Does the Humanist/Rationalist/Secularist/Atheist movement repeat the Utopianism of the old Communist Movement?

  • The Communists led so many people to believe and expect that as soon as the Capitalist class was eliminated, a utopia would break out. It seemed like a good theory. If I’d been alive back in the early days of the Marxist Communist Movement, I might have supported it. But experience proved it just didn’t work,
  • Now, we are told by some that as soon as Religion is eliminated (or pushed into a corner of irrelevancy, like the Amish), a utopia will break out.
  • Hmmm.
  • Is history repeating itself?

Stop evangelizing. You aren’t going to convert any humanist here, so stop waiting web space.

  • I am sorry. Let me clarify. I am not evangelizing or proselytizing for religion.
  • To me, the needful thing is for Utopian Humanists to accept the full body of the discoveries of Charles Darwin.
  • Utopian Humanism is no better than Utopian Religionism, in terms of the outcomes it produces.
  • The old Marxist Communism is just one variety of Utopian Humanism.
  • The current Democratic Socialism is another variety of Utopian Humanism that has a signficant following.
  • Ayn Rand’s system of philosophy (ethics, metaphysics, etc.) called Objectivism is another variety of Utopian Humanism that has a signficant following.
  • Many people today who are activists and enthusiasts in the Humanist/Rationalist/Secularist/Atheism movement seem to be Utopian Humanists, even if they don’t really think about it.
  • The only solution I see is for Humanists to set aside all the false propaganda and science denialism that secular Leftists and secular Rightists promote about certain aspects of the Darwinian body of science, and accept the full body of the discoveries of Charles Darwin.
  • Darwin described the Laws of Biology that totally control the behavior, emotions, instincts, brains, thought, and evolution of all biological beings (including humans), and Darwin explained how the Laws of Biology establish boundaries and limits to what sort of families, societies, governments, and economies that humans can establish and maintain.
  • For the Utopians, however, there are no boundaries or limits. For the Utopians, if it can be imagined, it can be achieved, much like what is promoted by the lyrics of John Lennon’s beautiful song “Imagine.”
  • “Realistic Humanism” is a term that could be used for this Darwin-based Humanism , and to signify a contrast that with the Utopian Humanism that is so prevalent.
  • Humanists love Darwin. But from what I’ve seen, very few Humanists actually read Darwin’s two key books, his 1859 book “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, The Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” and his 1871 book "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relationship to Sex."

The U.S. doesn’t now have a government that is Democratic Socialism. In fact, the Repugs are making every attempt they can to keep minorities and women from voting. On top of it all, IF we had Democratic Socialism, we’d have socialized medicine, food and clean water for everyone, housing for everyone, a good education for everyone (without student loan debt), and everyone guaranteed a source of income doing a job they like better than most people like their jobs now (very few people I know like their job. they loathe their job). Everyone’s basic needs would be met. We do not have that in the U.S. Too many people lack the ability to get health care. Too many people do not have clean water. There are literally food deserts in the U.S. Too many people do not have healthy food, much less money to buy healthy food. Too many people either don’t have the education they need to earn a living or they have student debt they will never repay. The list goes on.

ROFLMAO! Ayn Rand was more of a Libertarian, not a Democratic Socialist. I do not believe she was a humanist either.

Maybe we won’t ever achieve a utopian society, but there is nothing wrong in striving to better ourselves and society and that should be the main goal of all humans.

Humanists do not deny science. Many of us live by science. How do you know that striving to better ourselves and others won’t cause us to evolve?

Darwin was only beginning to learn about Evolution. His was the beginning of Evolution and he was mistaken about some things. A human is a human no matter they skin colour and no matter where in the world they were born. The study of Evolution as come a long ways since he discovered it.

Everyone needs a goal.

There’s where he made a mistake. There is only one human race, not many and we call mate with each other, regardless of skin colour. A human is a human. However, humans and chimps cannot mate nor can a human and lion or a human and a platypus. "The Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” is a big scientific error, because the only race humans need to favour is the human race, because there is only one human race, the human race and anything is “racism” based on skin colour.

You are preaching your ideas and it all ridiculous. You aren’t going to win anyone over here with your desire to convert people. So please stop now.

