Humanism in Psychology Today

Dave Niose in Psychology Today:

”In my travels as president of the American Humanist Association, I am often asked to explain the difference between atheism and humanism. Since the question gets raised so frequently, I thought it might be a good idea to provide a short explanation here.

“To understand the difference between the terms atheism and humanism, realize first that the former refers to a view of only one specific issue (the existence of gods) whereas the latter is a broad philosophical outlook. From that premise, the rest falls into place easily.

“When Sally describes herself as an atheist, she is revealing only one fact about herself: she does not believe in any gods. Note that she is saying nothing about other supernatural beliefs, and she is saying nothing about her ethical/moral principles. Although atheists, being without any god-beliefs, usually do not accept other supernatural claims (such as belief in astrology, reincarnation, or life after death), technically Sally could believe in such notions and still wear the "atheist" label. Moreover, while some might be inclined to make certain presumptions about Sally's ethical principles upon learning that she identifies as an atheist, such presumptions, based on her atheist identity alone, are unwarranted. Because the atheist identity refers only to the singular issue of god-belief, it says nothing about her moral stature, good or bad.”

This is a valid admission, and by an Atheist:

” Because the atheist identity refers only to the singular issue of god-belief, it says nothing about her moral stature, good or bad”

Yes, and that is why people in general do not trust Atheists. There is no telling what their subjective moral antithesis to objective morals might be.

Where Niose fails first is in his declaration that the Atheist “does not believe in any gods”. This subterfuge ignores that the Atheist knows about the God hypothesis and overtly rejects it when developing his “god theory”, thereby actively rejecting God and actively believing that there is no God. The dodge is necessary in order to avoid having to defend their position that “there is no God”, which they cannot do, of course. They take their position without any defense for it.

Niose again:

” When Patty describes herself as a humanist, on the other hand, she tells us numerous things about herself. For one, she tells us that she approaches the world from a natural standpoint, meaning she rejects all supernatural beliefs, not just the singular issue of divinities. In seeking truth and knowledge, she accepts empiricism, science, and reason as her guides. Identifying as a humanist, Patty is declaring that she holds certain values, including a support for human rights, peace, democracy, and personal liberty with a sense of social responsibility. These principles are subject to some interpretation, of course, and humanism rejects outright the notion of dogma, but the general thrust of humanism is a progressive, forward-looking lifestance that encourages creativity, critical thinking, and personal fullfillment within the context of social well-being. The AHA sets forth a vision of humanism in its document Humanism and its Aspirations, which has been signed by 21 Nobel Laureates. The International Humanist and Ethical Union also has a short statement of humanist principles called The Amsterdam Declaration.”

First let’s dispose of the Appeal to Authority: It makes no difference how many Nobel Laureates support an assertion. What matters is whether there is a logically supportable argument in its favor, an argument that is grounded in First Principles.

Let’s look at the principles put forth here:

Human Rights.

Human Rights to what? To self determination? Or the human right to an equal outcome by confiscating the property of others in order to support my own happiness? Humanists do not support self-determination or self-interest as valid pursuits because that gets in the way of egalitarianism. Human Rights means equal outcomes (total Altruism) to a Humanist.

Peace.

Peace at any cost? War is evil, a premise acceptable to any rational being, is developed to mean that it is to be avoided, even if freedoms are sacrificed.

Democracy.

Democracy as a word is a beautiful thing, but as a practical concept it is not truly a feasible process leading toward egalitarianism. Without coercion humans are not likely to vote themselves into submission under a single worldview, especially not one that squelches personal interests. If a majority of parasites does take hold of the democracy, there would be rebellion of unknown type and proportion by those who are still individuals with independent minds that have not been conquered yet. Democracy under a parasitic majority won't stand for long, if not merely for economic distortions that lead to collapse.

Personal Liberty with a Sense of Social Responsibility.

And here’s the rub. Which takes precedence, personal liberty or social responsibility? Because with personal liberty, the desire to be left alone to develop personal responsibilities can also mean that others should also be left alone. Social responsibility comes after the maturation of the individual, and maybe not at all. In fact, for humanists the social responsibility is delegated to the government, which in turn is expected to delegate and enforce it upon the individual. Enforced social responsibility is the opposite of personal liberty. These concepts are mutually incompatible, when taken in the humanist extreme.

Like all things humanist, the soaring, high minded principles do not match reality in any realistic manner.

”...she approaches the world from a natural standpoint, meaning she rejects all supernatural beliefs, not just the singular issue of divinities. In seeking truth and knowledge, she accepts empiricism, science, and reason as her guides.

Humanism is embedded in the Fallacy of Materialism, and the Fallacy of Scientism. And because of those fallacies being used as axiomatic bases for their concept of reason, the humanist has no solid first principles upon which to anchor logic, so humanist reason floats around subjectively, unanchored. Therefore, reason is thought to be either critical attitudes (which they erroneously call critical thinking) or it is scientism, the flawed idea that empirical science can and will provide all knowledge. In fact it is not reason that establishes the primacy of the concept of Altrusim: it is emotion. Actual reason dictates against it.

Moreover, with only empiricism, science and reason as "her" guide, "she" will easily conclude that the Will To Power is the moral and only "reasonable" approach to managing humanity.

Humanism is utopianism. It has no chance for fruition, because humans cannot be perfected – observation should show that fact to even the most starry-eyed utopian. So this wondrous utopia cannot happen voluntarily. It must be installed involuntarily. That is the attraction of judicial activism, which can make laws from the bench, and establish punishments as well. It is a sure path to humanist management of humans; it is not democratic. Humanism is to be feared, and fought. But only if one values the right to think independently and use first principles as foundations for his logic.