Here] is from Stephen law, also written in his book Humanism: A Very Short Introduction. Would you not agree with it? It seems American humanism differs quite a bit from Europena humanism.I like most of what he has to say, but in his 2nd point he says: "2. Humanists are atheists.... Humanists need not deny there is a god or gods...." The two statements there, are completely contradictory, because the very definition of an atheist is simply someone who denies that there is a god. I don't know what to make of it. Most atheists don't deny there is a god. They deny belief in one or more. They deny there is any evidence of god(s). There is a big difference. Though some people, usually theists, will claim that the definition of atheist is one who claims there is no god, that is a false definition, in my opinion. The root of the word "atheism" should make the point. A=without, Theism=belief in god(s). It's theists who insist that atheists have beliefs about gods. We have none. We demand objective evidence for all claims. That's all. Claims about god(s) fail the evidence test. In addition, if there were objective evidence for god(s) there would be no need for belief in god(s) at all. Also, some Humanists are not atheists. There is no requirement in Humanism that a person be an atheist. Lois Well, it's about time, Lois, I have been waiting for 13 months for your reply on this matter. (Actually, I barely remember this post.) I accept your points. But the author that Irmin and I were discussing, specifically asserted that humanists are atheists. I agree with your assertion that "some Humanists are not atheists. There is no requirement in Humanism that a person be an atheist." I didn't realize it was an old post. I don't know how that escaped me for so long. I was vice president of the American Humanist Association for a few years. The AA took the position that atheism was not a requirement to join the AHA. Other Humanist organizations have different views. Most people who call themselves (secular) Humanists are atheists. some will call themselves agnostics (even though that's a false term). Some call themselves "religious Humanists," such as Unitarians. CFI rejects "religious Humanism" but the AHA does not. Lois Well then, since I am a regular poster on the CFI forum, I am glad that CFI had the good sense to, independently, adopt a position that is consistent with my own.
Here] is from Stephen law, also written in his book Humanism: A Very Short Introduction. Would you not agree with it? It seems American humanism differs quite a bit from Europena humanism.I like most of what he has to say, but in his 2nd point he says: "2. Humanists are atheists.... Humanists need not deny there is a god or gods...." The two statements there, are completely contradictory, because the very definition of an atheist is simply someone who denies that there is a god. I don't know what to make of it. Most atheists don't deny there is a god. They deny belief in one or more. They deny there is any evidence of god(s). There is a big difference. Though some people, usually theists, will claim that the definition of atheist is one who claims there is no god, that is a false definition, in my opinion. The root of the word "atheism" should make the point. A=without, Theism=belief in god(s). It's theists who insist that atheists have beliefs about gods. We have none. We demand objective evidence for all claims. That's all. Claims about god(s) fail the evidence test. In addition, if there were objective evidence for god(s) there would be no need for belief in god(s) at all. Also, some Humanists are not atheists. There is no requirement in Humanism that a person be an atheist. Lois Well, it's about time, Lois, I have been waiting for 13 months for your reply on this matter. (Actually, I barely remember this post.) I accept your points. But the author that Irmin and I were discussing, specifically asserted that humanists are atheists. I agree with your assertion that "some Humanists are not atheists. There is no requirement in Humanism that a person be an atheist." I didn't realize it was an old post. I don't know how that escaped me for so long. I was vice president of the American Humanist Association for a few years. The AA took the position that atheism was not a requirement to join the AHA. Other Humanist organizations have different views. Most people who call themselves (secular) Humanists are atheists. some will call themselves agnostics (even though that's a false term). Some call themselves "religious Humanists," such as Unitarians. CFI rejects "religious Humanism" but the AHA does not. Lois Well then, since I am a regular poster on the CFI forum, I am glad that CFI had the good sense to, independently, adopt a position that is consistent with my own. I just realized that I may have misread your message. I took it to mean that CFI rejected the term "religious humanists". I do consider humanists to be humanists, whether they may also be religious or not. If you are saying that CFI considers someone to not be a humanist just because they also claim a religious affiliation, I would not agree with that. (I guess such humanists with a religious affiliation would have to be unusually supportive of secularism, but it seems possible, to me.) But all in all it seems to me to be quibbling over definitions and labels.
