Secular humanism  

Source: Secular humanism – Wikipedia

<a href=”http://https://redfortyeight.com/2021/12/01/with-scotus-set-to-hear-abortion-case-anti-choice-groups-prepare-to-enact-post-roe-strategy/“>https://redfortyeight.com/2021/12/01/with-scotus-set-to-hear-abortion-case-anti-choice-groups-prepare-to-enact-post-roe-strategy/

As our posts on issues of free will, soul, evolution and religion confront the obstacle that modern society has no institutions that can help man with his psychological or religious questions. None. The issue of soul for example cannot at any point reach public discussion in religious and secular orgs. It is cancel culture all the way. You can’t even exchange an email with Darwin fanatics or secular humanists. And yet I am close secular humanism myself, but not the cult of fanatics and narrowly cultists of humanism. There is no real method or standard here to a kind of open mind is essential.
It is might be time to consider some kind of upgrade of secular humanism: its views tend to be inverted religion. One should critique religion but not invert it. The issue is not two opposites but three or four. If we reject religion we may or may not reject a spiritual domain. Or we might reject a spiritual domain and adopt the materialism of Samkhya as a basis of religion. We might be anti-religion and contemplate the soul of man in another sense. The discussion is vast and complex.

Secular humanists demand naturalism, but as Nagel discusses that in the book cited yesterday Mind and Cosmos the question of naturalism is not so simple and has confounded/confused the theory of evolution as Darwinism.
Secular humanists should have been more responsive to the problems with Darwinism, instead the cult of Darwin a la Dawkins is enforced like a religion.

Here is a curve ball: is the question of soul spiritual or naturalistic? The issue is undecidable so far, but to me the question of soul is naturalistic: man is a creature in an extended material comples with aspects that aren’t material, force fields, for example.  In fact I suspect the soul is one of materialism, but in a new mode. The question of what is ‘nature’ has been never been made definite. The spiritual can’t easily be defined and maybe the question should be abandoned and replaced with a general philosophy like Samkhya, which however has its own dualism. But at least here we don’t end up in useless debates that are schizophrenic: one part of man is material and some other part is spiritual. It has never worked and Christianity, in part responsible for the inverted stance of humanists, is the most confused and barren concoction of misunderstood teachings, where not lies outright. Small wonder humanists freak out, and then overrreact.

Neither side can find a reasonable view of anything, as the soul question might indicate.
The issue should stand on the nature of modernity, more or less, and the modern transition from 1500 to 1800 shows a massively rich constellation of rich cultural materials, almost all of which are simply amputated out of secular humanism with its rationalism that can’t even do justice to the Enlightenment, its Darwin evolutionism, its limited philosophic stance, and its lack of any sound ethical or aesthetic canon.

A key problem is the domination of reductionist physics and the elimination of any real chance of a psychologically sane view of man and his mind.

In any case the confusions of Christianity have been very tragic, but the solution is not the inverted views of the humanists who need to rethink all questions from scratch…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s