A common assertion among people here is that theists can be (secular) humanists. A lot of American humanists seem to be of this viewpoint, which would make American humanism very different from European humanism., the latter which is explicitly irreligious and atheistic (or at least agnostic).
So I’m asking you here: Where are those secular humanists who are also theists? Have they had prominent roles in any humanist organization? Do they show up in meetups or in membership lists? Show me an example of a theist secular humanist!
A common assertion among people here is that theists can be (secular) humanists. A lot of American humanists seem to be of this viewpoint, which would make American humanism very different from European humanism., the latter which is explicitly irreligious and atheistic (or at least agnostic). So I'm asking you here: Where are those secular humanists who are also theists? Have they had prominent roles in any humanist organization? Do they show up in meetups or in membership lists? Show me an example of a theist secular humanist!Unitarians often call themselves religious Humanists and are an important part of the American Humanist Association. The problem is in calling them secular humanists since secular means non-religious. The AHA shuns the word secular with humanism and feels that the word Humanist without any adjective is a perfectly adequate and representative name. It also does not keep out religious humanists. Anybody can joIn the AHA. There is no religious test. All they have to do is say they embrace all the aspects of humanism, and the member can be a theist if that is his choice choice and his theism does not interfere with the humanist philosophy. Lois
Did you catch Obama’s Prayer Breakfast speech? It was a finely crafted bit of Christian preaching, that also had a call for equality and tolerance and humility.
Frank Schaeffer is the son of one of the founders of the evangelical movement. He has since renounced that heritage and writes books like “Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God.”
Brian McClaren is a bit more theist, but he walks the walk and has worked with many organizations to end poverty. I don’t endorse his preaching, but he tries as hard as anyone to use the Bible to promote peace and understanding.
Desmond Tutu. Needs no introduction.
Karen Armstrong. Similar to McClaren, I think she’s wrong in many ways, but she tries to promote the idea that compassion is common to all religions and that we should focus on that, instead the differences.
Cornel West, who’s just very cool
Did you catch Obama's Prayer Breakfast speech? It was a finely crafted bit of Christian preaching, that also had a call for equality and tolerance and humility. Frank Schaeffer is the son of one of the founders of the evangelical movement. He has since renounced that heritage and writes books like "Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God." Brian McClaren is a bit more theist, but he walks the walk and has worked with many organizations to end poverty. I don't endorse his preaching, but he tries as hard as anyone to use the Bible to promote peace and understanding. Desmond Tutu. Needs no introduction. Karen Armstrong. Similar to McClaren, I think she's wrong in many ways, but she tries to promote the idea that compassion is common to all religions and that we should focus on that, instead the differences. Cornel West, who's just very coolThat's all very nice, but what has it got to do with humanism]?
That's all very nice, but what has it got to do with humanism]?What are your requirements? Does "humanism" need to appear on their business card?
A common assertion among people here is that theists can be (secular) humanists. A lot of American humanists seem to be of this viewpoint, which would make American humanism very different from European humanism., the latter which is explicitly irreligious and atheistic (or at least agnostic). So I'm asking you here: Where are those secular humanists who are also theists? Have they had prominent roles in any humanist organization? Do they show up in meetups or in membership lists? Show me an example of a theist secular humanist!Umm, no, theists can't be secular humanists. Contradiction in terms.
That's all very nice, but what has it got to do with humanism]?What are your requirements? Does "humanism" need to appear on their business card? Read the link I gave you.
A common assertion among people here is that theists can be (secular) humanists. A lot of American humanists seem to be of this viewpoint, which would make American humanism very different from European humanism., the latter which is explicitly irreligious and atheistic (or at least agnostic). So I'm asking you here: Where are those secular humanists who are also theists? Have they had prominent roles in any humanist organization? Do they show up in meetups or in membership lists? Show me an example of a theist secular humanist!A far more illuminating question is, why do you ask this question? I can't help thinking there is a load presumption attached to your question.
A common assertion among people here is that theists can be (secular) humanists. A lot of American humanists seem to be of this viewpoint, which would make American humanism very different from European humanism., the latter which is explicitly irreligious and atheistic (or at least agnostic). So I'm asking you here: Where are those secular humanists who are also theists? Have they had prominent roles in any humanist organization? Do they show up in meetups or in membership lists? Show me an example of a theist secular humanist!Umm, no, theists can't be secular humanists. Contradiction in terms. Thay can be and are Humanists, though. The problem is in using the adjective "sexular". It is unnecessary. It's as unnecessary--and ridiculous-- as calling someone a theistic Christian. Lois
Show me an example of a theist secular humanist!I can't because I don't think it exists. While I certainly cannot claim to be knowledgeable about all potential theologies, a common theme is that the love, worship and adoration (or at least a healthy respect) for some deity takes priority over fellow humans. This insures inequality in thought if not in action. My religion is better than your religion. My heterosexuality is better than your homosexuality. My behavior is holier than your behavior. Perhaps the closest one could get would be with someone who is, for example, a "Cafeteria Catholic". Someone who accepts the parts of their religion that are consistent with humanism and rejects the parts they deem bigoted and hateful. A person like this would be considered a "Bad Catholic" by the apologists, so I'm not sure that counts.
