posted
I'm confused as to exactly where secular humanism fits on the atheist/agnostic scale. I know the differences between strong and weak atheism and agnosticism, but I'm unclear as to where secular humanism fits in there. Or does it not? Is it something different altogether? It seems like it should be encompassed by atheism, agnosticism, and even deism, but I'm not entirely sure. Anyone? Thanks.
-------------------- Last year's goat was burned down by vandals dressed up as Santa Claus and the Gingerbread Man. They were never caught. My blog. The Adventures of the Fish O'Thwacking. Countdown: 177 days (or less!) Posts: 4926 | From: NW Ohio | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way I see it, it's the philosophy that humans have intrinsic worth. It's considered an atheist philosophy because the usual religious view is that a person's worth is an aspect of his relationship with god (a specific Christian perspective being that humans are intrinsically bad, and that the sacrifice of Jesus is needed to make them good by sharing some of God's goodness with them).
I suppose that religious people could also be humanists (although presumably not "secular" humanists), and there are alternate atheist philosophies such as the various forms of nihilism.
-------------------- Fools! You've over-estimated me! Posts: 3745 | From: New York City | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's definitely not deism, because it rejects the idea of God.
That said I, like you, have always been rather confused by the label, as "atheist" seems to cover it. Secular Humanism does seem to explicitly profess the requirement for ethics, which atheism doesn't. But I'm not entirely sure why the two need to be paired together in the one philosophy. I believe that most people, regardless of their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, would consider themselves ethical, or moral people.
I mean no offence to anyone here who considers themselves a Secular Humanist, but it's always seemed to me to be something of a club for those who don't believe in God, but feel left out by not being part of a religion (I know that it's not a religion, but I think that the social aspects and the feeling of "belonging to a group" are similar).
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
I don't think it fits on there at all - atheism and agnosticism and so on are simply statements of belief about the existence or non-existence of "God".
Secular humanism is a way of looking at society, ethics and morality that constructs moral arguments based on their positive or negative effects on people without reference to religious arguments. People are the important thing, not gods.
I guess a lot of atheists and agnostics would default to secular humanism, but there are probably other ways to look at it. (I'm less confident in saying I'm a "secular humanist" than an atheist, because I don't know all the baggage that's attached to that term.) You don't have to be an atheist or agnostic to be a secular humanist, though - just to think that God doesn't interfere or take a personal interest in people's morality or social affairs.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Troodon on this one. Humanism is not about the existence of God. It is about people having intrinsic worth without resorting to religion. I really do not see it as being incompatible with religion per se.
Of course, as has already been pointed out, Christianity is based on people being unworthy without Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. So I think it is fair to say that some religions are incompatible with Humanism.
Posts: 19 | From: Springfield, VA | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by RainyDaze: Of course, as has already been pointed out, Christianity is based on people being unworthy without Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. So I think it is fair to say that some religions are incompatible with Humanism.
I've always wondered how many Christians actually believe that, though. I feel like a glurge-Christian, who thinks that atheists all really do believe in God but are just pretending not to for some reason.
I can see how people believe in God (although I don't), but the "central tenet" of Christianity is so meaningless to me that I can't even understand how it's possible to believe it, rather than just to say that you do. In my arrogant atheistic way, I can't help but suspect that most Christians, if pressed, would admit that they only pay lip-service to the idea and are actually in it for the "Be nice to people" thing...
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I identified myself as an atheist as soon as I understood what the word meant (and that other people really did believe the god story). Humanism was something I discovered much later and turned out to fairly well mirror my ethical philosophy that I'd developed to that point. "Secular humanism" is just a way of identifying my ethical philosophy and my lack of god belief in the same breath, rather than sitting through both questions. (which many folks link together.)
Posts: 96 | From: Attleboro, MA | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know the "common" use of the term around my parts is such that it can be exchanged with "evil scientist person". I honestly didn't know it actualy meant something. I thought it was just used to "prove" that scientist are just as "religious" as "regular" people, they just worship Satan.
Note that using the "local" definition, I am a "Catholic Secular Humanist".
-------------------- And now for something completely different... Posts: 4164 | From: Alabama | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's hard to find any more, but if any of you have contacts in the filk music community or science fiction fandom, you might want to look for a copy of Orson Scott Card's "Secular Humanist Revival Meeting". It's played for laughs, done very much in a down-home camp-meeting kind of format, but he lays out a pretty clear description of Secular Humanism along the way. The first commandment is "Thou Shalt Think".
