Freethinkers and Humanists. Are we the same?

[Trance Gemini]

I've been thinking over this question and am interested in getting
some feedback from people.

While I agree with the Humanists in general, one of the concepts that
is the root of the Humanist Philosophy gives me some pause and it's
actually the main reason why I don't self-identify as a Humanist but
rather as a Freethinker.

"Humanism is an approach in study, philosophy, world view or practice
that focuses on human values and concerns. In other words it is an
outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human
rather than divine or supernatural matters.

Source: Humanism Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

The fundamental premise of Humanism appears to be that humans are of
prime importance and it's approach is human-centered. While this gives
rise to some positive things like establishing concepts of rights,
etc. I don't see humans as the being the be-all and center of
everything. I think we live in a world which has a wide variety of
life, a universe which is likely the same, and we are just one tiny
and very insignificant component of that.

"Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions
should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and
should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or other dogmas.
[citation needed] The cognitive application of freethought is known as
"freethinking,"[citation needed] and practitioners of freethought are
known as "freethinkers.""

Source: Freethought Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought

The Freethought approach makes more sense to me.

And note that I recognize and acknowledge that there is nothing
contradictory in the two philosophies and one can be both a Humanist
and a Freethinker. Secular Humanism is very close to Freethought in
terms of the concepts that it advocates. Moreso than Humanism in
general.

Thoughts anyone?

[JTB]

I agree with you that they are not the same.

My own philosophy is that not all humans are worth the effort. Just because they are bumbling around eating things does not make them automatically better than a chicken. What makes animals cruder life-forms, in my opinion, is their lack of cognitive reasoning; they lack the ability to identify themselves as components in a larger universe and cannot empathize with the plights of others. Since there are also people who also lack these abilities, I do not automatically place all of humanity on a pedestal. I cannot, therefore, be labeled a humanist. Of course, since I do not consider animals intrinsically valuable, I would not go so far as to state that I would hold animals higher than people in this category. They are about the same, really.

[Trance Gemini]

Exactly. We're just one more life form which evolved in a specific way out of many who have simply evolved differently. 

Whose to say we aren't a negative factor on this planet? And why does everything have to revolve around us. In reality neither the world or the universe revolve around us.

 

What makes animals cruder life-forms, in my opinion, is their lack of cognitive reasoning; they lack the ability to identify themselves as components in a larger universe and cannot empathize with the plights of others.

Generally speaking this is true although science is currently making some interesting discoveries in this area like Dolphins having the ability to communicate and other social animals having the ability to empathize, etc.

So far, I think we're the only animal that we know of that can engage in cognitive reasoning which is probably the source of our sense of superiority.

However, having the ability to change our environment may or may not be a good thing.

It can be a good thing assuming that we do it by keeping the consequences to other life forms and to the planet itself in mind.

It can also be a very destructive thing given our ability to build nuclear warheads, etc.

 

Since there are also people who also lack these abilities, I do not automatically place all of humanity on a pedestal. I cannot, therefore, be labeled a humanist. Of course, since I do not consider animals intrinsically valuable, I would not go so far as to state that I would hold animals higher than people in this category. They are about the same, really.

No doubt. The reality is that our species survives on exploitation of the planet including the animal world.

Our ability to engage in cognitive reasoning should tell us that we need to implement that exploitation carefully and compassionately if we want to continue to survive as a species.

 

What do you think of the Freethought Philosophy, JTB?

--

"Heaven No! I Won't Go!" --Neil Kelsey

“You can safely assume you have created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates the same people you do.” --Annie Lamott (paraphrased)

"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..." --Susan B. Anthony

http://newatheism.blogspot.com/

Freethinkers and atheists Google Group

http://groups.google.com/group/FTAA?hl=en

[JTB]

Whenever I start worrying too much about what humanity is doing to the planet I have to consider George Carlin's view:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

Then I end up watching the rest of his routine for the next few hours and I forget all about it!