That's all very nice, but what has it got to do with humanism]?Sorry, missed the link. That's a pretty high bar. Technically, and you seem technical, no theist could meet that criteria, not all of it. But the people I named would claim to agree with humanist values. Erasmus is considered an early humanist. If you just want to set some barriers and argue about them, find some other turkey.
There are SECULAR humanists and there are people calling themselves RELIGIOUS humanists. The adjectives are for a reason. To me, a Secular Religious humanist would be a contradiction. But then there are people who define religion so loosely it can include anything and everything.
there are people who define religion so loosely it can include anything and everythingNot that anybody asked, but when I am speaking of “religion" I refer to “organized religion" (and by “organized religion" I mean something that includes rules/dogma that must be followed, prerequisites for entry into heaven, a certainty that their path is the one true path to salvation, etc.). I do not believe that a belief in God (or a god or gods) necessarily equates to being “religious" (Deists, for example). Thus, while someone who follows a religion cannot, to me, be a humanist, someone who believes in a Deity of some sort but adheres to no particular dogma (I would include “Cafeteria Catholics" and such) could be a humanist. Put another way, one who is an ardent follower of a religion cannot be a humanist. A “Bad Catholic" or “Bad Protestant" could be. But that’s just me. :cheese:
Humanism itself has been called a non-theistic religion. It does qualify. It offers a doctrine and a moral code. Atheism, on the other hand, does not qualify as a religion. There is no atheist doctrine and no moral code. Any atheist who comes up with a doctrine or moral code is speaking only for himself, and it has nothing to do with atheism, per se. Loisthere are people who define religion so loosely it can include anything and everythingNot that anybody asked, but when I am speaking of “religion" I refer to “organized religion" (and by “organized religion" I mean something that includes rules/dogma that must be followed, prerequisites for entry into heaven, a certainty that their path is the one true path to salvation, etc.). I do not believe that a belief in God (or a god or gods) necessarily equates to being “religious" (Deists, for example). Thus, while someone who follows a religion cannot, to me, be a humanist, someone who believes in a Deity of some sort but adheres to no particular dogma (I would include “Cafeteria Catholics" and such) could be a humanist. Put another way, one who is an ardent follower of a religion cannot be a humanist. A “Bad Catholic" or “Bad Protestant" could be. But that’s just me. :cheese:
Humanism itself has been called a non-theistic religion. It does qualify. It offers a doctrine and a moral code. Atheism, on the other hand, does not qualify as a religion. There is no atheist doctrine and no moral code. Any atheist who comes up with a doctrine or moral code is speaking only for himself, and it has nothing to do with atheism, per se. LoisSure it's been called that, and whoever called it that is wrong. By definition Humanism is not a religion. Religion by definition includes supreme belief in a supreme being. Humanism by definition means supreme belief in humans. As for your other statement about "secular" not being important, you're confused. It absolutely matters. Secular Humanist vs Religious Humanist (not even sure what that means without being contradictory) are two different things in the same way that apple fruit is different from grapes fruit.there are people who define religion so loosely it can include anything and everythingNot that anybody asked, but when I am speaking of “religion" I refer to “organized religion" (and by “organized religion" I mean something that includes rules/dogma that must be followed, prerequisites for entry into heaven, a certainty that their path is the one true path to salvation, etc.). I do not believe that a belief in God (or a god or gods) necessarily equates to being “religious" (Deists, for example). Thus, while someone who follows a religion cannot, to me, be a humanist, someone who believes in a Deity of some sort but adheres to no particular dogma (I would include “Cafeteria Catholics" and such) could be a humanist. Put another way, one who is an ardent follower of a religion cannot be a humanist. A “Bad Catholic" or “Bad Protestant" could be. But that’s just me. :cheese:
Humanism itself has been called a non-theistic religion. It does qualify. It offers a doctrine and a moral code. Atheism, on the other hand, does not qualify as a religion. There is no atheist doctrine and no moral code. Any atheist who comes up with a doctrine or moral code is speaking only for himself, and it has nothing to do with atheism, per se. LoisSure it's been called that, and whoever called it that is wrong. By definition Humanism is not a religion. Religion by definition includes supreme belief in a supreme being. Humanism by definition means supreme belief in humans. As for your other statement about "secular" not being important, you're confused. It absolutely matters. Secular Humanist vs Religious Humanist (not even sure what that means without being contradictory) are two different things in the same way that apple fruit is different from grapes fruit. Not true. That is but one definition of religion. Though most people define religion as theism, religion is also defined as follows by accepted sources: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion "The very fact that they are so many and so different from one another is enough to prove that the word 'religion' cannot stand for any single principle or essence, but is rather a collective name." William James I, myself, refrain from using the word "religion" to mean anything but supernatural belief because it invites responses like yours. Nevertheless, religion does not require supernatural belief. It can mean non supernatural beliefs, and that includes Humanism. Loisthere are people who define religion so loosely it can include anything and everythingNot that anybody asked, but when I am speaking of “religion" I refer to “organized religion" (and by “organized religion" I mean something that includes rules/dogma that must be followed, prerequisites for entry into heaven, a certainty that their path is the one true path to salvation, etc.). I do not believe that a belief in God (or a god or gods) necessarily equates to being “religious" (Deists, for example). Thus, while someone who follows a religion cannot, to me, be a humanist, someone who believes in a Deity of some sort but adheres to no particular dogma (I would include “Cafeteria Catholics" and such) could be a humanist. Put another way, one who is an ardent follower of a religion cannot be a humanist. A “Bad Catholic" or “Bad Protestant" could be. But that’s just me. :cheese:
That's all very nice, but what has it got to do with humanism]?It has a lot to do with humanism. See the signers of the Humanist Manifesto I and look into the history of Humanism, as well as the notable signers of the Humanist Manifesto III: http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_III/Notable_Signers
I used to think that calling and considering myself an atheist was sufficient. But now I realize that a label that describes me best is secular humanist. I realize and understand the Sam Harris argument that labels are not necessary and that individuals do not label themselves has non astrologists, but I think it’s a place to at least, hang your hat.
