Current Trends in Contemporary Philosophy that Affect the Foundations of Humanism was the topic of discussion at the Utah Humanists meeting on January ninth. Dr. Clifton McIntosh, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Utah was the featured speaker.

There is an intellectual movement in existence which is fundamentalist in nature that poses a threat to Humanism because its premise is that "Religious belief is as valid as scientific belief when it comes to discovering truths." The movement's purpose is to diminish the important steps science utilizes in arriving at truths about the world. The movement asserts and teaches the following:

1. That religious experience is as valid as scientific experience.
2. That there is no evidence that science tells us truths about the world
3. That only good people have religious experiences, others do not

As humanists we must remember that there are two central foundations of humanism:

First, a belief that there is no rational basis to conclude that religion can bring forth knowledge.

Second, that knowledge is possible and will emerge only by using the Scientific Method. Science is of primary importance to humanists. Science can be wrong, of course, but the mistakes are usually corrected. Ethical and respected scientists do not fall into the trap of pre-determining or choosing what will work.

Science is going to succeed in bringing us the best accounts of the world because religious experience is limited and subjective. There are no checks and balances in religious experiences. Everyone's experience is considered as valid as the other person's. Religion is very individualistic and has a multitude of differences. We must evaluate specific belief systems according to their own standards, not by ours.

The difference between a religionist's claims and a scientist's claims is that the scientist just doesn't take an experience of the senses and leave it at that. He/she goes one step further and wants to know how the experiences of the senses works. Scientists use methods that measurable. Professor McIntosh states that the burden of proof is on the religious epistemologists to prove their beliefs are true. For example, they must develop a valid and measurable test to prove God's existence. It cannot simply be said that God exists because somebody had to create this world. There cannot be a double standard of proving truths.

Scientists work from the frame of reference that all ideas are not equivalent, that all ideas are not the same, and that all forms of life are not equally as good.

The two questions we should ask ourselves are:

How do we define truth?

What are the truths about the world?

Figuring out what truth actually is becomes difficult because the Scientific Method takes time, and many variables come into play. The upshot of all of this is twofold:

First: Science must always remain skeptical in order to progress.

Second: The scientific method is superior to religion when it comes to discovering truth and knowledge about the world. It is best that we periodically test our assumptions, not just to believe them because of personal experience.

Because there is a decreasing interest in science by students, the challenge of the 21st century will be encourage our young people to value science and the Scientific Method so we may discover truths about this world which will lead to a better and more rational life.

--Nancy Moore