Recently secular humanism was declared a religion] by a federal court in the US. The AHA (which I think is the biggest humanist organization in the US) defined humanism as "an ethical and life-affirming philosophy free of belief in any gods and other supernatural forces". If your definition of humanism permits for supernatural beliefs, it is at odds with how the big guys interpret the philosophy. Not necessarily wrong though.This came as a surprise to me. Admittedly I let my subscription to "The Humanist" lapse about 20 years ago, but at that time we were insisting that Secular Humanism was NOT a religion. I can only suppose that the definition of "religion" has changed in the intervening years. Interesting. It has to do with politics. Some theists have claimed that Humanism is a religion, so anything they stand for should be kept out of the public school curriculum--even evolution. There has long been a controversy as to whether Humanism should be considered a religion or not. As I understand it, at one time, the AHA, in order o get a non-profit tax status, had to call itself a religious organization. It has since been changed to an educational organization. I, for one, am against calling humanism a religion. It's no more a religion than any philosophical stance. Is existentialism a religion? "John Dewey described Humanism as our "common faith." Julian Huxley called it "Religion without Revelation." The first Humanist Manifesto spoke openly of Humanism as a religion. Many other Humanists could be cited who have acknowledged that Humanism is a religion. In fact, claiming that Humanism was "the new religion" was trendy for at least 100 years, perhaps beginning in 1875 with the publication of The Religion of Humanity by Octavius Brooks Frothingham (1822-1895), son of the distinguished Unitarian clergyman, Nathaniel Langdon Frothingham (1793-1870), pastor of the First Unitarian Church of Boston, 1815-1850. In the 1950's, Humanists sought and obtained tax-exempt status as religious organizations. Even the Supreme Court of the United States spoke in 1961 of Secular Humanism as a religion. It was a struggle to get atheism accepted as a religion, but it happened. From 1962-1980 this was not a controversial issue. "But then Christians began to challenge the "establishment of religion" which Secular Humanism in public schools represented. They used the same tactic Atheists had used to challenge prayer and Bible reading under the "Establishment Clause" of the First Amendment. Now the ACLU is involved. Now the question is controversial. Now Secular Humanists have completely reversed their strategy, and claim that Humanism is not at all religious, but is 'scientific'." VFTonline. I can't include the link. Lois
An implicit assumption of say, the American Humanist Association, seems to be that (Wesern) atheists are humanists, or at least that there is not much of a difference. They present themselves as being part of the "secular movement" or "non-theist movement" (the idea of basing a movement on the rejection of a belief is retarded in my view). But there are plenty of atheists out there who distance themselves from humanism. Some of the critiques (who I feel cover what tend to be criticized) are linked to below. How would you reply to them? Why I Am Not A Humanist] ‘Problems with the humanist brand’ and why I’m not one] Why I Am Not a Humanist](Again, there are plenty of atheists who are not humanists.) But as to your request to respond to the 3 links that you cited: The 1st guy, is simply saying that the label is too nebulous for him. But that can be said of many such labels. e.g., There is an extraordinarily broad variance of beliefs among people who self identify within each of such labeled groups as Christians, Muslims, Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Tea-Partiers, Liberals, Conservatives, etc., etc. The 2nd guy, if you can wade thru his long diatribe, simply doesn't hold much common beliefs with many humanists. If I were to coin a label for him, it might be "Self-ist", or maybe he's just a typical Republican (not that a Republican couldn't, theoretically, also be a humanist). The 3rd guy simply objects to the focus of Humanists on humans. He apparently is in accord with humanistic principals, but believes the principals should be extended to other species, as well. So, all-in-all, people are going to label themselves, or not, however they wish, unless they are compelled to do otherwise. (Thankfully, there is not too much compulsion for people to label themselves in ways that are contrary to their personal beliefs and principals.) AFAIK, no one is compelled to label themselves as a humanist or not. OTOH, ironically, there is a particular religion whose God said "Let there be no compulsion in religion." , yet there exists extreme compulsion, in some parts of the world, to continue with the label of that religion, once one has taken the label on themselves. Also, re: labeled groups, in general, there are many subgroups within many large self identified groups, who take issue with other subgroups referring to themselves by their overall label.
In the views of people at this forum, would (organized) humanism have any role if religion did not exist (or was so marginalized as to be a non-issue)? I often see humanists say that humanism is far more than just atheism (or agnosticism), but if you look at their activities it’s all about secularism and opposition to religion. WHat are the goals of organized humanism? The website of the BHA seems to equate “humanist” with “non-religious”. One of the blogposts I linked to in the OP even refers to Andrew Copson (the chairman of the BHA) as saying that humanism is just a word-thing, and a useful label. The chairman’s view of humanism seems rather devoid of meaning…
Steven Novella (of the SGU podcast) summarized] the relationship between atheists and humanists and skeptics as follows:
Scientific skepticism – the application of skeptical philosophy, critical thinking skills, and knowledge of science and its methods to empirical claims, while remaining agnostic or neutral to non-empirical claims (except those that directly impact the practice of science) Secularism – Atheism, agnosticism, and humanism – promoting a secular society and taking a critical view of faith and religion. Rationalism – Essentially a combination of the above two – promoting reason and critical thinking in all spheres without focus or specialization.Notice that he lumps humanism and activist atheism under the same banner, as being more or less synonymous in their goals. Is this fair or not? How come he has gotten that impression?
