Infidel Guy this Friday on Universist Movement

[residentearth]

John Armstrong is a representative of United Universists, the new freethought organization that seeks to unite atheists, deists, agnostics, pantheists and transcendentalists in a project to promote safe, rational religious philosophy. At the root of Universism is uncertainty, rather than the absolute truths proferred by traditional faith-based religions. The movement has a meetup: http://universist.meetup.com and a popular website & forum: http://universist.org

ON AIR: 8PM ET, 5PM PT
http://www.infidelguy.com
_____________________
Universism: Full-on war with religion.
http://universist.org

[Arken]

I have some problems with the Universist principles although some may accuse me of nitpicking:

The most important thing is the Search [not sure why that's capitalized] for meaning and purpose, as in relationships and love, understanding and knowledge, experiences and emotions, and elsewhere

I disagree. The most important thing is survival. Everything else is secondary.

There is no absolute Truth that applies to all people

What about 'all people have skin'? Or 'all people have DNA' even?

Morality is relative to individual circumstances and relationships. Any action's ultimate rightness or wrongness can only be determined by those involved in the action.

I challenge someone to find any situation under any curcumstance where molesting a child would be moral.

Social structures such as governments and institutions are useful insofar as they help individuals to flourish - that is, become and remain healthy, happy and able to work toward their goals that do not interfere with the rights of other individuals to work toward their own goals.

Who decides what 'interfering with the rights of other individuals to work toward their own goals.' is... is smoking interfering? What about dumping toxic chemicals into a river? What about building, but not using, a personal atom bomb?

All life is free in the universe, limited in potential only by the physical laws of nature.

I fail to understand the meaning of this statement. Free in what way?

[residentearth]

Arken, I'm pretty sure all your concerns are addressed in the Universist FAQ, http://universist.org/faq.htm

For example, regarding Absolute Truth:
Universism states that there is no "absolute Truth" that applies to everyone, what is meant by "absolute Truth."
Universism is addressing religious truth, not scientific truth. A capital T in Truth is commonly understood to refer to the Ultimate Nature of Existence, the meaning of life, and the nature of the metaphysical. There is an objective reality and science is the tool to decipher it. That reality does apply to the nature of the human animal. As Edward O. Wilson wrote in Consilience, "The human condition is the most important frontier of the natural sciences."

More detailed FAQs on Universist "morality"

Universism states that any action's ultimate rightness or wrongness can only be determined by those involved in the action. Does this mean we can't even say that something as obviously horrible as slavery was wrong?
It's true that in Universism morality doesn't exist, but slavery involves one person denying the rights of another and so violates one of the other principles of Universism. (It is most important in Universism that people be free to flourish and engage in the Search, so anything that would prevent that or make that more difficult would be bad). This would also apply for one person murdering or otherwise causing harm to another. Outside of such actions that prevent people from exercising their own will, it is true that in Universism only the person who is acting, and the person being acted upon, can say anything about the ultimate rightness or wrongness of the action.

If someone is heavily abused, sometimes they need others to step in and say 'this is abuse'. The abusee may be unable to make that decision due to psychological situations. Is Universism saying that the observer doesn't matter there?
In any example where either the person acting, or the person being acted upon (or people affected) are psychologically unable to determine rightness or wrongness for themselves, then nothing could be said about the ultimate rightness or wrongness by that party to the event. And no one else could in their place. According to Universism, there is no transcendent right or wrong, everything is case-based. This does not prevent us from having laws and counselors etc, Universism just says that those social attempts to codify behavior ultimately are not correlated perfectly with right and wrong, good and evil. Those concepts do not exist with any utility outside of the individual's mind, as related to a particular action, where the individual is performing the action, or is affected by the action.

Does Universism imply that in crimes, only the criminal and the victims can decide if it was wrong or not, that the judge and jury don't know right from wrong since they weren't really involved?
No. A Universist would say that law isn't or shouldn't be based on morality, that morality doesn't exist. Law is a practical matter written and interpreted to protect the rights of people so that they may flourish. Universism says that morality is totally case-based - any general principles we could draw from cases would actually not be general principles worthy of a philosophical principle but rather accurate to the degree the cases are similar. Universism is talking about philosophy and the relevance to individuals. Society's structures, such as judges and juries, are deemed useful in Universism in the degree to which they help people flourish or not. So, if a crime were committed, and that crime harmed another person (thus endangering their flourishment), then social structures such as the legal system would be good insofar as they corrected that. But these institutions have nothing to say about the ultimate, cosmic rightness or wrongness of an action - only the person who committed the action or the person or persons affected by it can determine that.

[residentearth]

All life is free in the universe, limited in potential only by the physical laws of nature.
I fail to understand the meaning of this statement. Free in what way?
Free in the sense that there is nothing supernatural to controvert our will.