So, I already did an article in which I traced my philosophical roots back to the six worldviews (well, five of them, given Islam is completely irrelevant to my worldview) in Understanding the times, but the method I used had some biases. I tried to measure the percent by which I draw my influence from those worldviews relative to others, in a way to add up all of those percentages to give me 100. This kind of made secular humanism my dominant worldview by a wide margin, with cosmic humanism a distant second. Marxism-Leninism and Postmodernism were minor influences in my perspective, but were mostly crowded out. And Christianity still had some very minor influences on my views mostly in the form of skepticism toward extreme left ideologies. But, it could be said that I agree with these perspectives more than I let on, even if one worldview is more dominant in my thinking. So how much do I actually agree with each worldview? That's what we're going to find out.
Theology
Christianity- 10%
While I do agree some sort of god exists, I would otherwise fundamentally disagree with the worldview presented. I do not believe we can know god through nature and believe such arguments are fallistic. I also would reject Christian special revelation through the Bible. While I do ultimately believe special revelation can exist on a personal level (as I believe I have experienced it), yeah, the whole Biblical worldview is just nonsense to me.
Islam- 10%
I guess I'll give islam the same 10% I gave Christianity, but otherwise I would disagree with it too.
Secular Humanism- 70%
I agree with secular humanists on everything except the idea of "god" existing. I agree with all of their general methods for trying to know the world, and believe atheism is a valid default position in the absence of any real evidence. I believe finding out things through reason and evidence are the most reliable means to know things, and generally fundamentally reject all organized religion as false.
Marxism-Leninism- 30%
While I agree with the general premise that religion is the opium of the masses and largely distracts people from understanding the world properly, and from understanding the systematic reasons for their suffering, leading to an unwillingness to try to make their world better, I otherwise can't agree with MLism strongly here. MLism is essentially a political ideology that seeks to repress all ideologies and truth but its own, and its hostility toward religion is often repressive and goes way too far for me to be comfortable with. Even if I would say I have hostility toward religion, I do believe forms of legitimate spiritualism exist, and even if they didn't, I would default to a perspective of religious pluralism and tolerance akin to the postmodernist position.
Cosmic Humanism- 80%
My worldview on god is most akin to the cosmic humanist position. While naturalism is all well and good, it is very well possible it is not all to the world as it is, and while I respect an atheist's demand of evidence to believe more, I would argue "god of the gaps" style that the natural may not be all there is. While I would claim my own knowledge is based on a form of special revelation I am unwilling to share for personal reasons, my own personal views are closest to the cosmic humanist position. I believe there is a god out there, although I'm not sure if I'd consider it impersonal, given my revelation. I would agree we are all part of this god. And I could even believe that this universe is all part of god. I would actually argue my personal relationship with god is through my own soul and the souls of those close to me, if that makes any sense at all. So while I have a healthy respect for the secular worldview, I would argue there is more to it.
I would argue that despite my personal distaste for religion some may very well find god that way. However, I would argue it is a flawed and distorted view corrupted by those texts and belief systems. Still, it can "work" on a personal relationship level to some degree.
Postmodernism- 50%
While I would largely agree with the calls of deconstruction, cultural relativism, and religious tolerance of others (so none of that repression crap like the MLs are for), I would reject outright atheism, and I also think that objective reality exists. Postmodernism has a lot to offer here, but its worldview is too...uh...wishy washy and subjective for my tastes. And given I do believe in something, yeah, I can't fully agree here.
Overall- While I accept that a god exists my views are closest to a cosmic humanist's on the subject. However, I largely see secular humanist ideas on god and the skepticism involves as valid, and mostly default to this perspective on subjects not directly related to spiritual matters.
Philosophy
Christianity- 20%
While I would agree that science is not infallible, Christians generally like to mold their views on science around their religious beliefs, compartmentalizing the two when they are able, and when they're not I've seen them just reject reality in favor of the Bible. I ultimately believe any belief you have should be based on evidence, and not faith. And for anyone who asks, yes, I would argue my belief in god is based on evidence in the form of personal revelation that only applies to me. But given I fundamentally reject Christianity, I can't give more than 20% here. Acknowledging a good point or two while still rejecting the overall worldview.