Atheists are simply people who are convinced that there is no God. Whether an individual atheist is interested in promoting any sort of society is not a certainty. It is easy, however to assume that if they did promote a society, it would likely be one consistent with their belief that there is no God. Similarly, it is easy to assume that an atheist would take a critical view of faith and religion. But all, we really know for sure is that they believe that there is no God.
Agnostics are simply people who acknowledge that there may or may not be some sort of “God". We can’t say for sure whether any individual agnostic is interested in promoting any sort of society. We only know, for sure, that they acknowledge that there may or may not be a God. Hence, we can easily assume (though it is just an assumption) that they are implementing some level of critical thinking, when they consider faith and religion.
Humanists are clearly interested in promoting a society that supports the best interests of all humankind. IMO, they are not required to be atheists or agnostics. But I think that most people who consider themselves to be humanists have come to believe that the best interests of all humankind are better served by seeing our universe as it actually operates, according to evidence, rather than by seeing our universe as operating by any of a myriad of non-evidence based mystical paradigms.
In the views of people at this forum, would (organized) humanism have any role if religion did not exist (or was so marginalized as to be a non-issue)? ..."Imagine no religion. It's easy if you try... no hell below us.. above us only sky. Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." Yes, there would be a role for humanism.
In your view, does humanism entails anything beyond ethics? Even if it doesn’t entail atheism (which it seems the big humanist organizations think it does, but nvm), do you think it entails a commitment to science and reason? Is belief in astrology or psychics or witchcraft compatible with humanism?
In the views of people at this forum, would (organized) humanism have any role if religion did not exist (or was so marginalized as to be a non-issue)? ..."Imagine no religion. It's easy if you try... no hell below us.. above us only sky. Imagine all the people, living life in peace..." Yes, there would be a role for humanism. And that role would be...? It seems to be the #1 issue humanist groups campaign on.
In your view, does humanism entails anything beyond ethics? Even if it doesn't entail atheism (which it seems the big humanist organizations think it does, but nvm), do you think it entails a commitment to science and reason? Is belief in astrology or psychics or witchcraft compatible with humanism? ...I think that someone could, conceivably, believe in "astrology or psychics or witchcraft" (your examples) and still self-identify as a humanist. And I, personally, would consider their self-identification as a humanist to be legitimate if their primary concerns were in promoting what is in the best interest of all humans, including the protection of basic human rights of all people and of future generations. OTOH, I also consider beliefs in the mystical, magical, and supernatural to be irrational, and therefore not likely to be optimally effective (and, also, more likely to be hindrances) in the understanding and the promoting of the interests of present and future humans.
Humanism does not require that anyone believe or reject belief in gods. Its philosophy is that it’s possible to live a good and moral life without theistic belief. It does not require atheism. Though most humanists are also atheists (or claim to sit comfortably on the fence) a humanist could believe in a god but agree that a god is not necessary for morality.
Lois
I suppose one of the few theistic belief systems that is truly incompatible with humanism would be theistic Satanism. Yes, some people really do worship Satan as a god or god-like figure or what have you. Not many, but there are a few.
BTW, I don’t really consider myself a humanist. I’m really more of a cynic.
EDIT
Fixed a typo.
I suppose one of the few theistic belief systems that is truly incompatible with humanism would be theistic Satanism. Yes, some people really do worship Satan as a god or god-like figure or what have you. Not many, but there are a few. BTW, I don't really consider myself a humanist. I'm really more of a cynic. EDIT Fixed a typo.Aha! I read between the lines. It was not completely distinct. But it seemed to be saying that there ARE non-theistic belief systems that ARE truly incompatible with humanism, e.g., dedicated cynicism.
I don’t think humanism and cynicism are necessarily incompatible. One can still want the best for humanity while being disappointed in it.
Also, cynicism isn’t a belief system. Depending on exactly which cynicism you’re talking about. If you’re talking about the philosophical school of the ancient Greeks then I suppose it is a sort of belief system. But in general (and here) I use the word in the more modern sense of a sort of general attitude or outlook. I’m a cynic in the latter, more modern meaning.
I don't think humanism and cynicism are necessarily incompatible. One can still want the best for humanity while being disappointed in it...Well I want the best for humanity and am also disappointed in it, more often than not. So am I a cynical humanist or a humanistic cynic? Or am I just a humanist that is extra-aware of humanity's short-comings?