 

And why does everything have to revolve around us. In reality neither the world or the universe revolve around us.

This is very true and something I find quite amusing and odd: on the one hand, the universe certainly could care less about us and all of our petty concerns and silly, self importance; on the other hand, we hardly have much else to care about other than the survival of our own species. If we extinguished all life on this planet aside from ourselves (and domesticated animals), who would be able to claim it wasn't our right to do so?

I sometimes wonder how we would behave in a world in which a totally different, but equally sentient, life form had evolved along with us--something that would have forced us to share our resources right from the get-go because it was every bit as powerful as we were. Would we have grown up to act more able to share? Or would we have been even more war-like than we are?

Imagine if all the great apes got together and started enforcing their own territorial and mining rights. Would we be truly sympathetic to their cause or would we be secretly hostile--especially if they started cutting off our supply of diamonds or rubber?

 

 

What makes animals cruder life-forms, in my opinion, is their lack of cognitive reasoning; they lack the ability to identify themselves as components in a larger universe and cannot empathize with the plights of others.

Generally speaking this is true although science is currently making some interesting discoveries in this area like Dolphins having the ability to communicate and other social animals having the ability to empathize, etc.

I've read about that. It would be neat to be able to see if it would develop into more of what we experience...but it might take a few hundred thousand years.

 

So far, I think we're the only animal that we know of that can engage in cognitive reasoning which is probably the source of our sense of superiority.

However, having the ability to change our environment may or may not be a good thing.

It can be a good thing assuming that we do it by keeping the consequences to other life forms and to the planet itself in mind.

It can also be a very destructive thing given our ability to build nuclear warheads, etc.

This is where things get blurry for me: it seems everything we do is both good and bad depending on the point of view. I cannot find a single thing that is not both good and bad. Even if we radiated the planet and removed ourselves completely such a very bad thing would merely be a very good thing for whichever creatures survived long enough to dominate in our place.

And if I restrict analysis to what is good and bad solely by what I and those nearest to me might experience, I am still caught in the dilemma of understanding why I choose to do what is bad for me (such as donating money to an orphanage) instead of what is good (ensuring my own children have more resources). If I do it out of empathy (which I do), it merely suggests that empathy is both good and bad (I empathize for the orphans, as well as my children).

Would we contribute to orphanages *unless* we felt superior and strong enough to part with those extra resources?

Something else that I find interesting is that doing what we might think to be "good" can actually turn out to be very "bad." If one gives a child everything the child wants (seemingly a good thing), said child ends up more and more self-centered and demanding (definitely bad). If one deprives the child of everything (seemingly bad for the child), only the strongest children will learn to survive and those that do will understand keenly what it is like to do without (which could be good for the child if it takes the form of empathy). A moderate approach gains a moderate child: maybe not self-obsessed, but surely not innately empathic.



 

 

Since there are also people who also lack these abilities, I do not automatically place all of humanity on a pedestal. I cannot, therefore, be labeled a humanist. Of course, since I do not consider animals intrinsically valuable, I would not go so far as to state that I would hold animals higher than people in this category. They are about the same, really.

No doubt. The reality is that our species survives on exploitation of the planet including the animal world.

Our ability to engage in cognitive reasoning should tell us that we need to implement that exploitation carefully and compassionately if we want to continue to survive as a species.

 

What do you think of the Freethought Philosophy, JTB?

I totally agree with this philosophy and will wear my membership badge to all the *conventions*! ;-)

 

[Trance Gemini]

Haha. Love Carlin. He has a way of putting everything in perspective. 

Shame he's gone.

 

 

And why does everything have to revolve around us. In reality neither the world or the universe revolve around us.

This is very true and something I find quite amusing and odd: on the one hand, the universe certainly could care less about us and all of our petty concerns and silly, self importance; on the other hand, we hardly have much else to care about other than the survival of our own species. If we extinguished all life on this planet aside from ourselves (and domesticated animals), who would be able to claim it wasn't our right to do so?