Islam- 10%
While I will give islam a slight nod given i do have some supernatural beliefs, I fundamentally reject the Islamic worldview and find myself agreeing with it less than the christian one even. I just have no philosophical basis for accepting any abrahamic worldview and view spats between christianity and islam as the likes of people arguing whether they like DC or marvel better, or harry potter vs LOTR. Like Im dealing with people who take their fandoms way too seriously and argue over a bunch of doctrinal issues when I just see it all as works of fiction.
Secular Humanism- 70%
Once again I cant have 100% agreement here since I do believe in a god and don't accept mere naturalism as all there is, but once again I must say I highly value the perspective of basing views on solid reason and evidence.
Marxism-Leninism- 40%
While MLism once again has the issues of being a political ideology fleshed out to an entire worldview and can often be extremely propagandistic, it also tends to value science and evidence to some extent. It also pushed dialetical materalism which is interesting, but I feel like the ML worldview tends to take it too far and inject it where it doesn't belong.
Cosmic Humanism- 50%
While I think it offers some valid ideas on how the natural of reality is complicated, I do still believe in objective reality. I don't believe we fully understand how it works, but I would accept that it exists.
Postmodernism- 30%
While I believe there is a realm for subjective truth, I do believe that objective reality exists and that not everything is subjective. I value post modernism as a lens through which to view certain matters related to culture, sociology, etc., but I would fundamentally reject it as an overarching worldview that dominates my perspective.
Overall- Honestly, no perspective perfectly represents my views, and all have value. However, some are more influence than others. I used to be a full on secular humanist, but my spiritual experience has made me recognize that the cosmic humanist perspective can have validity. I feel like MLism and postmodernism do have some validity sometimes, but like I always say I can't imagine making an entire worldview off of them. Religious worldviews are limited in application at best.
Ethics
Christianity- 10%
While I would agree that people do have some basic universal preferences in terms of ethics, I believe this could very easily go back to evolution and ethics being primarily a survival mechanism. I don't actually believe that objective morality actually exists, or that christianity has any real basis for morality. But I do have to note SOME minor agreement here on that one point.
Islam- 0%
I have no overlap with islamic views at all, however.
Secular humanism- 100%
I agree completely with the secular idea of ethics. There is no real basis for "ought" and any agreement comes from universal preferences grounded in evolution. But philosophically, morality is completely subjective and completely up to us. My entire ethical perspective is built on secular humanism.
Marxism-Leninism- 20%
While I dont necessarily disagree with utilitarianism as a philosophy (I am a rule utilitarian), and ultimately do agree in religion being an outdated source of morality, do not forget the marxism-leninism is an authoritarian political philosophy masquerading as an entire worldview. The perspective shown here is one of realpolitik and the lack of any sound principles, only trying to further the goals of marxism. The ends justify the means, even if millions are killed. So despite some mild agreements, I cannot fundamentally agree with the philosophy as a whole.
Cosmic Humanism- 80%
From a spiritual perspective, cosmic humanism offers truth to me, as we all are part of god and learning our way around this world. Morality and ethics is a learning experience from a cosmic humanist perspective, and I would say that the moral relativism quite aligns with secular humanism's, despite the differing underlying justifications.
Im unsure on karma though. While some system of divine justice not unlike karma may exist, the specifics are unknown to me.
Postmodernism- 80%
I actually do agree with the subjectivity of ethics and cultural relativism quite a bit. I agree in the idea of social progress. But as shown above I do think a more objective side of morality exists. After all, if all morality were subjective and cultural, than a secular humanist could not criticize a religious morality like christianity or islam even if bad consequences arose from it. This is a flaw with the postmodernist idea of morality, and we actually see it show up with say, Islam. Leftists often defend islam and criticize critiques from christians, secular humanists and others for backwards and barbaric behavior at times, claiming we're "islamophobic" for pointing it out. Like we need to be more sensitive to their culture. So, cultural relativism only goes so far for me. I do think morality is very flexible and can be molded to various social situations including culture, but there are limits to what I can accept.
