It depends on the storyline.
“It depends on the storyline.” What do you mean ?
There are two standards, universal and human.
The universe was here long before humans and evolved until earth was born and life appeared.
So we can judge from 2 perspectives. Objectively natural and/or Subjectively human.
History of Nature
A note on Nature’s archive
Nature’s archive comprises all the content published since the journal’s launch in 1869
The journal had been making a loss since the first issue, but only after almost ten years did Alexander Macmillan raise the price from fourpence to sixpence, expanding it to 28 pages.
Lockyer opened “what is practically a New Series of Nature ” with a bold editorial: “it is because Nature has become more and more widely recognised as the organ of science all the world over that at last we are compelled to enlarge it in order to find space for the stream of communications that week after week come pouring in upon us from all parts.” Picture shows Macmillan’s letter to Lockyer in 1869, detailing 24 pages at fourpence per issue as “quite high enough [a] price”.
Humans are objectively naturally part of the universe, it’s even the universe which gave them birth
Yes, but there is a difference between the universal history and human history.
Now that I think of it. The Hellstrom Chronicle mentions a fundamental principle.
Hellstrom returns, time and time again, to one uncaring conclusion: “Life must take life in the interest of life itself .”
Sorry if it is a technical question, but does the American Humanist Association belongs to “religious humanism”?
I know it grew out of “religious humanism”, but I am not very clear whether it know still is identified as “religious humanism”.