I see merit in this idea. So what's your strategy? What I mean by this is what is your strategy to turn us from a race that is arguably parasitic to our host planet, damaging our environment with industrial population and hampering ourselves with excessive population, to a race that is symbiotic? Can China be convinced to give up fossil fuel? Can the rest of the world be convinced to have only 1 child per female at maximum? Can you convince people to make the sacrifices necessary to make this transformation happen? I'm sorry, I really don't mean to be glib or insulting. But a whole range of religions and philosophies have tried to change the world and by and large they all have one thing in common, they have all been unsuccessful. In the end our evolutionary drives have always won out. The world is overpopulated due to the power of the instinctual drive for sex and children. It is polluted due to our instinctual drive to achieve comfort and escape hardship. We have war because much like the wolf, we are both aggressive and highly territorial. For most of our history, the world has rewarded us for these characteristics. This is a big part of my problem with humanism. It boats noble ideals of a transformed human race, but has yet to provide a realistic strategy for changing the way that people behave. Christianity tried to radically change human behavior with the promise of heaven and the threat of hell, perhaps the ultimate in positive and negative reinforcement. Will the promise of world peace (though not necessarily prosperity, at least not for some generations) and the specter of global warming fair any better?So what's your solution? To admit that we're nothing but greedy, grasping, dangerous animals and that's all we'll ever be? To forget about this "morality" stuff because it's just empty words? The way I see it, Humanists are like Data on Star Trek. We don't claim to be perfect, we only claim that we're trying to be better. Not because there's any "reward" in it, but because we want a better society than the one we have now. The only way we'll get it by believing that it's possible.
The way I see it, Humanists are like Data on Star Trek.Interesting that you would compare HUMANists to a robot who endeavors to be human. And is programmed to behave perfectly.
The way I see it, Humanists are like Data on Star Trek.Interesting that you would compare HUMANists to a robot who endeavors to be human. And is programmed to behave perfectly. If we are ever able to make sentient robots, I suspect that they will be made with ourselves as a template, so to speak, and that we will attempt to make them an improvement over the original. (Which leads me to wonder, if there were a Supreme Deity who created us, "in his own image", how come he wouldn't have created us to be an upgrade on "him"self?)
May not reply. I know that many atheists have a penchant for pointless argument. Not my cup of chowder.One needs to practice, in order to hone skills. Pointless arguments may be good practice for when arguments really matter.
Also, really thoughtful pointless arguments, may lead to thoughts that are not pointless.
Here] is from Stephen law, also written in his book Humanism: A Very Short Introduction. Would you not agree with it? It seems American humanism differs quite a bit from Europena humanism.I like most of what he has to say, but in his 2nd point he says: "2. Humanists are atheists.... Humanists need not deny there is a god or gods...." The two statements there, are completely contradictory, because the very definition of an atheist is simply someone who denies that there is a god. I don't know what to make of it. Most atheists don't deny there is a god. They deny belief in one or more. They deny there is any evidence of god(s). There is a big difference. Though some people, usually theists, will claim that the definition of atheist is one who claims there is no god, that is a false definition, in my opinion. The root of the word "atheism" should make the point. A=without, Theism=belief in god(s). It's theists who insist that atheists have beliefs about gods. We have none. We demand objective evidence for all claims. That's all. Claims about god(s) fail the evidence test. In addition, if there were objective evidence for god(s) there would be no need for belief in god(s) at all. Also, some Humanists are not atheists. There is no requirement in Humanism that a person be an atheist. Lois Well, it's about time, Lois, I have been waiting for 13 months for your reply on this matter. (Actually, I barely remember this post.) I accept your points. But the author that Irmin and I were discussing, specifically asserted that humanists are atheists. I agree with your assertion that "some Humanists are not atheists. There is no requirement in Humanism that a person be an atheist." I didn't realize it was an old post. I don't know how that escaped me for so long. I was vice president of the American Humanist Association for a few years. The AA took the position that atheism was not a requirement to join the AHA. Other Humanist organizations have different views. Most people who call themselves (secular) Humanists are atheists. some will call themselves agnostics (even though that's a false term). Some call themselves "religious Humanists," such as Unitarians. CFI rejects "religious Humanism" but the AHA does not. Lois Well then, since I am a regular poster on the CFI forum, I am glad that CFI had the good sense to, independently, adopt a position that is consistent with my own. I just realized that I may have misread your message. I took it to mean that CFI rejected the term "religious humanists". They do. It's what caused the riift between the AHA and CFI. I don't know if CFI still takes the same hard line. It did when Paul Kurtz was in charge. I do consider humanists to be humanists, whether they may also be religious or not. If you are saying that CFI considers someone to not be a humanist just because they also claim a religious affiliation, I would not agree with that. (I guess such humanists with a religious affiliation would have to be unusually supportive of secularism, but it seems possible, to me.) But all in all it seems to me to be quibbling over definitions and labels. It does, but sometimes definitions do matter. Lois
Interesting that you would compare HUMANists to a robot who endeavors to be human. And is programmed to behave perfectly.Actually Data is programmed with heuristic algorithms which allow him to learn from his mistakes. Dr. Soong sort of used his own personality as a template, but let him go from there. Just like us, really.