I've always felt that the whole strong/weak atheist/agnostic spectrum measures how strongly you don't believe in God(s), or do believe the absence of God(s), or whatever.
Humanism is more affirmative, offering a belief structure and ethical model that doesn't presuppose an Arbiter or Judge. My public library, in Pasadena, California, carries "the Humanist" magazine, put out by the American Humanist Association. You can probably find a copy at a local library. The AHA also publishes the Humanist Manifesto, a statement of their beliefs. If I knew how to post links, I'd do so here, but I'm not that computer-savvy.
Dog (and Reindeer) Friendly
-------------------- "Nobody ever got stoned and beat up his old lady" -- Spence, snapdragonfly's friend Posts: 768 | From: North Hollywood, CA | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by trollface: It's definitely not deism, because it rejects the idea of God.
Well, not exactly... One can be a deist and a humanist at the same time.
Humanism, among other things, says, "God can't solve our problems for us: we must act to save ourselves." It doesn't reject prayer, it only rejects prayer as a mechanism for real change.
Humanism doesn't necessarily recognize the *sorth* of the human species, but certainly recognizes that we are the only agency with any real power. For good or ill, humans, not spiritual entities, make the decisions in this world, and humanism is the philosophy that says we need to make these decisions for our own benefit, not to propitiate spiritual entities.
A *strict* humanist might object to the waste of resources involved in building a cathedral. A *moderate* humanist can say, "Hey, it makes people feel good, so the waste can be accepted."
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: Humanism, among other things, says, "God can't solve our problems for us: we must act to save ourselves." It doesn't reject prayer, it only rejects prayer as a mechanism for real change.
[H]umanism is the philosophy that says we need to make these decisions for our own benefit, not to propitiate spiritual entities.
Silas
One could almost say, then, that humanism says that God is unimportant.
-------------------- "Well, it looks we're on our own ... again."--Rev. Lovejoy Posts: 3572 | From: St. Louis, MO | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
As secular humanists, we are generally skeptical about supernatural claims. We recognize the importance of religious experience: that experience that redirects and gives meaning to the lives of human beings. We deny, however, that such experiences have anything to do with the supernatural. We are doubtful of traditional views of God and divinity. Symbolic and mythological interpretations of religion often serve as rationalizations for a sophisticated minority, leaving the bulk of mankind to flounder in theological confusion. We consider the universe to be a dynamic scene of natural forces that are most effectively understood by scientific inquiry. We are always open to the discovery of new possibilities and phenomena in nature. However. we find that traditional views of the existence of God either are meaningless, have not yet been demonstrated to be true, or are tyrannically exploitative. Secular humanists may be agnostics, atheists, rationalists, or skeptics, but they find insufficient evidence for the claim that some divine purpose exists for the universe. They reject the idea that God has intervened miraculously in history or revealed himself to a chosen few or that he can save or redeem sinners. They believe that men and women are free and are responsible for their own destinies and that they cannot look toward some transcendent Being for salvation. We reject the divinity of Jesus, the divine mission of Moses, Mohammed, and other latter day prophets and saints of the various sects and denominations. We do not accept as true the literal interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, the Koran, or other allegedly sacred religious documents, however important they may be as literature. Religions are pervasive sociological phenomena, and religious myths have long persisted in human history. In spite of the fact that human beings have found religions to be uplifting and a source of solace, we do not find their theological claims to be true.
quote:It doesn't reject prayer, it only rejects prayer as a mechanism for real change.
While it may not reject prayer and does acknowledge that it can be an important part of people's lives, it does seem to reject it as anything other than an empty ritual of supplication to a deity that doesn't exist.
quote:A *strict* humanist might object to the waste of resources involved in building a cathedral. A *moderate* humanist can say, "Hey, it makes people feel good, so the waste can be accepted."
Indeed. But just because you acknowledge that something makes people feel good doesn't mean that you're acknowledging the truth behind those beliefs.
I've sung in a church choir. That doesn't make me religious.
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by trollface: I've sung in a church choir. That doesn't make me religious.
I guess I'm sort of looking at the boundary, where the "spiritual" meets the "religious."
i.e., many people, even if not religious, will feel a spiritual sense of wonder, healing, oneness, etc., when singing in a choir. Something transcendent, immanent, almost miraculous.
The secular humanist says, "Endorphins." (And...I'd probably agree with him, including the larger implication of strict materialism.)
