUINAS AND SEXUAL ETHICS Aquinas’s thinking remains hugely influential within the Catholic Church. In particular, his ideas concerning sexual ethics still heavily shape Church teaching. It is on these ideas that we focus here. In particular, I will look at Aquinas’s justification for morally condemning homosexual acts. When homosexuality is judged to be morally wrong, the justification offered is often that homosexuality is, in some sense, “unnatural”. Aquinas develops a sophisticated version of this sort of argument. The roots of the argument lie in thinking of Aristotle, whom Aquinas believes to be scientifically authoritative. Indeed, one of Aquinas’s over-arching aims was to show how Aristotle’s philosophical system is broadly compatible with Christian thought. I begin with a sketch of Arist