Overall- Obviously, while secular humanism is my default perspective here, I also have high agreement and affinity for postmodernism and cosmic humanism here on the basis of them just being different ways to reach the same conclusion. However, ultimately secular humanism reigns supreme as I do believe morality can be measured as good or bad on the basis of the objective results that come with various systems. So while morality is very subjective, there is still an objective component to be found in physical reality.
Marxism leninist ethics might have some good pot shots to take at religion, but are essentially a political ideology masquerading as a worldview and seem to adopt a fast and loose ends justify the means take on ethics I can't agree on given the death count. And religion is just a poor basis of morality. Generally speaking, I detest authoritarian ideologies in general, whether secular or religious and feel most comfortable among humanist philosophies focused on human betterment and some level of moral relativism that comes with a lack of a centralized authority figure.
Biology
Christianity- 10%
While I can get behind theistic evolution as a concept given my cosmic humanist spiritual perspective, Christians as per this book are basically trying to push creationism because they believe their book of myths trumps good science. The christian perspective on biology is pseudoscience.
Islam- 0%
While I could give the same 10% i give to christianity as some moderates accept theistic evolution, most are creationists and their views are just as wrong as the fundie Christians. Religion is not a valid basis for discerning reality.
Secular Humanism- 90%
I fully agree with the secular humanist calls to believe in science. Evidence and science should always trump spiritual or religious views when conflicts arise. I would say that we don't know everything though, and that i could see a form of theistic evolution along the lines of the cosmic humanist worldview being true though.
Marxism-Leninism- 70%
While MLs agree with evolution they really seem to try hard to shoehorn their dialectical materialism into it, which comes off as cringe to me. Did I mention this is basically an authoritarian political ideology masquerading as a coherent worldview? I don't even think the idea of punctuated evolution is wrong. I just dislike injecting political propaganda into science.
Cosmic Humanism- 50%
So, how I approach this worldview is weird. I would say that I agree with some aspects of this worldview such as the idea of spiritual and societal evolution, but I feel mixed on things like the gaia hypothesis or that the naturalistic view of the world is inherently harmful to the environment. While this is an interesting spiritual and cultural view that I wouldn't necessarily disagree with, it feels too subjective and post modern for my tastes. I mean, I don't think humans manipulating the environment is necessarily bad. It's what sets us apart from animals. BUT....doing so excessively like we're doing is disastrous, and I don't need a spiritual worldview to know that (see: climate change). I mean, while I am an environmentalist to some extent, I do largely come at it from a secular and progressive approach, not THIS specific approach. Still, I could agree with this worldview to SOME extent.
Postmodernism- 30%
Postmodernism drops the ball on issues of objective science. It is too subjective of a worldview, and as the book points out, is kind of anti science. This is because while this is a valid SOCIOLOGICAL theory, that doesn't mean it fits within the natural sciences. Still, despite this, they do often come back around to backing science and accepting evolution. But it's described as a leaning. Sorry, but there is an objective reality out there, it can be known through science, and our perspective should conform to that until the evidence leads us to a new conclusion. Sure, culture can influence how we see the world, but culture should also be subservient to objective reality, and I'm very much not a huge person on "culture". I would have described myself as "anti culture" until I did have a friend convince me some level of culture is going to be necessary, even if the culture is about being against culture.
Overall- I am ultimately a believer in science, and as such, I like the secular worldview best. MLism offers a politicized narrative of evolution to fit its own worldview, which while not necessarily wrong, is correct for the wrong reasons. Postmodernism rejecting objective reality is just cringe here. Cosmic humanism offers spiritual truth that is separate and distinct from the more naturalistic truths of scientific worldviews. And religions are just wrong, not being in touch with reality.
Psychology
Christianity- 20%
While I would agree with an inherently dualistic nature of humanity (body and soul being separate), I fundamentally disagree with the rest of the chapter. Humans are not fallen, adam and eve weren't real, and the Bible is a poor basis for understanding human nature. Also, mental illness is a real documented thing. As is society being responsible for the mental condition of its citizens to some extent. Worldviews that do not reflect reality are inherently harmful and should be discarded.