No doubt. And of course we might well do that. Particularly if our survival depended on it. This is why the Freethinker approach makes more sense to me. It places the focus on science, logic and reason.

 

I sometimes wonder how we would behave in a world in which a totally different, but equally sentient, life form had evolved along with us--something that would have forced us to share our resources right from the get-go because it was every bit as powerful as we were. Would we have grown up to act more able to share? Or would we have been even more war-like than we are?

I was reading an article recently which indicates that actually did happen at one time in our evolution. We lived alongside the Neanderthals which were similar but not the same species as Homo Sapiens and recently they discovered a third species. Since Neanderthal and Homo Sapiens DNA is mixed it seems the two species probably made love as well as war. Lol.

 

Imagine if all the great apes got together and started enforcing their own territorial and mining rights. Would we be truly sympathetic to their cause or would we be secretly hostile--especially if they started cutting off our supply of diamonds or rubber?

Good point. I think we both know the answer to that one. 

 

 

 

What makes animals cruder life-forms, in my opinion, is their lack of cognitive reasoning; they lack the ability to identify themselves as components in a larger universe and cannot empathize with the plights of others.

Generally speaking this is true although science is currently making some interesting discoveries in this area like Dolphins having the ability to communicate and other social animals having the ability to empathize, etc.

I've read about that. It would be neat to be able to see if it would develop into more of what we experience...but it might take a few hundred thousand years.

I think evolution has sudden leaps. Things will develop gradually in a certain direction and then there will be a sudden change. Dolphins already interact with humans with empathy and concern. There are programs where they have Dolphins in pools with autistic and disabled children and the Dolphins seem to interact in a way that helps the kids.

Very interesting stuff.

Apes, chimps, and monkeys have been shown to be far more empathetic than humans in studies as well.

 

So far, I think we're the only animal that we know of that can engage in cognitive reasoning which is probably the source of our sense of superiority.

However, having the ability to change our environment may or may not be a good thing.

It can be a good thing assuming that we do it by keeping the consequences to other life forms and to the planet itself in mind.

It can also be a very destructive thing given our ability to build nuclear warheads, etc.

This is where things get blurry for me: it seems everything we do is both good and bad depending on the point of view. I cannot find a single thing that is not both good and bad. Even if we radiated the planet and removed ourselves completely such a very bad thing would merely be a very good thing for whichever creatures survived long enough to dominate in our place.

Well good or bad is usually determined by us. Everything else just survives or doesn't. And our determination of good or bad can pretty irrational.

One friend on alt.atheism used to say that the human race was basically an insane version of the great ape. Don't recall exactly how he put it but that was the gist of it. His description was much more colorful. :-D.

When I see the kind of stuff that goes on, that people get away with given the right set of circumstances, I seriously wonder if he isn't right.

 

And if I restrict analysis to what is good and bad solely by what I and those nearest to me might experience, I am still caught in the dilemma of understanding why I choose to do what is bad for me (such as donating money to an orphanage) instead of what is good (ensuring my own children have more resources). If I do it out of empathy (which I do), it merely suggests that empathy is both good and bad (I empathize for the orphans, as well as my children).

And then there's the issue that our planet is so over populated by humans are we really doing anyone any favors by helping keep the hungry, the old, the children alive?

For what? So their suffering can continue? I'm not saying we shouldn't be compassionate and help but I do wonder if helping in the short term isn't sometimes harming in the long term.

 

Would we contribute to orphanages *unless* we felt superior and strong enough to part with those extra resources?

Well I think we would. It's that empathy thing most of us have got going for us. 

 

Something else that I find interesting is that doing what we might think to be "good" can actually turn out to be very "bad." If one gives a child everything the child wants (seemingly a good thing), said child ends up more and more self-centered and demanding (definitely bad). If one deprives the child of everything (seemingly bad for the child), only the strongest children will learn to survive and those that do will understand keenly what it is like to do without (which could be good for the child if it takes the form of empathy). A moderate approach gains a moderate child: maybe not self-obsessed, but surely not innately empathic.

