Nowhere357

I suppose if I were a cockroach, I would consider cockroachism.

Even if this were true, how does it support your position? Are you saying that abstract qualities are somehow irrelevant or "false"?

I don't see how this follows. As I understand it, humanism means "a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason".

This does not make a god of humans; nor does it make humans an object of worship; now does it glorify humans as of supreme worth. So humanism does not deify humans.

There is no need to deify humanity - you are correct. But you have not shown that humanism does deify humanity, so the point is moot.

Unless you mean that you see no need for a human sense of dignity, worth, and reasonable self-realization?

pariah

I am flame target!!!

I interperet the humanist manifesto as elevating humans...to me humans are animals like any other with a high degree of self awareness.

I think that morally we should act as if we had inherent worth, so yes I do value abstract ideas.

However I see no point in man worship. Not that it is bad...just pointless.

I say that humanism diefies humanity by elevating it above other creature. Humanism does elevate humans, reading the manifesto gives me this impression, its wording particulary. You can take the manifesto however you want, I take it this way.

Viti

You're not a flame target, you told a good percentage of people on this board that we think we are gods...we took exception to that...we had a discussion. Where are the flames?

fando

Well, Humanism is specifically about human relationships. Saying that this implies we're more 'worthy' than our cousins in the animal kingdom is a bit of a stretch. If you want to include other species in the philosophy, it would lose a lot of scope. It's supposed to be a guideline that suggests things like, "don't kill each other needlessly" instead of, "we should treat chickens humanely."

wade-w

Thank you, Lady Shea.

Pariah, I don't see where you can claim to be a "flame target" here. You have a lot of people disagreeing with you, but disagreement does not make a flame. I see one post that might be contrued so, but even that one is mild in comparison to some of what (unfortuantely) goes on in here.

pariah

k i would like to make a slight change in topic and ask anohter question if that is OK:

why is humanism necessary?

Peter Kirby

Maybe you can answer this one for yourself. Why do you say that "I think that morally we should act as if we had inherent worth"? The answer could be applied to "humanism" mutatis mutandis.

best,
Peter Kirby

Harpy

I think that the idea that humans are "higher" life forms is an interesting one. Considering the fact that all life is descended from a common ancestor (sorry Magus but that's just the way it is) why do we rate as superior?

I have just finished reading Richard Dawkins latest " The Devils Chaplain" which contains a quite thought provoking essay on the subject of mans supposed superiority.

He illustrates an argument thus;

If we could arrange a line of people spaced approx 3 feet apart holding hands with their mothers – i.e. Daughter standing to left of her mother holding Mothers left hand in her right, Mother standing to immediate left of Grandmother holding Granny’s left hand in her right, Granny holding Great Granny’s hand e.t.c. e.t.c. Just 300 miles down that line someone would be holding hands with an ape.

The question is at what point would one of our ancestors look to their mother and say, “ you are a lower form of life”?

DMB

I have called myself a humanist for the past 46 years. It certainly doesn't mean to me that I must elevate humanity above all other animals. In fact I am particularly concerned about the impassable line that many of us draw between humans on the one hand and the great apes on the other. Although humanism is focused on human beings, it doesn't need to exclude other species and ecosystems from consideration.

For me, organised humanism is a practical way of finding agreement with other non-theists on questions of ethics and action. One can be a humanist in isolation, but it's easier and probably more effective if one can join with other like-minded people to tackle some of life's problems.

I would also describe myself as a rationalist, but that for me describes my approach to thinking, whereas humanism for me implies some engagement with others. As Lady Shea has written, if one accepts that there isn't any deity to solve our problems, it is up to us to do it ourselves. On one level we all have our personal and social problems, but nowadays we are so connected globally that we also have global problems to solve and that is why a lot of humanists are concerned about the welfare of people of other countries and cultures.

I don't go so far as to agree with xians that I have an obligation to love everyone; I find many people thoroughly obnoxious. But I think one can make a reasonable case for its being in all our interests to work for universal human rights and basic welfare. This concern for the underlying standards of society is a bit like democracy: it's obvious that democracy is deeply flawed as a way of organising society, but it beats the alternatives.

Radcliffe Emerson

Humanism to some degree offsets racial prejudices that have largely been started over the centuries due to monotheistic religious opinions about other races.
Humanists value people as people, at least the ones I know.
We don't think about someone being black, or red, yellow, whatever, we just see people as people.
Virtually all of the bigotry I've experienced over the years has come from people expressing Christian religious ideas behind their racial opinions.
I'm sure there are some who consider themselves humanist who may be prejudiced. I just don't experience that nearly to the degree I've seen with Christians in my lifetime.