Islam- 10%
The cosmic humanist side of me makes me believe in free will to some extent, but otherwise I disagree with this worldview too.
Secular humanism- 80%
While I disagree with monism, I otherwise accept the secular humanist view of psychology. I mean, social sciences are sciences, and as I said, we must cede our worldview to that of what can be demonstrably proven. I would agree that humans are self interested, and that our environment can greatly affect our psychology. Hell the whole idea of sociology is based on this and it's a scientifically proven fact.
Marxism-Leninism- 70%
I largely agree with the marxist leninist view of behaviorism and the environment and society affecting our behavior. I also believe capitalism is in effect responsible for a lot of mental illness and negative human behavior, but I am not convinced that "socialism" is a solution to this, and could actually make the situation worse. As you guys know, I go in a more libertarian direction, believing in an environment that would allow us to self actualize like a secular humanist perspective focuses on.
Cosmic humanism- 50%
Like always, cosmic humanism offers some spiritual truth to me, and I do believe we are souls trying to develop and grow in a less perfect environment and that we do have a soul or higher self. However, this really only offers some level of SPIRITUAL truth, it does not dominate my actual perspective, and like always, I cede to secular humanism mostly.
Postmodernism- 70%
You know, when postmodernism is allowed to discuss things within its strengths, it makes a lot of sense. There is a lot of social construction to our selves in this world, and while i don't believe that's all there is, I cannot deny the validity of say, symbolic interactionism as a sociological theory, and how we show different aspects of ourselves depending on context.
Overall- Ultimately, I tend to side mostly with the scientific worldviews here, while largely rejecting the spiritual ones. Cosmic humanism has some interesting insights into our souls I think, but ultimately, it merely offers spiritual truth to me if that makes any sense. True from a certain point of view, but ultimately, I would largely cede to the more secular sciences here. It's a lot like the story of the blind people and the elephant. One person feels a foot, another a trunk, another a tail, but they're all part of the elephant. I believe the varying worldviews tend to approach human psychology in different ways and are all valid. Except for maybe the two religious worldviews, which aren't based in reality at all.
Sociology
Christianity- 20%
Christianity places far too much emphasis on individuals and their responsibility for their actions, even if I somewhat agree with free will. As for their biblically prescribed institutions, I think it's cringe they impose a one size fits all lifescript on people. While I have nothing against people living traditionally prescribing it as THE way to live is problematic to me. Christians don't like to admit it, but it's the 21st century, and their time is or should be over. Again if you want to live like that fine, but forcing people to is disgusting. Religion as no place in imposing its way of life on others.
Islam- 10%
If I had a dislike of christians imposing their views on others, my resentment is only stronger with Islam, which is a highly sexist and patriarchical society. I know I rip on christians a lot, but I feel like I use the kid gloves with them vs Islam. Although to be fair Islam is far less of a threat in the west, and the majority of Americans would likely take up arms against an imposition of sharia law. I would agree with the more balanced view between individuals and society though, although not for the same reasons.
Secular humanism- 90%
I definitely feel much at home among secular humanists. While I believe the idea that humans are good and society is evil is more a christian strawman than anything, I do believe that our society is messed up and largely responsible for the ills that we face. I also am a believer that we can change our society to make it better. However, the book seems to think most secular humanists are socialists, and this isn't necessarily true. Secular humanism doesn't inherently proscribe solutions in my worldview, and solutions are based on reason and evidence. Although I'm sure most of us are left of center given how the right seems to deny the entire realm of social sciences in favor of their ideology.
Marxism-Leninism- 40%
While I would agree with some aspects of marxism such as problems with capitalism, and the need to improve our society, one must not forget that MLism is an inherently extreme and dangerous ideology predicated on overthrowing the existing social order and replacing it with a state of affairs I can only describe as repressive. While there are some similarities in how we view current society, our solutions are much different and I go in a much more moderate and humanist direction.