But if a liberal Christian can be a humanist, where exactly goes the line?Recognizing or imagining a god superior to humans could not befit a Humanist. Recognizing or imagining devils, gods, angels, and imps inferior to humans could be humanist, just not rational. Shall we put on our tin foil hats for, here come god fearing Humanists? :) When it comes to living in the real world, either there is some supreme killer god to worship or there is not. Since there is not, Humanism exits. I do not think a God-fearing person can be a true humanist. Believing in the so-called God's edicts, many of which are unjust, hateful and barbaric, could not allow one to look at all humans with equitability. However, being an atheist would not necessarily make one a champion of human rights. So, atheism or agnosticism would be a requirement for humanism, but they would not be enough to make one a humanist.
But if a liberal Christian can be a humanist, where exactly goes the line?Recognizing or imagining a god superior to humans could not befit a Humanist. Recognizing or imagining devils, gods, angels, and imps inferior to humans could be humanist, just not rational. Shall we put on our tin foil hats for, here come god fearing Humanists? :) When it comes to living in the real world, either there is some supreme killer god to worship or there is not. Since there is not, Humanism exits. I do not think a God-fearing person can be a true humanist. Believing in the so-called God's edicts, many of which are unjust, hateful and barbaric, could not allow one to look at all humans with equitability. However, being an atheist would not necessarily make one a champion of human rights. So, atheism or agnosticism would be a requirement for humanism, but they would be enough to make one a humanist. Religious humanists are not all theists--or they enbrace a benign kind of theism closer to deism. Unitarians fitbthis definition. In fact, many Unitarians reject a belief in god. It was Unitarians that Paul Kutz would not accept as humanists, no matter how atheistic they were. They call themselves religious humanists which Paul Kurtz refused to accept. The American Humanist Association has no problem with Unitarians.
What is religion for humanists? Please define the term religion as it applies to humanists. Can religion be defined without supernatural? Thank you.Religion can be defined as a moral stance. I ipersonally don't like to use the word "religion" for humanism because the word is too often misunderstood and misconstrued, deliberately by some theists, but in the strict definition of the word, meaning the acceptance of a moral stance, humanism could be seen as non-theistic, non-supernatural religion. But as long as most people define religion as requiring a belief in god or the supernatural, I would advise humanists to avoid the word when speaking of humanism.
I do not think a God-fearing person can be a true humanist. Believing in the so-called God's edicts, many of which are unjust, hateful and barbaric, could not allow one to look at all humans with equitability. However, being an atheist would not necessarily make one a champion of human rights. So, atheism or agnosticism would be a requirement for humanism, but they would not be enough to make one a humanist.I understand what you're saying, but people don't necessarily follow this logic. I don't know about Moslems, but most Christians I know have never really read the Bible all the way through. They simply rely on their preachers to tell them what it says. And they pick and chose the parts that make sense to them. I think most Christians are fair-minded people, and a lot of them would be humanists if it weren't for the fact that preachers have told them that secular humanists are wicked, evil people.
