[onlooker]

This concept has really triggered a train of thought that I wish to discuss and which can be germane to many topics discussed on this site. We have spoken of Humanism in other threads and I certainly have detected the derogatory view expressed about this concept. However, can we not flip this concept around almost like two sides of the same coin. I mean in that when we dwell on ourselves like the song by Michael Jackson 'Man in the mirror", can that not really be something positive. In the end, this fixation on ourselves lends itself to re-examining our history and behavior over time to highlight our internal flaws. To hold ourselves accountable. Like they say the beginning of solving a personal defect is to acknowledge it. We must hold ourselves accountable for the world we have created and the things we have done here on Earth. By doing so we can honestly come to condemn within ourselves the worst aspects of human behavior. In so doing, we can realize the sanctity of life and of peaceful and harmonious coexistence with each other, animals and nature. We can also truly realize that we are limited in our powers and be thus humbled. We can you might say have an epiphany that we can be better then we have been, much better.

[Pops]

Define humanism.

here are half a dozen:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')iterary 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.

[onlooker]

I would say Pops I am referring to Philosophical Humanism

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'T')o hold ourselves accountable.

[Pops]

My thought is that religion of any sort breeds philosophical isolation and an inbred outlook; I suppose that is the point.

But it also seems to me that deist religions are inherently human-centric and philosophical human-isims.

Which is why I asked for definition.

A view that puts man in the system, rather than as the object of the system seems to me the best outlook at this point.

Part of the article I linked above said secular humanism rejects even religious humanism because - in my words; to accept the authority of the "church" without question is at heart the opposite of humanism.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he Secular Humanist tradition is in part a tradition of defiance, a tradition that dates back to ancient Greece. One can see, even in Greek mythology, humanist themes that are rarely, if ever, manifested in the mythologies of other cultures. And they certainly have not been repeated by modern religions. The best example here is the character Prometheus.

Prometheus stands out because he was admired by ancient Greeks as the one who defied Zeus. He stole the fire of the gods and brought it down to earth. For this he was punished. And yet he continued his defiance amid his tortures. This is one source of the humanist challenge to authority.

[onlooker]

Ibon, I understand your point about consequences and it makes much sense. Yet you yourself expressed a disquieting doubt as to it's success in galvanizing humans to be more conscientious of the importance of the environment. Amid hardships people can chose what and whom to blame. Their are examples throughout history of people and things used as scapegoats when circumstances turned foul. We must connect consequences to our culpability in creating them or else they will perhaps be of no avail in so much as we will not have digested the main lesson that we for better or worse can be a species that can ruin it's nest so to speak. In other words for this staunch and rigorous respect and deference to nature to really take it's rightful place, we must put it their, knowing full well the consequences if we do not. Or else we will repeat history in the future.

[onlooker]

Good points Pops, the main three religions Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all shams in the exact sense you described. They only served to divide and to in a way enslave. Enslaved to a rigid set of beliefs strictly interpreted and enforced by those self-appointed adepts and emissaries who professed to know God's will. They could no more interpret God's will then a rock could. But I think Ibon does not mean religion in it's traditionally understood way. Rather a spiritual foundation is what perhaps could describe it. Something apart and above mankind.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', ' ')But I think Ibon does not mean religion in it's traditionally understood way. Rather a spiritual foundation is what perhaps could describe it. Something apart and above mankind.

[ralfy]

Also, various mainstream religions have been in many ways connected to spirituality, compassion, and even challenges to institutions.

Finally, aspects of humanism, such as capitalism, also have characteristics that are rigid, such as the premise that human beings are not part of ecosystems, or that profit is the bottom line.

[kanon]

This is from What_is_Humanism.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')magine how shocked a friend of mine was when I told her my view of "God's moral standards." I said, "If there were such a god, and these were indeed his ideal moral principles, I would be tolerant. After all, God is entitled to his own opinions!"

Only a humanist is inclined to speak this way. Only a humanist can suggest that, even if there be a god, it is OK to disagree with him, her, or it.

[Pops]

Not replying to Ibon or you necessarily Looker, just reflecting on what has "worked" in the past.

It is like my daughter said after making some particularly snide remark about a relative,
"I'm going to Hell! I know it!"
I said "I thought you didn't believe in Hell?"
"I believe in hell, I just don't believe in Heaven."