So, yeah, I guess I was just making sure there was room for the religious humanist, and also the mugwump in the middle, whom you might call the "spiritual humanist," the sort of person often found in the category of "deists."
Silas (rambling, largely; sorry)
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:A *strict* humanist might object to the waste of resources involved in building a cathedral. A *moderate* humanist can say, "Hey, it makes people feel good, so the waste can be accepted."
Wouldn't a strict humanist then also object to an art gallery? I mean it makes some people feel good, but I, for one, get nothing out of art, and such a big building could be a waste of resources.
quote:i.e., many people, even if not religious, will feel a spiritual sense of wonder, healing, oneness, etc., when singing in a choir. Something transcendent, immanent, almost miraculous.
Aren't transcendent and immanent opposites?
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kilgore Trout, fka Dog Friendly: Humanism is more affirmative, offering a belief structure and ethical model that doesn't presuppose an Arbiter or Judge.
Exactly. I call myself a a Secular Humanist and not an atheist because I would rather define myself by what I do believe in than by what I don't. I have what could be called a religious (if it weren't secular) devotion to the advancement of the human race through effort. My faith is in the intrinsic worth and goodness of human beings. It may seem like a small semantic distinction, but it is not to me.
-------------------- ÒIf you shut up truth and bury it under the ground, it will but grow, and gather to itself such explosive power that the day it bursts through it will blow up everything in its way.Ó -Emile Zola Posts: 1046 | From: Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:A *strict* humanist might object to the waste of resources involved in building a cathedral. A *moderate* humanist can say, "Hey, it makes people feel good, so the waste can be accepted."
Wouldn't a strict humanist then also object to an art gallery? I mean it makes some people feel good, but I, for one, get nothing out of art, and such a big building could be a waste of resources.
Hm... I don't think so... No one I've ever known is so strict a materialist that they deny the value of art entirely. Art really is good for people, especially for kids. It's one component of the proverbial well-rounded personality.
quote:
quote:i.e., many people, even if not religious, will feel a spiritual sense of wonder, healing, oneness, etc., when singing in a choir. Something transcendent, immanent, almost miraculous.
Aren't transcendent and immanent opposites?
Um... Possibly... I just did some dictionary searches online, and I'm not really sure...
Immanent seems to mean "inwelling" or "indwelling," but I think I only meant it as "deep" or "profound" or "soul-touching." Transcendent seems to mean "above," or "beyond," or "surpassing," but, again, I was trying to use it to mean "overwhelming," or "other-worldly," or perhaps even "eerie."
So... I'm not sure if the words are of opposite meaning or not... And I'm not sure, even if they are, that a significant spiritual experience cannot be both at once...
(Soon as someone explains the Trinity to me, maybe I'll start to have a clue?)
Silas
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- "victory thru self-deception" Posts: 2211 | From: Western Australia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Salamander: Oooo... I'm a mugwump-in-the-middle.
I almost used you in my post as an example of a Deist (believer in God) who might also be a secular humanist...*
I object slightly to the definition of "secular" as "sceptical about religion" that's used in trollface's quote. I thought "secular" meant "without involving religion", and said nothing about anybody's religious beliefs one way or the other - it only implies that you need a non-religious argument as well. If it means "sceptical about religion" then the idea of secular government becomes hostile to religion. Defining "secular" in this way seems to me to play into the hands of the religious fundamentalists who think that this is already the case.
(*Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion points out that in the Eighteenth Century, a Deist would have been seen as close to an atheist; not religious at all and rather socially unacceptable in the climate of the time. These days (at least, to an atheist) Deism seems much closer to a religious, Theistic perspective - you believe in God, after all.
Not sure how much of that is based on contemporary reading - he does quote Thomas Jefferson a lot - and how much is based on his own assumptions, but I found it interesting. I do find it hard to understand your beliefs - in practical terms they're probably the same as mine, but even having dealt with all the material problems, you still (as I understand it) put a conscious God behind everything, even though he has nothing to do and no visible effect. I don't really understand the point.)
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Richard W: I object slightly to the definition of "secular" as "sceptical about religion" that's used in trollface's quote. I thought "secular" meant "without involving religion", and said nothing about anybody's religious beliefs one way or the other - it only implies that you need a non-religious argument as well.
I think it's just using the term so that they don't have to use "atheistic humanism", as atheism can be seen as something that is actively hostile towards religion in some quarters.