I don't think humanism and cynicism are necessarily incompatible. One can still want the best for humanity while being disappointed in it...Well I want the best for humanity and am also disappointed in it, more often than not. So am I a cynical humanist or a humanistic cynic? Or am I just a humanist that is extra-aware of humanity's short-comings? Probably not much more than a few other humanists. Cynicism is not that rare. As long as it doesn't interfere with Humanism's main tenet, that morality comes from within ourselves, you can be a cynic and a humanist. I haven't run into many true cynics in Humanism. Lois
I guess I'll kick in here and add my thoughts to the pile. I'm a humanist AND an atheist and I was a humanist before I was an atheist, many moons ago.But doesn't humanism require atheism? At least that's in the minimum definition from IHEU]: Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It 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. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality. Yes, it's perfectly valid to say Humanism is not theistic. It is not, it doesn't promote theism. That doesn't mean it's followers cannot be theists. It means Humanism itself does not promote it, that's all. In other words Humanism can ignore theism as long as it doesn't interfere with its message that people can be moral without it. Humanists are skeptics and don't accept any theistic or supernatural explanations for anything, but individual members of Humanist organizations are free to believe as they pleaseas long as they accept the tenets of humanism. Lois
I don't think humanism and cynicism are necessarily incompatible. One can still want the best for humanity while being disappointed in it...Well I want the best for humanity and am also disappointed in it, more often than not. So am I a cynical humanist or a humanistic cynic? Or am I just a humanist that is extra-aware of humanity's short-comings? Probably not much more than a few other humanists. Cynicism is not that rare. As long as it doesn't interfere with Humanism's main tenet, that morality comes from within ourselves, you can be a cynic and a humanist. I haven't run into many true cynics in Humanism. Lois Thinking about cynicism and "Man's inhumanity to Man" prompted me to wonder whether Samuel Clements was a humanist. Samuel (aka, Mark Twain) Clement's public quips were often, seemingly, quite cynical. Also, the primary underlying theme of "Huckleberry Finn" was "Man's inhumanity to Man", yet the main character was on a journey of development that took him, to a great extent, beyond that orientation. So the story was a hopeful one. And the very act of writing a novel that points out "Man's inhumanity to Man", implies, I think, that Clements had some hope that Mankind, or some part of it, at least, can recognize and develop beyond such an orientation. So maybe Clements was a humanist and also, quite often, a cynic.
Are there many religious humanist who are members in organizations such as the CSH and the AHA, or other groups affiliated with the IHEU? I do wonder how they square their religious commitments with the very explicit atheistic viewpoint of the mentioned groups. Not to say that all atheists are humanists (though these groups occasionally claim to speak for non-believers generally), but my impression from the texts by those groups is that all humanists are atheists or agnostics in the same way that all Christians are theists.
Are there many religious humanist who are members in organizations such as the CSH and the AHA, or other groups affiliated with the IHEU? I do wonder how they square their religious commitments with the very explicit atheistic viewpoint of the mentioned groups. Not to say that all atheists are humanists (though these groups occasionally claim to speak for non-believers generally), but my impression from the texts by those groups is that all humanists are atheists or agnostics in the same way that all Christians are theists.I can't speak for other posters on this forum, on this, but I am not a member of any humanist organization, nor do I have any interest in becoming one. I don't need to be a member of an organization to self identify as a humanist. I think that any organization, even one that is inherently opposed to dogma, can potentially become dogmatic.
Why was my post replying to LoisL removed!? Is this some sort of joke? I posted that if humanism is non-theistic, then it is atheistic, because that's what the word means. I'm open to be shown wrong of course, but to me this is what a plain reading suggests.By that definition, the Constitution would be an atheist document. And my car is non-theistic, does that mean it is atheistic?
Why was my post replying to LoisL removed!? Is this some sort of joke? I posted that if humanism is non-theistic, then it is atheistic, because that's what the word means. I'm open to be shown wrong of course, but to me this is what a plain reading suggests.By that definition, the Constitution would be an atheist document. And my car is non-theistic, does that mean it is atheistic? What's the difference then between atheism and nontheism? Isn't the latter simply a more smooth, less controversial way of saying one is an atheist? An euphemism? At least that's what Dawkins thinks. Though he thinks that about humanism as well. The American constitution is plainly secular, I'd think. In the legal sense that gods and religion are none of its concerns.
Why was my post replying to LoisL removed!? Is this some sort of joke? I posted that if humanism is non-theistic, then it is atheistic, because that's what the word means. I'm open to be shown wrong of course, but to me this is what a plain reading suggests.By that definition, the Constitution would be an atheist document. And my car is non-theistic, does that mean it is atheistic? What's the difference then between atheism and nontheism? Isn't the latter simply a more smooth, less controversial way of saying one is an atheist? An euphemism? At least that's what Dawkins thinks. Though he thinks that about humanism as well. The American constitution is plainly secular, I'd think. In the legal sense that gods and religion are none of its concerns. Which IMO, makes it a non-theistic (secular) document. I agree that the difference between non-theistic and atheistic is a nuanced viewpoint. I see non-theistic practices and activities as seperate from theistic or atheistic practices and activities. Let me try to put it this way; a theist can be engaged in non-theistic (mundane) activities, such as driving a truck, but is philosophically Theist, whereas an atheist can be engaged in non-theistic (mundane) activities, such as driving a truck, but is philosophically Atheist. OTOH, theist could not imagine a world without a god, whereas an atheist does imagine the world without a god.