User talk:Jjoplin

Objective truth and secular humanism

Hi. On secular humanism you replaced

• Objective truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

with

• Search for truth - A constant search for truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our perceived truth and objective truth may not exist at all.

My concern about this is that the original text was a direct quote from the Council on Secular Humanism web site (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=what) from a document that had five authors and thus was apparently a concensus of sorts. It's true that the heading wasn't orginal, and I'd be happy to change that to Search for truth. Otherwise, while I'm sympathetic to your change, your wording seems less authoritative. I'm tempted to revert it. Suggestions? -Rhwentworth 04:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverted but kept your Search for truth header and removed "objective" from emphasis. Section name change to "Tenets" was good. Talk to me if you have issues with this. Regards, Rhwentworth 04:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize the search for objective truth was from the CSH. Perhaps my changes could go to the criticism section?

I don't see how a secular humanist can believe in objective truth, this is ultimately a belief in the existence of an external 'thing' called objective truth, which is closer to Buddhism or western religions (e.g. Christianity). Secular humanists can perceive something they call truth from the human POV.

However, that is more my criticism of secular humanism, so I would be okay if you want to revert back to the original. The current change looks okay too.--Jjoplin 13:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with the way it reads now. As to whether secular humanists can believe in objective truth... The issue of whether objectivity is possible has long been debated by philosophers. While I don't think there is uniformity of agreement on the answer, certainly many secular philosophers have thought that the idea of objectivity made enough sense to be a worthy goal. It's odd that you associate the notion of "objective truth" with religions; I've heard the term "objectivity" used by scientists much more often than by theologians. "Absolute truth" is a term more often associated with religion, but it's a different concept. As to whether it would be appropriate as a criticism... While the use of the phrase "objective truth" was sanctioned by CSH, I doubt they would consider this exact formulation to be critical--likely some secular humanists differ on this point. Criticising something that is not necessarily a core position would seem a bit frivolous. Too, as you say, it sounds like this is a personal criticism rather than a widely held perceived failing of secular humanism. -Rhwentworth 16:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Fort soldier.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fort soldier.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Strangerer (Talk) 04:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)