The ethics, etc. that is merely separate from religion is simply Humanism. So, I think what the term "Secular Humanism" is actually meant to mean is "Atheistic Humanism", but isn't actually called that because of a perceived implication of negativity in the name.
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm a weak agnostic deist... so my belief in God(s) an interesting one.
In all honesty, I use the term "God" in my own personal philosophy/spirituality as something of a placeholder. It's an awful lot quicker than having to think "non-interventionist entity which may or may not exist (but for now I assume does) that allowed the creation of the universe, as described by science, to happen".
The fact that I acknowledge that this God exists is, in some strange way, my way of saying "Hey, thanks for existence!"... it's not around and I don't even know if it can hear me, but I figure it's the polite thing to do. In much the same way that I would silently thank the anonymous stranger who thought to lay a plank of wood across a rather large puddle -- they would never know I appreciated their act but saying "thanks" seems to be the appropriate thing to do.
-------------------- "victory thru self-deception" Posts: 2211 | From: Western Australia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:trollface said: I think it's just using the term so that they don't have to use "atheistic humanism", as atheism can be seen as something that is actively hostile towards religion in some quarters.
The ethics, etc. that is merely separate from religion is simply Humanism. So, I think what the term "Secular Humanism" is actually meant to mean is "Atheistic Humanism", but isn't actually called that because of a perceived implication of negativity in the name.
Well, maybe - but if you use that parallel, then "secular government" becomes "atheistic government", which it shouldn't be. Or rather, I suppose it should be, but it doesn't mean that everybody involved in government should be an atheist - just that the governmental processes and laws themselves shouldn't rely on God.
I guess I'm trying to fudge the issue to include religious people, so that they don't think we're all out to get them. In pragmatic terms, "secular" is indeed a disguise for "atheistic", but saying so will immediately make people rebel against it and dig in for religion.
Then again, since this has not recently been an issue in the UK, I'm probably being paranoid based on what I've read about American politics.
(edited to quote trollface and to remove my ridiculous assertion that religion had "never" been an issue in UK politics. It just hasn't been much of an issue within my memory.)
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: i.e., many people, even if not religious, will feel a spiritual sense of wonder, healing, oneness, etc., when singing in a choir. Something transcendent, immanent, almost miraculous.
The secular humanist says, "Endorphins."
er, is this what your secular humanist says when asked what the underlying cause of this spiritual sense that he is feel when singing in the choir is, or what he rudely says to dismiss the expereince of these emotions by someone else, while never expereincing it himself?
I've gotten that spiritual sense of warm fuzzies and wonder many many a time. I am both an atheist and a strict materialist. (and a humanist). Materialism does not prevent a person from expereincing or apriciating spiritual joy. Nor does it cause one to be short and dismissive of those feelings.
Posts: 96 | From: Attleboro, MA | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have heard Judaism described as a humanist religion because one of the main tenets is that you cannot be right with God unless you are first right with your fellow humans. Okay that is decidedly the UU version of Judaism we get every Yom Kippur, so my depth of knowledge is not that great, but I have noticed that most of the Jews I meet care passionately about social justice. It cannot be a coincidence, I think.
One of my best friends is a Humanist who calls himself that rather than an atheist (which he also is) because it affirms what he holds important rather than what he denies.
-------------------- There are people who drive really nice cars who feel that [those] cars won't be as special if other people drive them too. Where I come from, we call those people "selfish self-satisfied gits." -Chloe Posts: 6995 | From: New Mexico | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Richard W: Well, maybe - but if you use that parallel, then "secular government" becomes "atheistic government", which it shouldn't be. Or rather, I suppose it should be, but it doesn't mean that everybody involved in government should be an atheist - just that the governmental processes and laws themselves shouldn't rely on God.
I think that this is where the distinction is, though. Everybody who is a Secular Humanist is an atheist, by the definition given by the site I cited. Presumably because morality, ethics and philosophy are closely tied to religion for many. However, in the case of government, for most, in the Western world at least, the two are, and should be, separate. So it's not an issue there.
As I said above, I think that many people classify themselves as Secular Humanists so they can be part of a "club" in the same way that those in a religion are. It's like a religion without the theistic elements. Either that, or as a shorthand for "I'm not a theist, but I am a moral person".
Plus, of course, let's not forget that in the UK our government, technically-speaking, is a religious one. The Queen, technically-speaking is the ultimate authority, and she is also, technically-speaking, the head of the C of E.