Cosmic Humanism- 70%
This is another time where my secular perspective aligns with my spiritual one. While I support the right of people to live traditionally, I do support nontraditional approaches to family too, and do believe that some people come here to live nontraditionally so that we can learn from them. I mean there is spiritual truth within this worldview, even if I primarily approach things from a secular perspective.
Postmodernism- 60%
I mean, I feel mixed on them. While they agree with me on the idea of living nontraditionally, I tend to view them as far too in your face about it. The probkem with political correctness is it comes off as an authoritarian mentality that seeks to impose this stuff on people. Rather than just live and let live, they gotta shove it in everyone's face and then castigate them for telling them to stop. Even if I agree with their rights and freedoms to do such things, I can't agree with their methods. If anything, I find them extremely alienating.
Overall- all in all, given my secular, libertarian approaches to things, I tend to support perspectives that support peoples' abiities and freedoms to live as they want. I don't want to force people to live in certain ways and tend to score higher in worldviews that tend to be more live and let live, and less in worldviews that tend to try to impose a way of life on people, even if I agree with the underlying worldview to some extent.
Law
Christianity- 10%
Christians are inherently believers in theocracy, and believe law should conform with their religious perspective. However, they also believe that law and religion should be kept somewhat separate and that not all sin should have legal consequences. I wish they themselves would live by this standard more often, as religion has no place in law.
Islam- 0%
Islam is even more openly theocratic than Christianity, and there is often little to no separation between law and religion here. As such, whatever my grievances with Christianity, I have to double down on Islam.
Secular Humanism- 100%
Humanists get law 100% correct, as a human made creation for humanity's own benefit. Natural law does not actually exist, although due to the nature of structural functionalism, I would argue some aspects of human morality are inevitably universal. Still, secular humanism does not disagree with this point, as "natural law" ultimately comes down to people. Ultimately, I am a strong believer in separation of church and state and fundamentally a humanist in ethics, so I can't really disagree with anything mentioned here.
Marxism-Leninism- 40%
Marxism has some good points on law. It mentions bourgeois law and how much law is made in favor of the rich. I would agree with this and this is often discussed and demonstrated in sociology. Heck, there's an entire sociological theory called conflict based on this. Marxists also believe law is ultimately made by people and evolves. But...then the marxist worldview on law becomes a massive pretext for its authoritarian worldview, talking of proletariat law, and socialism, and party politics, and ultimately the idea that the law withers away. Again, MLism is basically just a political theory to push authoritarian communism, and we can see how that happens here. So while there is some agreement on basic ideas, we quickly diverge in different directions.
Cosmic Humanism- 40%
I mean, if you approach this chapter from a spiritual perspective, it's valid. I mean, we're all here, everything is permitted, and everything is a learning experience, so the lack of focus on law makes sense. But, I would not support anarchy, and I do believe that even if we are spiritual beings we have a responsibility to follow the law and respect each other. I might be libertarian, but I'm not anarchist, and my actual views on law much more closely resembles secular humanism. As SCOTUS pointed out in reynolds v. US, if we're allowed to reject the law for religious reasons, then everyone becomes a law unto themselves, and that's no way to run a society. So, it might technically be true within a certain context, but that context isn't congruent with the actual physical reality we live in sometimes. And when conflicts arise, secularism reigns supreme for me.
Postmodernism- 50%
Much like cosmic humanism, postmodernism has a "reality" problem. Postmodernism, taken to extremes seems to reject objective reality, with the chapter even going so far to say rational and science based ways of viewing the world have a "white male bias". Well, this is BS, and as a politically incorrect secular humanist, facts don't care about your feelings.
REGARDLESS, postmodernism can have a point at times. Laws can be made with certain biases at times, and perhaps should be tweaked to be more culturally sensitive of others, given that those others do not harm others. I do think that looking at things through the lenses of others can be valid, and that postmodernism does have a role in informing law to some extent. I just don't take this perspective to extremes.