  • This forum is dedicated to science and to the skeptical investigation of ideas, beliefs, and practices that appear to be contradicted by science.
  • Logically, then, skepticism should be the approach to take not just toward religion, toward alleged paranormal phenomenon, and toward alleged “alternative” methods of healing physical or mental conditions.
  • Rational persons should be free to take the approach of Science and Skepticism toward certain elements of the Humanist Movement itself.
  • Such critical, skeptical thinking should be celebrated and welcomed by Humanists, even if (especially if) a majority of Humanists, or eminent Humanist leaders, disagree with some of the conclusions of such critical, skeptical thinking.
  • Otherwise, the tenets of the Humanist Movement become dogmas and sacred cows (i.e., comparable to dogmatic religions and dogmatic political movements).

Yes, it is.

A lot of us are skeptical of such things.

That’s fine and no one is forcing anyone to be a humanist. However, you are pushing against humanism and attempting to convert people to your beliefs.

Not if you are pushing your beliefs, which you are.

No, on the contrary, especially when one is pushing their views and attempting to convert people to those views. I’m sure many of us have questioned our own beliefs, but there is also one thing you do not understand and that is, not all humanists agree on everything.

For example, not all humanists agree there can be spiritual humanists, religious humanists, humanistic Judaism, humanistic Xianity, humanists who are also naturalists, etc etc. There are some who feel a humanists must be a secularist and practice secular humanism. Some secularists have issues with humanist celebrants, some humanists take issues with vegetarian and vegan humanists, the list goes on and on. What you see on CFI is not the only definition of humanism.

Check out https://americanhumanist.org/

In fact, just search for humanist organizations and you will find a wide variety of humanists, but one thing is common among them and that is the humanist manifestos. There is I, II, III (Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III, a Successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 - American Humanist Association) (you’ll find links to I and II, and one with the Secular Humanist Organisation (Free Inquiry). Now let me tell you about the manifestos. The ones you find on AHA, you will see that even some ministers signed at least the first two.

Now, I cannot give you details Paul Kurtz helped draft the second manifesto and somewhere along the line, let’s say he started questioning, which is fine, and didn’t like his answers and left the AHA. He started Council for Secular Humanism or Free Inquiry and also CFI. He wrote a Secular Humanist Declaration and Affirmations. Since then, just in the U.S. alone the most prominent humanist groups are the AHA and CFI/Free Inquiry/Council for Secular Humanism.

That’s more than enough information for you to peruse and learn from, but to think all humanists think in the same way is very inaccurate. You are only seeing one site and honestly, humanists are as different as the variety of Xians in this world and even Muslims. End then end though, we can walk into a liquor store and not buy wine for communion purposes and not act like we don’t recognize each other. In fact, we overlap and even visit one or more humanistic sites and get along fairly well or that is, if we meet a fellow humanist, we do not ask, “What kind?” We just accept that they are a humanist. I have had Edd Doerr (AHA) look over a paper I wrote on humanism and conversed with Joe Nickel (CFI) and others who work with either site.

This is the definition of humanism I often give when defining humanism: " Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good.
American Humanist Association"

But there are many other difinitions- Definition of Humanism - American Humanist Association . Not just the one you find on CFI. So you have to be very careful when you make the assumptions about humanists you are making.

Not quite a rule violation, but very close

5.* In the opinion of CFI and for the purposes of this Forum, “humanism” is to be interpreted broadly. Anyone self-identifying as a humanist should be so considered. Discussions as to which Forum members are humanists is discouraged, and continued denigration and harassment of self-described humanist Forum members in that light is considered disruptive to CFI’s mission and to that of CFI’s Forum.

You aren’t making much of a case for what you think a “good” humanist is, or how many you think are doing humanism wrong.

Same for skepticism. Either present evidence and use logic, or don’t. Telling others they aren’t skeptics because they don’t agree with you is bad form.

1 Like

You use a lot of words but here’s All I get from them:

Darwin properly described humanism. A bunch of people get humanism wrong. I’m gonna call that Utopian.

Maybe find something that someone actually said, instead of this vague statement. Who told you what, and what are your thoughts about it?