Having done some poking around into definitions, I think that, were I the kind of person to label myself in such a fashion, then I'd have to label myself as a Secular (or Atheist) Posthumanist. Not as in the Posthumanism that is also called Transhumanism that says that we should be striving to technologically enhance our bodies and minds (although that does sound like fun), but the other one that is literally post-Humanism, in that where Humanism puts the human front and centre, Posthumanism says that we are but one of many animals and we have no more right to be here and interfere with the world than any other creature.
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by Salamander: Well, I'm a weak agnostic deist... so my belief in God(s) an interesting one.
In all honesty, I use the term "God" in my own personal philosophy/spirituality as something of a placeholder. It's an awful lot quicker than having to think "non-interventionist entity which may or may not exist (but for now I assume does) that allowed the creation of the universe, as described by science, to happen".
The fact that I acknowledge that this God exists is, in some strange way, my way of saying "Hey, thanks for existence!"... it's not around and I don't even know if it can hear me, but I figure it's the polite thing to do. In much the same way that I would silently thank the anonymous stranger who thought to lay a plank of wood across a rather large puddle -- they would never know I appreciated their act but saying "thanks" seems to be the appropriate thing to do.
Fair enough, I suppose... you're still assuming that "somebody" laid the plank, of course, but I see what you're getting at.
Even Richard Dawkins has no philosophical problem with pantheism (or the "Einsteinian God", as he calls it, since people like Cobra42J sometimes quote Einstein out-of-context as mentioning "God" in support of their own beliefs):
quote:Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p19: The metaphorical or pantheistic God of the physicists is light years away from the interventionist, miracle-wreaking, thought-reading, sin-punishing, prayer-answering God of the Bible, of priests, mullahs and rabbis, and of ordinary language. Deliberately to confuse the two is, in my opinion, an act of intellectual high treason.
By "pantheistic", he means a God that stands for the universe itself - no inherent purpose or consciousness or moral sense, nothing supernatural, just a sense of awe at what exists, and amazement at how such complexity and beauty can arise from simplicity. At how even the concept of beauty can emerge from simplicity, by very elegant but incredibly subtle principles.
Nonny Mouse, among others, also seems to go for this sort of God. Dawkins would have no objection to that, although like me he'd rather you didn't call it "God".
I can't find the exact reference at the moment, but at one point he also describes the "Einsteinian God" as one that "we can all trivially believe in", which is a little dismissive given his earlier statements of awe in the Universe.
But I understand completely where he's coming from - it's born of frustration that so many people completely miss the point, and want you to submit to their rather petty gods that they haven't even thought about enough to define, and have somehow conflated the majesty of the universe with some collections of laws, fables and poetry that people wrote down a while ago. Religions and theism in general are just so confused and contradictory and ultimately counterproductive as a philosophy that I can't understand why so many people go for them.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Richard W: Fair enough, I suppose... you're still assuming that "somebody" laid the plank, of course, but I see what you're getting at.
Oh absolutely, the plank may have always been there and it was coincidental that the puddle formed in the same spot. The plank may have fallen from somewhere and landed in the puddle by chance.
When I come across the puddle though, I am unable to distinguish these various possibilities as I did not witness how the plank came to be across the puddle. Only one of the possibilities involves human intervention, so I opt for that one and silently thank my unknown benefactor as it seems to be the right thing to do.
I'm a little wary of stretching this particular analogy much further though. It's starting to turn into Pascal's Wager which isn't why I believe in the things I do.
-------------------- "victory thru self-deception" Posts: 2211 | From: Western Australia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
quote:Originally posted by trollface: Plus, of course, let's not forget that in the UK our government, technically-speaking, is a religious one. The Queen, technically-speaking is the ultimate authority, and she is also, technically-speaking, the head of the C of E.
True, indeed. There was an interesting article about Mr Peter "I'm not a Creationist, ho ho, of course not,
quote:Look, I don't believe any nonsense about the world being created in six days ... Of course we get children to question everything, religion and science
quote:As Vardy says, the 1988 Education Act requires all secondary schools to have a daily act of worship that is mainly Christian. Academy pupils can skip it if their parents agree.
I just looked up the law here and he's wrong (I think) but there are enough "subject to section blahs" that it's hard to make out:
quote:6-1) Subject to section 9 of this Act, all pupils in attendance at a maintained school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship.
...