Well I think empathy is innate so I think no matter what the up-bringing most children (unless they're psychopaths) will demonstrate some empathy. Although it can be suppressed or enhanced based on the upbringing so I don't entirely disagree with you.

Balance is usually best I think. People who are on the fringes for various reasons lead difficult lives even whether they're geniuses or mentally incompetent.

 

 

 

Since there are also people who also lack these abilities, I do not automatically place all of humanity on a pedestal. I cannot, therefore, be labeled a humanist. Of course, since I do not consider animals intrinsically valuable, I would not go so far as to state that I would hold animals higher than people in this category. They are about the same, really.

No doubt. The reality is that our species survives on exploitation of the planet including the animal world.

Our ability to engage in cognitive reasoning should tell us that we need to implement that exploitation carefully and compassionately if we want to continue to survive as a species.

 

What do you think of the Freethought Philosophy, JTB?

I totally agree with this philosophy and will wear my membership badge to all the *conventions*! ;-)

Haha. You realise the symbol is a Pansy ;-D

-- 

[JTB]

Yes, that seems to have been the case, alright.

 

 

Imagine if all the great apes got together and started enforcing their own territorial and mining rights. Would we be truly sympathetic to their cause or would we be secretly hostile--especially if they started cutting off our supply of diamonds or rubber?

Good point. I think we both know the answer to that one. 

 

 

 

What makes animals cruder life-forms, in my opinion, is their lack of cognitive reasoning; they lack the ability to identify themselves as components in a larger universe and cannot empathize with the plights of others.

Generally speaking this is true although science is currently making some interesting discoveries in this area like Dolphins having the ability to communicate and other social animals having the ability to empathize, etc.

I've read about that. It would be neat to be able to see if it would develop into more of what we experience...but it might take a few hundred thousand years.

I think evolution has sudden leaps. Things will develop gradually in a certain direction and then there will be a sudden change. Dolphins already interact with humans with empathy and concern. There are programs where they have Dolphins in pools with autistic and disabled children and the Dolphins seem to interact in a way that helps the kids.

It still could be along the line of instinctual behavior: a human could appear to them to be an injured dolphin unable to properly swim or something. What I am after is a dolphin society in which they collaborate to halt all fishing in their chief domain. I then want to see a dolphin delegation come and squeak their demands before they release the captured ships. ;-)

 

Very interesting stuff.

Apes, chimps, and monkeys have been shown to be far more empathetic than humans in studies as well.

 

So far, I think we're the only animal that we know of that can engage in cognitive reasoning which is probably the source of our sense of superiority.

However, having the ability to change our environment may or may not be a good thing.

It can be a good thing assuming that we do it by keeping the consequences to other life forms and to the planet itself in mind.

It can also be a very destructive thing given our ability to build nuclear warheads, etc.

This is where things get blurry for me: it seems everything we do is both good and bad depending on the point of view. I cannot find a single thing that is not both good and bad. Even if we radiated the planet and removed ourselves completely such a very bad thing would merely be a very good thing for whichever creatures survived long enough to dominate in our place.

Well good or bad is usually determined by us. Everything else just survives or doesn't. And our determination of good or bad can pretty irrational.

One friend on alt.atheism used to say that the human race was basically an insane version of the great ape. Don't recall exactly how he put it but that was the gist of it. His description was much more colorful. :-D.

Haha, I like that one!

 

When I see the kind of stuff that goes on, that people get away with given the right set of circumstances, I seriously wonder if he isn't right.

And if I restrict analysis to what is good and bad solely by what I and those nearest to me might experience, I am still caught in the dilemma of understanding why I choose to do what is bad for me (such as donating money to an orphanage) instead of what is good (ensuring my own children have more resources). If I do it out of empathy (which I do), it merely suggests that empathy is both good and bad (I empathize for the orphans, as well as my children).