I used to think that calling and considering myself an atheist was sufficient. But now I realize that a label that describes me best is secular humanist. I realize and understand the Sam Harris argument that labels are not necessary and that individuals do not label themselves has non astrologists, but I think it's a place to at least, hang your hat.Humanism needs no adjectives., certainly not "secular". Humanism is by definition, secular. To add the word "secular" to humanism is redundant. It's like calling a Catholic, let's say, a Catholic Theist., or a Methodist a Methodist Theist, as if there were any other kind. Is Buddhism a religion?
The word “humanism” has a number of meanings. And because authors and speakers often don’t clarify which meaning they intend, those trying to explain humanism can easily become a source of confusion. Fortunately, each meaning of the word constitutes a different type of humanism—the different types being easily separated and defined by the use of appropriate adjectives. So it is relatively easy to summarize the varieties of humanism in this way.
Literary Humanism is a devotion to the humanities or literary culture.
Renaissance Humanism is the spirit of learning that developed at the end of the middle ages with the revival of classical letters and a renewed confidence in the ability of human beings to determine for themselves truth and falsehood.
Western Cultural Humanism is a good name for the rational and empirical tradition that originated largely in ancient Greece and Rome, evolved throughout European history, and now constitutes a basic part of the Western approach to science, political theory, ethics, and law.
Philosophical Humanism is any outlook or way of life centered on human need and interest. Sub-categories of this type include Christian Humanism and Modern Humanism.
Christian Humanism is defined by Webster’s Third New International Dictionary as “a philosophy advocating the self-fulfillment of man within the framework of Christian principles.” This more human-oriented faith is largely a product of the Renaissance and is a part of what made up Renaissance humanism.
Modern Humanism, also called Naturalistic Humanism, Scientific Humanism, Ethical Humanism, and Democratic Humanism, is defined by one of its leading proponents, Corliss Lamont, as “a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion.” Modern Humanism has a dual origin, both secular and religious, and these constitute its sub-categories.
Secular Humanism is an outgrowth of eighteenth century enlightenment rationalism and nineteenth century freethought. Many secular groups, such as the Council for Secular Humanism and the American Rationalist Federation, and many otherwise unaffiliated academic philosophers and scientists, advocate this philosophy.
Religious Humanism largely emerged out of Ethical Culture, Unitarianism, and Universalism. Today, many Unitarian Universalist congregations and all Ethical Culture societies describe themselves as humanist in the modern sense.
The most critical irony in dealing with Modern Humanism is the tendency for its advocates to disagree on whether or not this worldview is religious. Those who see it as philosophy are the Secular Humanists while those who see it as religion are Religious Humanists. This dispute has been going on since the beginning of the twentieth century when the secular and religious traditions converged and brought Modern Humanism into existence.
Secular and Religious Humanists both share the same worldview and the same basic principles. This is made evident by the fact that both Secular and Religious Humanists were among the signers of Humanist Manifesto I in 1933, Humanist Manifesto II in 1973, and Humanist Manifesto III in 2003. From the standpoint of philosophy alone, there is no difference between the two. It is only in the definition of religion and in the practice of the philosophy that Religious and Secular Humanists effectively disagree.
The definition of religion used by Religious Humanists is often a functional one. Religion is that which serves the personal and social needs of a group of people sharing the same philosophical worldview.
To serve personal needs, Religious Humanism offers a basis for moral values, an inspiring set of ideals, methods for dealing with life’s harsher realities, a rationale for living life joyously, and an overall sense of purpose.
To serve social needs humanist religious communities (such as Ethical Culture societies and many Unitarian Universalist churches) offer a sense of belonging, an institutional setting for the moral education of children, special holidays shared with like-minded people, a unique ceremonial life, the performance of ideologically consistent rites of passage (weddings, child welcomings, coming-of-age celebrations, memorials, and so forth), an opportunity for affirmation of one’s philosophy of life, and a historical context for one’s ideas.
Religious Humanists often maintain that most human beings have personal and social needs that can only be met by religion (taken in the functional sense just detailed). They do not feel that one should have to make a choice between meeting these needs in a traditional faith context versus not meeting them at all.