beastmaster

Actually, Humanism doesn't fit everybody.

A Fundamentalist Xn will say, for example, that consensual anal sex between adults is sinful, irrespective of the absence of harm to humans, because it is an affront to God. Thus, the Fundie is a Non-Secular Non-Humanist.

Likewise, a Secular Deep Ecologist is not a Humanist because the Deep Ecologist regards the ecosystem at large as a moral end unto itself.

pariah

I don't see anything 'wrong' with humanism, but I must ask--what is the purpose? To me, it seems like a secular replacement for religion...something that gives people a hope. Or am I wrong in thinking that?

southernhybrid

In some ways it does replace religion in that it gives people of similar beliefs and values a way to unite, socialize and be community activists. It doesn't necessarily give one hope but it can be a place to seek support. Unlike most religions, it's principles are not static but progress over time.

Unlike religion, humanism has no dogma, merely ideas and prinicples which may be open to individual interpretation. As an atheist I enjoy being a new member of a humanist group. It fills the community void that many atheists feel at times. So, I would say there are some similarities to the support system that one often finds in a church. I tend to think of it as more of a positive philosophy shared with other like minded people.

While members of the AHA are nontheists, not all nontheists are attracted to the philosophy of humanism. If you want to be especially perverse, you could claim that humanism is a sect of atheism.

While it's difficult to get atheists to agree on much, one of the benefits of joining a group like AHA is it gives us the potential to develop more political power. That is one of my personal motivations for joining. Why do you think the conservative Xians have so much political power? They are very organized and sadly we are not.

Doctor X

I will take this moment to confess that I have always found secular humanist a silly term.

I first heard of it from the ilk of Jerry Falwell. I perceived it as an insult--much like calling a Jew a "Christ Killer" or a European "French"--devised by the fundamentalists to smear others. It also seemed to reduce rational thought to a "religion"--secular humanism--which thereby equated it with other religions by fiat.

Imagine my disappointment to know that this was not the case.

Why does any rational man have to be an "ist?"

--J.D.

Eudaimonist

I'd say instead that it is a way of thinking about human values and their ethical purpose. Christianity says, more or less, that their ethical purpose is to serve God, and that this is how one finds joy in life with the comforting knowledge that one is doing the right thing. Humanism is very similar, but says instead that they are to serve "the greater good of humanity".

I think that having a sense of the ultimate purpose of one's actions is something that people need emotionally. Without this, one feels that one's values have no real meaning or don't fit within a comprehensive picture of life. Humanism provides that big picture.

Personally, I could never consider myself a humanist because of all this emphasis on "serving the greater good of humanity". While I respect other human beings and wish them well, I don't view myself as their servant. I tend to think more in terms of focusing on self-actualization and the ethical pursuit of personal happiness, which I believe has the beneficial "side-effect" of making life more pleasant for others.

sodium

Well, I think these are really two different uses of the word "Humanist". Neither is really right or wrong, word meaning depends on how it is used. But my hope is that the general negative perception of atheists will cause you theistic "humanists" to want to give up the term as it becomes more associated with us atheistic humanists. Just the way people don't say they're gay anymore when they mean that they're happy.

But you're right that some religionists use the term. I'm sure I've heard the Pope say he's a humanist, right before he advocates some policy to increase human misery for the greater glory of God. Presumably he has yet another definition of "humanist" in mind.

emotional

No, I wouldn't want to give up the term "humanist". It fits well. But that point is taken, and I do qualify it when I state my stance. I'm a Deist first, spiritualist second and humanist third.

There were humanists long before the advent of modern atheism. Renaissance Christians were among the prominent humanists.

The only qualms I have about humanism is that it's such an un-evolutionary concept. But although I care about the other species and the environment, the only species I can really relate to is my own.