But if a liberal Christian can be a humanist, where exactly goes the line?Recognizing or imagining a god superior to humans could not befit a Humanist. Recognizing or imagining devils, gods, angels, and imps inferior to humans could be humanist, just not rational. Shall we put on our tin foil hats for, here come god fearing Humanists? :) When it comes to living in the real world, either there is some supreme killer god to worship or there is not. Since there is not, Humanism exits. I do not think a God-fearing person can be a true humanist. Believing in the so-called God's edicts, many of which are unjust, hateful and barbaric, could not allow one to look at all humans with equitability. However, being an atheist would not necessarily make one a champion of human rights. So, atheism or agnosticism would be a requirement for humanism, but they would be enough to make one a humanist. Religious humanists are not all theists--or they enbrace a benign kind of theism closer to deism. Unitarians fitbthis definition. In fact, many Unitarians reject a belief in god. It was Unitarians that Paul Kutz would not accept as humanists, no matter how atheistic they were. They call themselves religious humanists which Paul Kurtz refused to accept. The American Humanist Association has no problem with Unitarians. Unitarianism is certainly a significant progress from orthodox Christianity toward Humanism; probably that is why AHA accepts Unitarianism as Humanism. It is somewhat like Barack Obama's Nobel Prize in Peace in 2009; recognizing anticipation as opposed to actual accomplishment.
I do not think a God-fearing person can be a true humanist. Believing in the so-called God's edicts, many of which are unjust, hateful and barbaric, could not allow one to look at all humans with equitability. However, being an atheist would not necessarily make one a champion of human rights. So, atheism or agnosticism would be a requirement for humanism, but they would not be enough to make one a humanist.I understand what you're saying, but people don't necessarily follow this logic. I don't know about Moslems, but most Christians I know have never really read the Bible all the way through. They simply rely on their preachers to tell them what it says. And they pick and chose the parts that make sense to them. I think most Christians are fair-minded people, and a lot of them would be humanists if it weren't for the fact that preachers have told them that secular humanists are wicked, evil people. I think most people are fair-minded because they are humans, not because of what they have been brainwashed to think as their religion. Even the fanatic religious ones have some common human sense, intelligence, compassion, etc. On an average, Christians are better than Muslims because they are not as much into following the Bible as Muslims are into following the Koran.
My problem with humanism is “aspire to the greater good of humanity”
Like religion, this humanism (and its focus on humans) seems to assume the dubious notion that humankind is the pinnacle of evolution. In doing so it apparently violates another of their sentiments that “Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis”.
The knowledge they commend suggests that humans are highly unlikely to be a permanent feature in the future of the universe. It also suggests that humans may not even be the precursor of future evolved occupants of the world (unless it is something they triggered such as silicon-based intelligence). The purpose I see in life is to contribute to evolution and go away when our purpose is exhausted.
In my opinion, humanism also directs attention away from the notion that the entire planet is a single organism (Gaia?) with multiple components just as special as humanity - and absolutely essential to the existence of humanity. Since our current knowledge of what is significant to humans is woefully lacking, it behooves us to recognize that “the greater good of humanity” is intimately linked to the greater good of the planet and the greater good of many other components of our planet.
If I have to have a label, I suppose scientific pantheist would come closest to describing me.
Perhaps they have read Ayn Rand.
Objectivism, which advocates pure Natural Selection.
At heart I am a pure humanist, but objectively, there is that pesky mathematical problem of the exponential function, which forbids a continued increase of anything within a limited environment.
Example: a simple 1% steady increase of anything will exponentially double in size every 70 years.
Professor Emeritus, Albert Bartlett clearly explains this in this narrative (with illustration);
If I have to have a label, I suppose scientific pantheist would come closest to describing me.The theism in pantheism is unacceptable to those who find no god anywhere. So, pantheism or any explanation is completely unnecessary for anything whatsoever. Just a desire to live fully is required. And it just so happens in reality that other people besides ourselves are needed.I pointed to a box so someone tried to shove me in it. However, they aimed for the wrong box, failing to realize that, like religion (and even humanism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism#Manifestos_and_declarations) Pantheism also has its variants - such as "Strong naturalism, without belief in supernatural realms, afterlives, beings or forces" (https://www.pantheism.net/manifest).
This enjoyment desire is the base of morality.From IEP "As a theory of value, hedonism states that all and only pleasure is intrinsically valuable". My atheist concern about humanism is their position that humanity is the primary focus of their interest. I suppose one contortion would be that a well cared for planet makes for happy humans but I'm not sure that the evolutionary process will necessarily favor happy humans. However, it is one option in a spectrum of opinions. Natural selection will deal with it one way or another provided it is not an opinion forced upon all, in which case it would probably fail.
This enjoyment desire is the base of morality.