And then there's the issue that our planet is so over populated by humans are we really doing anyone any favors by helping keep the hungry, the old, the children alive?

For what? So their suffering can continue? I'm not saying we shouldn't be compassionate and help but I do wonder if helping in the short term isn't sometimes harming in the long term.

 

This is exactly the problem. A good example in Canada is the fiasco with the residential schools for aboriginals. Universally recognized to be ill-considered by today's standards, reading some of the discussions back in the day suggests that they were originally considered as a solution to an even bigger problem: that of the natives starving to death or suffering other forms of neglect. There were those who opposed the residential schools because they wanted the natives to just die off already, but others wanted to save them by teaching them how to live with the rest of society. The hope was that if they abandoned their broken culture it would allow them to become more like everyone else and eventually succeed. What was not considered was how a people could be forced to abandon their culture and adapt to a new one in a single generation. Nor was it understood how people of one culture would treat those they deemed to be of a lesser culture while there. Good initial intentions = bad results.

Another example is the contrast between how society handled people with TB (when it was deemed an epidemic) and HIV. What was extremely evil for the individual being detained in a sanatorium was very good for the rest of the populace. Similarly, what seems very good for the HIV sufferer (in allowing their freedom), is at the same time very bad for society at large due to the increased risk of the spread of the disease.

Would we contribute to orphanages *unless* we felt superior and strong enough to part with those extra resources?

Well I think we would. It's that empathy thing most of us have got going for us. 

What I was meaning by superiority was that the orphans were deemed inferior to our position: no one would feel an empathic desire to help a billionaire attain his true wish of becoming the richest man on Earth by sending a donation. It seems to me that empathy triggers most strongly when we are in a superior position to those for whom we feel empathy. Either we have greater resources, better health, or greater serenity. If I am lying in traction I am not going to empathize with your stubbed toe the same way as I would if I were in perfect health.

At the same time, it helps to be able to identify with the person; to feel an affinity. It is harder to feel empathy for an individual whose plight was derived from bad decisions that one would never consider making (such as becoming an alcoholic) instead of just bad circumstances because one needs to be able to consider that such a bad fortune is able to happen to them as well. At least this is how it seems to me at any rate.

 

 

Something else that I find interesting is that doing what we might think to be "good" can actually turn out to be very "bad." If one gives a child everything the child wants (seemingly a good thing), said child ends up more and more self-centered and demanding (definitely bad). If one deprives the child of everything (seemingly bad for the child), only the strongest children will learn to survive and those that do will understand keenly what it is like to do without (which could be good for the child if it takes the form of empathy). A moderate approach gains a moderate child: maybe not self-obsessed, but surely not innately empathic.

Well I think empathy is innate so I think no matter what the up-bringing most children (unless they're psychopaths) will demonstrate some empathy. Although it can be suppressed or enhanced based on the upbringing so I don't entirely disagree with you.

I simply meant that the child had no such innate ability, but that it would have to be learned through experience of hardship. Perhaps that is being too simplistic since there appear to be those with a personality type hardwired for empathy. 

 

Balance is usually best I think. People who are on the fringes for various reasons lead difficult lives even whether they're geniuses or mentally incompetent.

 

True enough.

 

 

 

Since there are also people who also lack these abilities, I do not automatically place all of humanity on a pedestal. I cannot, therefore, be labeled a humanist. Of course, since I do not consider animals intrinsically valuable, I would not go so far as to state that I would hold animals higher than people in this category. They are about the same, really.

No doubt. The reality is that our species survives on exploitation of the planet including the animal world.

Our ability to engage in cognitive reasoning should tell us that we need to implement that exploitation carefully and compassionately if we want to continue to survive as a species.

 

What do you think of the Freethought Philosophy, JTB?

I totally agree with this philosophy and will wear my membership badge to all the *conventions*! ;-)

Haha. You realise the symbol is a Pansy ;-D

Figures! <grumble> <grumble>