Comments by "Michael Wright" (@michaelwright2986) on "What is Atheism?" video.

  1. Thank you. Although it's not defined, New Atheism is useful as a label, at least as useful as the labels applied to literary or other artistic movements. And the chief feature of New Atheist discourse is that the practitioners don't understand Christianity; or at least, think that all Christianity is like rather benighted forms of US White Conservative Evangelicalism (very marked in the anti-creationist rhetoric of Dawkins, who is English; he would be hard pressed to find a creationist in any of the long-established denominations in England). Many campaigning atheists aren't clear whether they're opposed to the idea of God, or opposed to organised religion. That's a distinction I'm sure you'll be pursuing, but we all know of intensely believing theists who have been strongly opposed to at least some forms of the religious group they were brought up in or which surrounds them (defiers of steeple houses, shall we call them). Meanwhile, as some people who don't believe in God form groups for mutual support and delight and to celebrate their world view, one watches with a certain wry amusement as the history of religion seems to begin to be played out in them. How long, I wonder, before a dispute about what it takes to be a true atheist? This, of course, only applies to public atheists, and especially atheist campaigners, and has nothing to say to about the many people who live their lives without belief in any god or godlike entity (sorry, hard to express that in the light of the Christian theological tradition that says it is incorrect to say that God exists). It would be interesting to know if those many people are happier or not, feel themselves more open to flourishing than the typical believers/practitioners of a variety of faiths. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not in the USA. That poor country, amongst its many ills, is under the baneful influence of a mistaken form of Christian belief so deviant as to perhaps amount to heresy. In the USA, Satanism has a lot of work today (as long as they don't really believe in Satan).
    3
  2. The problem with "humanist" as a term is that it implies (though of course it doesn't necessarily entail) some kind of notion of the essential goodness of human beings. The possibility that, as a species, our capacity for destruction and cruelty is more truly characteristic of us than our capacity for altruism and creation is, or ought to be, the equivalent of the dark night of doubt for the religious believer.
    1
  3.  @adamplentl5588  OK, but what does "humanism" mean then? Why "secular humanism" rather than just "secularity" (which is a perfectly respectable position, and the official stance of the Republic of France)? This is, btw, a genuine question.
    1
  4.  @adamplentl5588  Well, according to the source of all knowledge, the International Humanist and Ethical Union says, _inter alia_, that Humanism "stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities." Note the use of the word "humane", which implies some positive value to humanness. To try to build an ethics or morality or value system on a purely human basis implies that we are apt to bear the weight. And it genuinely seems to me that that is an open question. We are truly capable of great acts of good; and also of great acts of evil and destruction. See the history of most major religions for appalling examples of the human capacity for evil; and they are human acts, though done under the delusion that they were God's will. It's possible to say that we should just work for the best considering only human values; but it seems extremely hard to agree on what human values might be. Competition or cooperation? Probably both, either in a blend, or in different contexts, but how do you get to agree? It looks a bit like the attempt to gain the authority of a religion, without openly making a metaphysical commitment; assuming that values we can all agree on are "natural". I think there's a lot to be said for basing common life on a principle of naming what is obviously wrong, and trying to fix it, without any deep metaphysical rootedness. But whilst most of us would agree that having a lot of people homeless and sleeping on the streets is wrong, there will be some people who will question whether it's wrong (not, I hope, any people you or I know), and huge disagreement on how to fix it. Sorry to take up your time when you obviously have much more important things to do, but I really don't think "humanism" is on a par with any of the other ethical bases you mention; not least because utilitarianism and consequentialism seem to me both compatible with whatever "humanism" might be, if it is not an identification of humanity as itself a source of positive value. "Deontology" in a secular form just seems to be plucking moral absolutes out of a hat.
    1