Overall- Secular humanism wins by a large margin for me. Religion and spirituality do not have a basis for law in society, although I would argue that spirituality may otherwise contain some spiritual truths. Marxism leninism is more interested in forcing communism on people. And Postmodernism, while valid to some extent, once again goes full stupid in its rejection of objective reality. Just because I do not believe that human morality is objective, it should be informed by objective reality. And while the subjectivity of postmodernism or the conflict based analyses of marxism had their place, both are insufficient for the basis of an entire worldview. Only secular humanism IMO offers a comprehensive perspective here.
Politics
Christianity- 30%
While religion is no basis for public governance, the melding of the christian perspective on human nature being evil combined with the conservative calls for small government are appealing. While I do think conservatives can be overly cautious on separation of powers, and are a bit too leery of utopianism (we're not all MLs), I do think that they have a valid perspective here, and I wish they would practice what they preach here more, specifically by not imposing their religious morality on others. Of course, that's the deal. It's only human made morality they have a problem with imposing. if it comes from god its fair game. Which is why "small government" conservatives then want to push abortion and gay marriage laws and stuff. So, small government and libertarian unless god says so, right? Still, I have to give them SOME credit here.
Islam- 0%
The book describes Islam as a worldview that seems theocratic in its core, and actively wants to spread and conquer new lands. Im not sure this is true, as even the chapter mentions how muslims often soften jihad, looking at the nature of muslim states, I can't support islam as a basis for government at all. And given it lacks even the small government nature of american conservative Christianity, I once again have to be a lot harder on it than I would on Christianity.
Secular humanism- 70%
To be fair, secular humanism seems to be given a lot of doctrines here that aren't inherently universal to the worldview, but generally speaking the worldview is correct. Democracy is the way, liberalism a good ideology (even if misdefined), and sometimes the government should intervene to improve the well being of its citizens. Also, I like how the chapter actually stated that secular ethics do have some degree of tolerance toward religion, as in my experience it actually is a major aspect of it. Freedom of speech and freedom of thought are paramount and secularists solve the issue of religion by supporting a high wall of separation of church and state, although they support freedom of religion in one's private life.
My actual disagreements with humanism as presented largely come from my distaste of specific positions presented. They are not inherently humanist positions that one is forced to accept, but they presented themselves in the humanist manifestos which for some reason noebel thought were authoritative texts for humanists. I do not support one world government, I am leery on nuclear disarmament due to everyone needing to do it to make it actually happen (and that doing so might increase costly and destructive wars, theres a reason we never had a real "WWIII"), and I'm lukewarm on economic democracy (aka literal socialism), even if my own political ideology comes from humanist principles.
This is more a problem with the book's presentation of the ideas rather than the ideas themselves though.
Marxism-Leninism- 20%
While I agree that there is class antagonism under capitalism, I once again fundamentally reject the marxist model for solving the problem, believing that revolution and what comes after are an inherently and dangerous approach to the problems. I highly prefer a more secular humanist approach to these issues.
Cosmic Humanism- 0%
As presented, I don't agree with the political approach outlined in the book, being both against a global government, and also against anarchism. I do believe in a more western approach to laws and nation states, although we could do better in making them work better for people, intervening when necessary and leaving people alone when they don't. Honestly, i think the reason this chapter bombed so hard is because half of the worldviews in this book aren't comprehensive and don't have much to say on every topic discussed. Cosmic humanism offers spiritual truth, but rarely truth that can be applied practically to the world. Although my own approach to the topic as per my article tended to flesh it out and make it work slightly better than presented here.
Postmodernism- 30%
Postmodernists are obsessed with identity politics and social justice. While there is a role for such perspectives in politics, as you know, I do not see it as an overriding worldview that trumps everything else. I believe in the more positive, universal secular humanist approach. And this is why I don't fit in well with the modern left. If the Christian worldview dominates the right, the left is dominated by this perspective, rendering me to be some outcast moderate.
Overall- Ultimately, despite my differences with secular humanism as presented here, it's the only worldview that remotely represents my worldview. I generally agree with the basic premises, even if I dont fully agree with all aspects of the humanist manifestos. While other worldviews like christianity (conservatism), marxism and post modernism have some minor influences here with some good points, my views largely diverge from these perspectives as my brand of relatively center left progressivism dominates over these other perspectives.
