Is 'humanism' an atheist only club?

[Nerdy KeithParticipant]

Lately I’ve been reading a book titled ‘Humanism: An Introduction’ by Jim Herrick, it is an interesting and insightful read to say the least. I do find it interesting to hear the thoughts of fellow atheists and humanists. But I get the sense that while Herrick’s intentions are to educate those unfamiliar with what humanism is, he may be leading many astray to what humanism is on a grander scale. I do realise that this book is an introduction, but I still feel that even for a introduction the scope of humanism discussed here is too narrow. Not only is it narrow I would dare say it has an almost preachy quality to it. It’s almost as if Herrick is telling us all what humanists are supposed to be thinking. I’d hardly regard that as a means of promoting free thinking.

“Humanists believe in god with a double ‘o’. Unlike nihilists or even some extreme libertarians, humanists would acknowledge the need for a moral sense … “
– Jim Herrick (Humanism: An Introduction)

While a great many humanists are  ‘secular humanists’, it is my understanding that humanist doesn’t always equate to being an atheist. Loosely it can be defined as the philosophy that all humans should be treated with the same dignity and respect. And should be given the same opportunities as one another.

What are your thoughts on this issue?

 

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

“Secular” = separation of church and state; religious freedom; and freedom of thought.  (at least.)  It doesn’t equal atheism as such.

[Reg the Fronkey FarmerModerator]

In short, Humanists do not need to be atheists. I sometimes attend Humanist meetings where about 20% would be religious or claim to be “spiritual”, whatever that is.  It is also correct to say that anyone can be a Secularist. In a secularist society all faiths and none have no special treatment before the Law. The State should be an independent and impartial referee to oversee the rights of everyone irrespective of whatever they do or do not believe. I work to see a separation of Church and State but I do not want to want an atheist society. I just want not to have to listen to or be subjected to the beliefs of any faith.

The problem I see at the moment is that Christians claim that our demands for equality is an attack on their faith. In the USA, for example, I call the “Religious Freedom Act” the “Religious Privilege Act”. When I see “the laying of hands” on President Trump I cannot get past seeing a bunch of fanatics, who actually think they are channelling the power of the Creator of the Universe through their bodies and into the President. They are seriously deluded and therefore dangerous.

This is a good article on the Religious Right and political power under President Trump from the last Sunday School

[_Robert_Participant]

The word itself could be insulting to a religious person. It implies that humans are capable of morality and good doing without involvement of a celestial authority. After all humans are born impure and with sin. Strictly speaking I agree with Reg, however.

[.Spectator]

I think humanism has evolved into a “brand” in and of itself. But the root philosophy of humanism has nothing to do with religion one way or another. It’s based on the idea that you use critical thinking and evidence based empirical evidence to make ethical human centered decisions that benefit society as a whole. This can be done even if a person believes in God.

What I’m really saying is you can choose to be socially and environmentally conscientious AND believe in God. I think unfortunately Christianity in this country has become something very ugly and not at all what the Bible says. That’s something each individual has to decide for themselves I’m just saying what I think. I think that we are SUPPOSED to take care of the Earth and take care of each other. But our country and our world is not doing that. I don’t personally think that has anything to do with God. That has everything to do with the choices WE make. When I say WE I mean all of us on the planet. Especially the people who are in power to govern and those that are in positions of power to make change. They have the greatest responsibility and many are failing at their duty.

[StregaModerator]

Its hard, with a label like “humanist” for anyone to claim they are against it!  Anyone human, that is.  Other than those who seriously believe in social superiority by birthright (racists, bigots, homophobes etc) pretty much everyone would agree on the humanist philosophy.  The discord arises when they fail to bridge the gap between philosophy and action.

[.Spectator]

The discord arises when they fail to bridge the gap between philosophy and action.

Exactly. And unfortunately here in the U.S we’re starting to see the “true colors” of our nation and the hate that still exists. It pisses me the F*$# off that there are so many so-called “Christians” who are really just bigots and racist motherfuckers who use their so-called “God” to promote hate and violence. It gives a really bad name to the many MANY people who have some sort of faith or belief that ALSO believe in the humanist philosophy and support social justice issues etc…of which there are many. It’s akin to the way that ISIS thinks it represents the majority of Islam and that is also a huge fucking lie.

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

@bellerose – “But the root philosophy of humanism has nothing to do with religion one way or another. It’s based on the idea that you use critical thinking and evidence based empirical evidence to make ethical human centered decisions that benefit society as a whole.”

– I’d say it’s this, plus the idea of valuing the individual.  This second part really has deep roots within Christianity (and it’s possibly there in Islam, I don’t know, and definitely in Buddhism), in the idea that God values every living creature.

There’s an excellent book on the subject: “God Created Humanism: the Christian basis of secular values” by Theo Hobson.  It seems that the modern challenge is how to sustain humanism now that it has become separated from its religious aspect.

And damn those motherF*$#ers, lol

[.Spectator]

Are we allowed to cuss on AZ? I guess I should have asked first lol…

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

“It seems that the modern challenge is how to sustain humanism now that it has become separated from its religious aspect.”

– this is what people say, anyway.  I’m not sure why; what the problem is.

[StregaModerator]

Hey Belle, you can cuss if it helps, we don’t redact text.  obviously there needs to be a point in whatever you’re saying, but the odd expletive shouldn’t traumatize any members.

Blasphemy isn’t an atheist problem either 🙂

(personally, I think “Jesus fucking Christ” covers everything beautifully)

[Simon PayntonParticipant]

Would I be right in saying that secular humanism (one of the goals of the Enlightenment) consists of:

• freedom of thought and religion
• free speech
• human rights and valuing the individual
• rational enquiry
• rational ethics

?

It seems that these are all pretty interlinked.  When people talk about this nowadays, there’s always an argument along the lines of “rights involve obligations and responsibilities”.  I’m sure there is a lot of truth in this, but I’m not sure what it is.

[Author]

Posts