1 Like

I’d also like to add that I have a topic about Humanism in this vary category. It can tell you more about Humanism and the various Manifestos here. It maybe a good place for all your questions instead of this thread which accuses all humanist. I’d prefer adding any needed info about humanism in that thread rather than posting it all over the forum, even though humanism is often shown throughout the forum.

Yeah, but when you try to build Darwin up as the ultimate arbiter of the “Laws of Biology” you make a mockery of those words.

You really ought to enunciate your understanding of Utopian Humanists - it may not agree with what Humanists are thinking.

Humanism and Utopian Thinking

HUMANISM.SCOT • FEBRUARY 2016

By Nigel Warburton, originally published in the 2013 Spring edition of Humanitie Magazine.

What would a humanist Utopia look like? It’s easy to dismiss utopianism as unrealistic. That’s because it is of course; by its nature. But part of the point of Utopian thinking is to have something to aspire to. To understand better what direction you’d like the world to move in. and perhaps even to crystallise what’s wrong with the status quo. Those who imagine Utopias rarely believe they are achievable; but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t valuable as tools for thought and criticism.

An easy response is that humanists want lots of things, some of them incompatible. So the idea of’ a humanist Utopia is a non-starter. There would have to be many. There is not a ‘one-size-fits all’ way of being a humanist, but rather a pattern of overlapping continuities and resemblances between the people who call themselves humanists, or are deemed humanists by others; humanism’ is what Ludwig Wittgenstein labelled a family resemblance term. Just as the best way to understand the meaning of ‘game’ is not to try and find some single common denominator shared by all the things we call games, but rather to ‘look and see.’ So perhaps ‘humanism’ doesn’t have an essence, it is best thought of as a range of related views.

One core belief shared by many humanists, though, is that society and morality are human creations, not something created by and run along lines dictated by a god or gods. So would religion be outlawed in a humanist Utopia? Not in mine. …

Oh dear, they list eight of them, some longer, some shorter, and I’ll bet some they missed altogether. and since I know a lot of folks don’t bother with links, let me share a couple short ones, that work pretty good for me.

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without theism or other supernatural beliefs, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good.
American Humanist Association

Humanism is an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity, recognizing that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone.
The Bristol Humanist Group

This one feels almost spiritual to me, and I can relate to it quite well.

Humanism is the light of my life and the fire in my soul. It is the deep felt conviction, in every fiber of my being that human love is a power far transcending the relentless, onward rush of our largely deterministic cosmos. All human life must seek a reason for existence within the bounds of an uncaring physical world, and it is love coupled with empathy, democracy, and a commitment to selfless service which undergirds the faith of a humanist.
Bette Chambers, former president of the AHA

and so on.


PS. If you want to philosophize about it, this might be of interest:

Looks interesting unfortunately, TBTRI, but you may have the spare time.

Straw man arguments are easy to identify. I don’t know anyone saying “utopia will break out”. It’s true there was some thinking about religion just fading away, but that was decades ago

Yes, that’s the one I shared above and is my favourite. I put it in scare quotes, instead of using the quote button.

1 Like

Thanks for your post eupraxsophy100! I think there are people who will not under any circumstance accept the reality that the universe does not care about us, that there is no grand plan for us, and that we do not go on living after death.

These people must have their religion and even if we were able to wipe religion from the face of the earth it would spring forth from the human mind like Athena from Zeus’s forehead! In less poetic terms, they would create a new religion in the absence of the old.

Even if religion ceased to exist, it would not make our societies perfect. Human nature contains love, hate, kindness, and cruelty. Human nature contains every positive trait and every negative trait and each is born again with every new generation. Even kind and loving parents can give birth to a wicked person.

So, even though I want people to give up religion, I don’t think the erraddication of religion is an achievable goal. Also, even though religion can be a source of problems it can also do good things in the world. The real source of problems and evil is our own human nature.

Each person must work hard to overcome their shortcomings and bad tendencies. As a secular society we must fight poverty and promote education and do what we can to teach each new generation the ways of reason and goodness!

Thanks eupraxsophy100 for posting!

1 Like

Any form of humanism I’ve seen would agree with these points.