Economics
Christianity- 30%
The christian worldview as presented in this book is wedded with the conservative worldview based on capitalism, private property, free enterprise, and an obsession with hard work. I know I'm anti work, and I know I'm progressive as per the secular humanist perspective, but I have to admit capitalism "works" from a structural functionalist perspective, and that we should be leery of massive changes because the system replacing them might NOT work. Heck, this is why I've rejected socialism for more moderate alternatives. I do think there is some value in the capitalist perspective, and whatever we reform and replace, we must research first what we do. Heck, it's a huge reason I value social democracy over socialism. It WORKS. We know it works. We have whole countries showing it works. And while UBI hasn't ever been fully tried we still have a metric crapton of social science data on the subject suggesting it does. Still, much like christians, I would be leery of utopianism and replacing capitalism with a system that does not work and is destructive to human life *gives a stink eye to the marxist-leninists.*
Islam- 50%
Islam comes off as surprisingly progressive on economics, choosing a third way between capitalism and socialism, and having requirements to give to the poor, as well as taxes on things like inheritance. While the framework is not ideal for me as it is coming from an inherently theocratic framework, I can't say I disagree with it much in theory at least.
Secular Humanism- 70%
The book is weird and contradictory, emphasizing socialism as the preferred economic system for humanists, while simultaneously arguing for "interventionism", which reads as a form of liberalism to me. In reality, humanists are all over on economics, varying from objectivists (Ayn Rand fanboys) to communists. I'd describe most as progressives, but mostly on the liberal side of things rather than socialists. As the book pointed out, many humanists don't know how to implement socialism properly, so end up being more moderate in practice. That makes sense to me. As you guys know, my iteration of "human centered capitalism" is essentially based on humanist principles. So I largely am a humanist, even if I disagree with how it's described here.
Marxism-Leninism- 30%
Once again, while I get the marxist criticisms of capitalism, I cannot support its solutions. MLism has been a failure around the world and lead to a death count in the tens of millions, if not more. I also think even if i agree with critiques of capitalism that i don't necessarily accept the labor theory of value as objective truth, but just a model for explaining an issue with capitalism. Marxists tend to take it too far, and also seem to apply it in a way where it guarantees we wont ever get away from a labor based economy, something that my humanist side would very much like to do some day.
Cosmic Humanism- 0%
Cosmic humanism doesn't really have an economic theory in this book. It's just this weird prosperity gospel thing based on the law of attraction. While I did expand cosmic humanist economic thinking in my article on it, as the book states it, it's just cringe pseudoscience.
Postmodernism- 50%
Like always, postmodernists go full stupid in denying objective reality and focusing more on identity politics than actual universal solutions to everything. While they tend to vary from interventionist to socialist, ultimately, they are more obsessed with identity than actual economic solutions good for everyone in my experience. Whie equality between genders, races, etc. is goos, it's a secondary priority to me. Still they do seem more level headed than the marxists and seem leery about transitioning to full socialism and believing in experimentation before implementing ideas. So it's not all bad and sometimes mildly progressive, I just disagree with the idpol obsession and lack of objective sense of self.
Overall- While i have some agreement with all ideologies, I also disagree with all of them too for varying reasons. Christianity (conservatism) is too capitalist, while others are too socialist. Of course part of that is the author's framing and projection regarding the issue. Ultimately though, secular humanist is closest to my views, even if I don't fully agree with every other humanist's ideas on the subject and ultimately am not for socialism. Generally speaking in my own views I would say I am ultimately closest to secular humanism, although my understanding is my own personal approach to it.
History
Christianity- 0%
The biblical view of the world is laughably inaccurate and believing in it is dangerously out of touch with reality IMO.
Islam- 30%
The islamic perspective in the book seems to largely describe real events, although in a biased way. Hence some level of agreement here. I don't actually agree with Islam at all.