LOL, there are maybe three carrots to religion; (i) the explanations, (ii) the group, (iii) the reward.
The biggest use for God in my life is explaining death to a kid.
Science takes care of lots of other "why"s although it takes a little googling rather than simply tossing off a "God's will" throwaway. It is to the point now that the answers (or at least the theories) are far beyond explanation to the average person, relativity etc, and might as well be magic themselves. To be honest I "believe" in a lot of science not because I have done extensive research but because I read some priest shaman prophet scientist say it was true.

Number (iii) is the big carrot though; the 72 virgins walking streets paved with gold arm in arm with Grandma in a place the owners have no chance to intrude... it is a heck of a reward. And of course burning in hell for eternity is not a bad stick.

For me personally, numero (ii) the group, the congregation, the peer pressure is maybe not as big a deal as for some but I think that way lays salvation. As mentioned in my link above, questioning authority is my style of humanism, vs going to a un-church that argues it has the real truth. LOL, just the same thing it argues against. But it is hard to corner people like me who argue just for the sake of trolling arguing.

Atheists’ self-defeating superiority: Why joining forces with religion is best for non-believers
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')’ve written before about the root causes of religious conflict — in a nutshell: it is not about what many people would like you to think it’s about — but I realized recently that I had still been missing part of the picture picture, because I wasn’t accounting for what happens when people get caught up in narrowly tribalistic thinking. If there’s ever going to be a genuine, durable peace in the world, we have to overcome this tendency. And we atheists have to realize that we’re subject to the same pull of tribalism as are religious believers.

Yes, religion has been a source of conflict for millennia—but religion is just an especially organized form of tribalism. Human beings come by it honestly. As social psychologist Jonathan Haidt observed in his book “The Righteous Mind,” “our ancestors faced the adaptive challenge of forming and maintaining coalitions that could fend off challenges and attacks from rival groups” for eons. It may even be in our DNA.

New Atheists like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Bill Maher — with their legions of followers, numbering in the millions just on Twitter — continue to employ the Us vs. Them rhetoric of tribalism. But what these New Atheists fail to realize is that even if their criticisms of religion are correct, pointing them out does nothing to combat tribalism—in fact, it only strengthens it. Their faith in the power of rationality, which is effective but not perfect, blinds them to the larger problem.

[Newfie]

I've had a pretty long history with Ethical Humanisim. 14 years on the Philly Board with 4 years as President. I've noted the Secular Humanist pun dents like to take shots at the Ethical folks, but God only knows why. A lot of ego involved, IMHO.

I do have my gripes with Ethical Humanisim. I prefer to see humans as one of many species on Earth, each with rights. Humanisim tends to be too human centric for my taste.

Yet their view is an improvement over tradititional religion where God makes all the rules and calls the shots.

Humanist understand that humans are responsible for ther own actions. Ethical Humanisim differers from Secular Hummanisim in that it accepts people's need for a certain degree of ritual and the need for a community of like minded individuals.

Where I differ with Ethical Humanisim is that they over state humanities ability to effect Earth positively. They are very human centric with a metropolitan bent. They, like so many of us, have lost their touch with the natural world. Although this last complaint could be laid more at our general culture than at Ethical Humanisism.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', '
')LOL, there are maybe three carrots to religion; (i) the explanations, (ii) the group, (iii) the reward.

[Newfie]

Not to argue, but a slightly different perspective.

Religion has/had three roles...
1. Law giver .... Now the government, in Western culture
2. Explainer of mystery .... Now science, for many, not all
3. Community .... Still doing that everywhere.

[Pops]

Who are you not arguing with?
lol

[Timo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('onlooker', 'T')o hold ourselves accountable.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', ' ')I think Vonnegut was a particularly brilliant (though depressing) author.

One of his most insightful (of many) famous quotes is, IMO:

"I am a humanist, which means, in part, that I have tried to behave decently without any expectation of rewards or punishments after I'm dead."

[Timo]

Touche, Plantagenet. Well said. Howwever, i would only offer that the differing concepts of good and proper humanist behavior exercised by various cultures around the world all developed/evolved from our eariler human ancestors. Remove cultural doctrines of good and bad, and what remains? A human without cultural influences is a humanist.

In that sense, i have no idea what a humanist is.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', ' ')I think Vonnegut was a particularly brilliant (though depressing) author.

One of his most insightful (of many) famous quotes is, IMO:

"I am a humanist, which means, in part, that I have tried to behave decently without any expectation of rewards or punishments after I'm dead."

[Pops]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'B')ut what does behaving "decently" actually mean?

My point is that our ideas about what is "good and decent" behavior come from christian religious concepts.