7-1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, in the case of a county school the collective worship required in the school by section 6 of this Act shall be wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character.
The main point in which he's wrong is that "broadly Christian" is defined, and it's not the same as "mainly Christian". (eta) Also it's far from clear to me whether this is actually "required" in any given type of school.
As far as I can tell from the "subject to"s this only applies if the school wants to make you do it. A teacher friend told me about the "broadly Christian" thing a few years ago, and I was quite shocked. I'd wondered why I didn't notice while I was in school, but the law was passed in 1988, the year I left secondary school.
Far from "secular" whichever way you look at it.
I like your "posthumanist" thing... I'm afraid I'm not quite that enlightened yet, though. I still think that selected animals taste great and that it's OK to eat them as long as there's a sustainable supply and you don't hurt them too much in the process.
(edited several times for formatting)
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There doesn't seem to be much about the Posthumanism that's related to Humanism (as opposed to the one about technology). What info there is that I can find, though, describes it as an updated Humanism, taking into account the advances of modern scientific thinking (whatever that means).
Basically, it says that we're essentially no different from other animals except in terms of having larger brains. Biologically speaking we're not somehow set apart from them, instead we're part of the same family.
I'm not entirely sure how the philosophies are different if, indeed, they are markedly so.
-------------------- seriously , everyone on here , just trys to give someone crap about something they do !! , its shitting me to tears. Posts: 16061 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Richard W
Ding Dong! Merrily on High Definition TV
posted
I like yours better than the high-tech one. I just don't see anything wrong with eating smaller-brained people animals, I suppose.
Posts: 8725 | From: Ipswich - the UK's 9th Best Place to Sleep! | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: i.e., many people, even if not religious, will feel a spiritual sense of wonder, healing, oneness, etc., when singing in a choir. Something transcendent, immanent, almost miraculous.
The secular humanist says, "Endorphins."
er, is this what your secular humanist says when asked what the underlying cause of this spiritual sense that he is feel when singing in the choir is, or what he rudely says to dismiss the expereince of these emotions by someone else, while never expereincing it himself?
Oops; my intent was to point more at the first motivation than at the second.
quote: I've gotten that spiritual sense of warm fuzzies and wonder many many a time. I am both an atheist and a strict materialist. (and a humanist). Materialism does not prevent a person from expereincing or apriciating spiritual joy. Nor does it cause one to be short and dismissive of those feelings.
I kind of agree, and kind of don't. One big problem is that I can't see in the spiritual spectrum of light. I'm completely color-blind there. I have felt joy, awe, wonder, delight, ecstasy, and a number of other groovy stuff, but I have never felt anything "spiritual." Never. I can't even begin to guess what it must feel like.
So, to some degree, I fall into the category (and trap) of the second kind of person, who belittles what he cannot experience.
But...only a little! No point in being a jerk about it, I feel, any more than I would disrupt an opera just because it isn't my kind of music!
Silas (new and improved; only 12% jerk!)
Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by RainyDaze: I agree with Troodon on this one. Humanism is not about the existence of God. It is about people having intrinsic worth without resorting to religion. I really do not see it as being incompatible with religion per se.
Of course, as has already been pointed out, Christianity is based on people being unworthy without Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. So I think it is fair to say that some religions are incompatible with Humanism.
Chiming in late on this one, but you are confusing two different concepts here - worth and status. The mainstream Christian view is that humans have a very high worth. Created in the image of God, loved by God, worthy of love, respect and practical support from fellow humans. The Bible shows that people have a very high worth, both to each other and the creator. Status is different. The Christian teaching on our status is that we all are naturally in rebellion against God, that we try and live our lives our own way, by our own standards, regardless of God. Christ's sacrifice is a way of reuniting us with God, not raising our worth.
me
-------------------- Check out my handmade pens Check back often because the page changes often Posts: 831 | From: Brisbane, Australia | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've always assumed, frankly, that the term "secular humanist" was a label slapped on the non-religious by those who can't comprehend the notion of not being religious. So they make a "religion" out of humanism.
Obviously, that's not how most folks here are using the term. But while I am a humanist, I consider that a philosophy or ethical system, which doesn't say anything about my theistic beliefs -- whether I believe in a Creator, the soul, etc. It just seems to me that in a pluralistic society, humanism is the only reasonable philosophy on which to base laws and common values; you have to go on what is best for the people, and let them worry about the spiritual realm on an individual basis.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(which many folks link together.)