Secular Humanism- 100%
I mean, I largely would agree with the idea that we should have an optimistic vision for humanity's future, even if it is just a goal to strive for. I would also agree that history is written by the winners and ideology shapes history. While this point feels almost postmodernist, its true. Anyway, I would largely say that we should strive to keep making better and better societies, and using utopian visions as a guidepost. Even if we can't get there 100%, we should try.
Marxism-Leninism- 30%
While materialism is an interesting approach to history, once again, marxists are dogmatic and are an example of the humanist perspective saying ideology determines one's view of history. Communists think communism is inevitable and capitalism will inevitably collapse, when it's been going on for 150 years and communism has been a disaster when tried. Sorry, but they need to take their whole dialectical materialism and understand that social democracy and my own human center capitalist systems are syntheses.
Cosmic Humanism- 80%
Honestly, in my perspective, the cosmic humanist chapter is just a spiritual retelling of the secular humanist chapter, portraying humanity as an evolution toward godhood rather than heaven on earth. I do believe that cosmic humanism has the same inherent progressive bend that secular humanism does, just shown another way. I also would agree that some people becoming highly evolved can influence the mass consciousness of humanity. I mean what do you think I'm doing here? What do you think my out of plato's cave experience really was? Despite diametrically opposed views on god and spirituality, my secular and cosmic humanist perspectives go together.
Postmodernism- 30%
Postmodernism once again commits seppuku here denying an objective history exists and trying to revise history to meet its own biases. I do believe objective reality exists, and while again, history is written by the winners and can be told with biases, and that multiple perspectives can be valid, you shouldn't manipulate the truth to favor a bias, rather you should seek to remove biases from the truth when possible. Postmodernism has some valid perspectives in that history is written from a Eurocentric white and male dominated perspective, but postmodernist tellings of history are often extreme biased and propagandistic, being described by the right as being told from the perspective of "hating whitey."
Overall- Honestly, the only perpective I strongly identify as here is the secular humanist perspective, although the cosmic humanist is the other side of the same coin from me. Other perspectives can have some value, but that value is limited by the inherent biases of those perspectives.
Conclusion
Now that I have looked at all 10 areas of a worldview and measured my rough agreement with each worldview, let's add them all up and see how much I agree with various perspectives.
Secular Humanism- 84%
Cosmic Humanism- 50%
Postmodernism- 48%
Marxism-Leninism- 39%
Christianity- 16%
Islam- 12%
This seems to express similar sentiments as the other metric in other ways. The other approach looked at how much each perspective informed my worldview, which led to a much more secular humanist dominated perspective. I was forced to relegate all of the other theories to a supporting role. Here, we see something more in line with how much I actually agree with each. And it tells basically the same story.
I mostly agree with secular humanism, only really disagreeing with the concept of a god and niche political positions. But my perspective is primarily secular humanist.
Cosmic humanism seems to approach the world from a more spiritual perspective and while it has spiritual truth that sometimes complements or bolsters my predominantly secular worldview, sometimes it just falls flat on areas outside of its perview like politics and economics.
Postmodernism did moderately well, being a worldview based on critical theory and it does make good points sometimes that run parallel to my own ideological framework. But its rejection of objective reality and fixation on identity issues cause serious problems for me.
Marxism leninism I kind of half expected to come in third, being another secular, science type perspective, but given it is very rigid and propagandistic and more or less bolstering an authoritarian communist political ideology, I can't support it. Too radical and rigid for me. I can kind of sort of get behind some forms of socialism via a secular humanist perspective, but the marxist one is just too extreme and rigid for me. Even on issues of science it tries to inject its political worldview where it doesn't belong and it's kind of cringe.
And of course, then there are the religious worldviews in dead last. While christianity does have some value from the perspective of conservatism, and I do mildly agree with some vague aspects of theism due to my cosmic humanist side, I largely reject this worldview as it is based on a book of myths.
Islam fared even worse. Whatever issues I have with christianity, islam comes off as far more radical and dangerous. Although it sometimes makes good points and seems semi based on economics, I just fundamentally do not like this perspective.
That said, this exercise didn't really tell me much I did not already know, but it did allow me to view the worldview issue from a slightly different perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment