Why secular humanism is scary

[Judge]

This is sort of a debate between Jordan Peterson and this atheist Matt Dillahunty.



The most interesting parts are when the atheists says he has issue with people say if you give up God you will not be moral. Matt puts forth what he calls "secularl humanism" and says it has never been tried. Peterson says oh yes it was in the soviet union and Matt denies this. Like all the times we heard well true Marxism was never tried.

Matt goes on to say that secular humanism will use science to maximize well being for everyone. Sounds kind of like a Utopia to me. Now, the USSR were pushing a godless utopia. The Soviets thought that to maximize well being everyone would be equal. This turned out to be murderous and authoritarian as you can get.
Jordan correctly told Matt that you have to put somethings as important and this was his fundamental axiom that was not determined by science.

But that aside, lets say that Matt is right that secular humanists want to maximize well being but then YOU (aka HUMANS) have to determine what this means.

Matt says prolonging life shoud be in there and having good health. I believe he gave these two.
And he also alluded that through AI we could scientifically/mathmatically derive the rules.
Well, both long life and health are not at all responsible for having a FULFILLING life. Also, there is no reason to think that maximum wellbeing (No matter how we define it) should be a set of rules that we should live our life by and to some degree force on others.

Long life rebuttal - Not getting into you are rotting of cancer. But say you can live in a bubble and never take any chances and live to 120 versus you go out in life and
have adventures and marry a woman very passionately and have great achievements but only live to 60. Which life is better? Which SHOULD we pick?

Health rebuttal - Almost the same thing. There are plenty of things we do in life that we enjoy or make it fulfilling that are not good for our health. Say having one fight. Say drinking a few beers. Almost anything we do fulfilling or fun to some degree takes away our health. Our joints degrade from activity over time. So say being a tennis star you are eating away your cartiledge and will suffer for it.

So to me it is pretty obvious his rules or points about what define well being are not necessarily at all to live a fulfilling life which to me trumps well being. Secular Humanism is wrong from this alone, but is what is scary is they don't see how they are just like the Soviets. They are both Utopians. Why would we say that we have better well being if no one has more than us and makes us jealous? Why would it not be for our well being if no one insulted us? Or did something to make us feel hurt or ashamed?

Make no mistake that Marx's message was so powerful because on the surface is seems to be so compasionate, but when put into practice in the real world with real complicated beings
like we are it turns to totaliranism.

 

[VivaRevolution]

This is sort of a debate between Jordan Peterson and this atheist Matt Dillahunty.



The most interesting parts are when the atheists says he has issue with people say if you give up God you will not be moral. Matt puts forth what he calls "secularl humanism" and says it has never been tried. Peterson says oh yes it was in the soviet union and Matt denies this. Like all the times we heard well true Marxism was never tried.

Matt goes on to say that secular humanism will use science to maximize well being for everyone. Sounds kind of like a Utopia to me. Now, the USSR were pushing a godless utopia. The Soviets thought that to maximize well being everyone would be equal. This turned out to be murderous and authoritarian as you can get.
Jordan correctly told Matt that you have to put somethings as important and this was his fundamental axiom that was not determined by science.

But that aside, lets say that Matt is right that secular humanists want to maximize well being but then YOU (aka HUMANS) have to determine what this means.

Matt says prolonging life shoud be in there and having good health. I believe he gave these two.
And he also alluded that through AI we could scientifically/mathmatically derive the rules.
Well, both long life and health are not at all responsible for having a FULFILLING life. Also, there is no reason to think that maximum wellbeing (No matter how we define it) should be a set of rules that we should live our life by and to some degree force on others.

Long life rebuttal - Not getting into you are rotting of cancer. But say you can live in a bubble and never take any chances and live to 120 versus you go out in life and
have adventures and marry a woman very passionately and have great achievements but only live to 60. Which life is better? Which SHOULD we pick?

Health rebuttal - Almost the same thing. There are plenty of things we do in life that we enjoy or make it fulfilling that are not good for our health. Say having one fight. Say drinking a few beers. Almost anything we do fulfilling or fun to some degree takes away our health. Our joints degrade from activity over time. So say being a tennis star you are eating away your cartiledge and will suffer for it.

So to me it is pretty obvious his rules or points about what define well being are not necessarily at all to live a fulfilling life which to me trumps well being. Secular Humanism is wrong from this alone, but is what is scary is they don't see how they are just like the Soviets. They are both Utopians. Why would we say that we have better well being if no one has more than us and makes us jealous? Why would it not be for our well being if no one insulted us? Or did something to make us feel hurt or ashamed?

Make no mistake that Marx's message was so powerful because on the surface is seems to be so compasionate, but when put into practice in the real world with real complicated beings
like we are it turns to totaliranism.

Morals without religion can't exist because of communists?

 

[HomerThompson]

Derp and the Derptrons.

 

[jeffk]

Peterson came off poorly to me in this discussion.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I'm not going to listen to over an hour and a half of some radio atheist so with that said, I don't think its fair to conflate secular humanism and Stalinism. That said, I wouldn't trust whatever the fuck secular humanism is off of what you said. Programming an AI to maximize human well being sounds like the classic monkey's paw scenario, can't trust any moron who doesn't see that.

 

[BangersAndSmash]

Breaking: humans develop a society based around a perfect concept then make mistakes.

Please point out the perfect society, secular or otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 457759]

Morals without religion can't exist because of communists?

I don't know if Peterson argues on behalf of religion, more like a belief in a higher power.

I'll have to listen to the discussion, no offense TS but I dont think you outline their arguments very well.

 

[Judge]

Morals without religion can't exist because of communists?

Where did I say that?

I'm not going to listen to over an hour and a half of some radio atheist so with that said, I don't think its fair to conflate secular humanism and Stalinism. That said, I wouldn't trust whatever the fuck secular humanism is off of what you said. Programming an AI to maximize human well being sounds like the classic monkey's paw scenario, can't trust any moron who doesn't see that.

I am going off HS by what this guy said.

But it you can say it about Sam Harris and ETC who claim their is some objective way to get to morals. The soviets didn't want one person being richer.
The Secular Humanists want to do it via maximizing well being which they defined by....what ever parameters you want....long life....maximum health....etc.

I think that if you use a formula you are going to end up like the Soviets.

A better way to me is "because X said so"
Even better is "Because X said so and it worked out well for us for generations"

Breaking: humans develop a society based around a perfect concept then make mistakes.

Please point out the perfect society, secular or otherwise.

This is what the Secular Humanists claim. That they know the rules to make maximum well being or that science can derive them....never mind their NON scientific claim that humans SHOULD strive for maximum well being.

 

[Rational Poster]

I'm not going to listen to over an hour and a half of some radio atheist so with that said, I don't think its fair to conflate secular humanism and Stalinism. That said, I wouldn't trust whatever the fuck secular humanism is off of what you said. Programming an AI to maximize human well being sounds like the classic monkey's paw scenario, can't trust any moron who doesn't see that.

but if you tie every debate to Stalin or Hitler you win.

Guns? Hitler

Socialism vs Capitalism? Stalin AND Hitler.

 

[Islam Imamate]

I am going off HS by what this guy said.

But it you can say it about Sam Harris and ETC who claim their is some objective way to get to morals. The soviets didn't want one person being richer.
The Secular Humanists want to do it via maximizing well being which they defined by....what ever parameters you want....long life....maximum health....etc.

I think that if you use a formula you are going to end up like the Soviets.

And I think that's kind of a stretch.

 

[machidafan99]

I had a friend that was Czech. He said they have no religion. He was immoral as hell. So there's one country example, I guess.

 

[TheGreatA]

I would say that what Soviets had, was secular anti-humanism. Russian nihilism, a movement criticizing humanist, theist, traditional ideals, was the spark that ignited the flame of rebellion, which later enabled Bolshevism to take power. While Bolshevism/communism wasn't necessarily a nihilist/anti-humanist movement, it was consumed by this aspect of the revolution when mass murderer, kidnapper, bank robber and torturer Stalin was allowed to take control of the direction of the movement.

The criminal element won out, over idealism, as Dostoevsky had predicted.

I won't say that Lenin was any better because he was ultimately the enabler of nihilism and psychopathy, by keeping the likes of Stalin as "pet dogs", to do the dirty work that he didn't want to be associated with. Yet he still found that kind of work "necessary" to bring about the revolution that he desired. Did he really think that the construct was going to be taken over by someone "humane", if he allowed criminality within his ranks? He couldn't have been that naive. Perhaps willfully ignorant.

There are problems with secular humanism as well, but I wouldn't directly tie them into the problems that occurred during the Soviet Union. This was not truly a "human-centered" construct until perhaps Stalin's death. Stalin was a staunch anti-humanist, totally amoral, and completely pragmatic.

Mao Zedong, a strict follower of Stalinism, made it clear that the welfare of humans was never the objective. He argued that an increase in welfare could substantially weaken the hold of the party's control, over the population. This partly led to the conflict between Russian and Chinese relations, after Stalin's death, as Khruschev was a believer in increasing communist living standards, which drew Mao's ire.

The real problem with secular humanism is that it's short-sighted and enables humans to be ignorant about the possible "higher role" that they could play, in the fate of the worlds. Such as that of conserving their immediate environment at the cost of compromising their own welfare, to enhance "biodiversity" at the cost of their own diversity.

At the very least, the ancient texts give humans a "higher purpose" of sorts, by deeming them the guardians over God's creation. Whether that's bullshit or not, it might be worth serious consideration, whether we really want to put the welfare of humans, above everything else.

 

[JonnyRingo84]

I'm not going to listen to over an hour and a half of some radio atheist so with that said, I don't think its fair to conflate secular humanism and Stalinism. That said, I wouldn't trust whatever the fuck secular humanism is off of what you said. Programming an AI to maximize human well being sounds like the classic monkey's paw scenario, can't trust any moron who doesn't see that.

stalin is atheism's crusades. you cant mention being an atheist without someone bringing mao and stalin up.

 

[A.S. Deep]

Peterson came off poorly to me in this discussion.

I'm a big fan of Peterson, but he'll always come off poorly whenever he says that religion is NEEDED for morality. Not everyone needs religion to be moral, and not all religious people are moral. If communits can be used as an example against secularism, then literally all religious crimes throughout history can be used an examples against religion. At the end of the day, people who are moral will be moral, regardless of religion. And assholes will be assholes.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Morals without religion can't exist because of communists?

I believe his point was secular humanism is scary.

 

[Black Helicopters]

I think most people who are atheists are atheists because they do not see the proof in the existence of God as told by human beings.

Most atheists aren’t trying to push ideologies like “secular humanism” and the notion that you can’t have morals without religion is fucking retarded. We just don’t believe.

We’re not replacing old ideology with new ideology.

 

[trident]

The "formula" for the Soviet ascension was unique.

I don't see that being replayed.

 

[shinkyoku]

stalin is atheism's crusades. you cant mention being an atheist without someone bringing mao and stalin up.

Both the Chinese emperor and the Russian Tsar ruled as demigods by grace of the actual god(s) fully backed by their very loyal church (of which they were personally the head).
You would be a piss poor revolutionary if you tried to revolt against that kind of ruler without also going against the religious structure that revered him. (amazingly enough, the russian church now revere Lenin and Stalin in a saint like fashion)
Neither Stalin (or Lenin) or Mao was motivated by atheism in their action. It was a minor aspect of their ideology.

 

[ShinkanPo]

Morals without religion can't exist because of communists?

I stop reading when I read the word soviet union.

 

[ShinkanPo]

Derp and the Derptrons.

What do you think about Jordan Peterson?