Chip

Please enlighten me. Amongst Metaphysical Naturalists I believe there are people who consider themselves humanists, some who would use the phrase “secular humanist” and others who do not consider themselves as humanists. Let’s see if I can break this down further as in the following chart (hope this works):

---------Humanists--------Secular Humanists---------Non-Humanist
Purpose--Humanity------------Some People------Self, Institutions, Nothing

Of course this is very simple and much is lost in the simplification. From the dictionary and encyclopedic entries I’ve seen I come to consider the non-capitalized general understanding for secular humanist as basically an insult upon a humanist by a non-humanist; a religion follower, a national patriot, or other manifestation of sociopath. If one is a true humanist can they also ultimately be secular? I don’t think so. I find “secular humanist” to be an oxymoron. Those who consider themselves as secular humanists, please explain your logic at using this classification to describe yourself. Perhaps those who consider themselves as non-humanist though metaphysical naturalist would grace me with an explanation.

Seems there might be another category that fits within the general classification of metaphysical naturalist. I suppose some humanists might come to a consideration during their life for all the other life of our biosphere. Maybe they would want to see the species diversity index maintained and maximized. Perhaps they would reason that this would be a good thing for humanity and self. I guess the category might be called Lifist, one who’s purpose is the general welfare of all life. I suppose there are lifists who would not classify as humanist but then they would already be included in the above chart under non-humanist, maybe a religious faction. Maybe the new term would be the phrase humanist lifist or how about biospheric humanist? Anybody get the gist of what I’m trying to describe here and offer some help?

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Chip ]

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Chip ]</p>

braces_for_impact

I fail to see what you find illogical and paradoxical about the term "secular humanist". Perhaps if you could elaborate I could as well.

There is an excellent precis on this subject at <a href="http://www.secularhumanism.org" target="_blank">www.secularhumanism.org</a>

I find I agree with a great many of the articles' points. Perhaps there may be too much of an insistence on labels for someone's beliefs? Everyone's own personal worldview seems to me to be unique in one sense, or many. Some merely describe themselves as 'this' or 'that' because in general they believe that the label congruent with their way of thinking.

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

I've always understood that the "secular" part of secular humanism simply means non-religious, as opposed to the religious humanism of past centuries. If you consider humanism to be an effort to put human well-being above other concerns, then secular, non-religious humanism is merely a natural extension of this, putting human well-being above religion.

Chip

Hmmm, seems then that one has to come to an understanding of what religion is to bring more clarity. Is religion ascription to a certain belief, perhaps a strong ascription to a belief? In that case wouldn't the adamant defender of metaphysical naturalism be expressing a religious conviction, adherence to metaphysical naturalism as a religion? In that case, Internet Infidels would have to be considered as a church with its true believers and denouncers of any who question their beliefs as heretics. I dare say, appears that such behavior does happen here.

vixstile

I don't understand what your trying to get across with the above

I still don't understand how or why you find "secular humanism" paradoxical

What is your definition of "secular", "humanism", "secular humanism", and "metaphysical naturalism"

So far I haven't been able to make much sense out of anything you have said.

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: vixstile ]</p>

Chip

So it goes. I do believe that some do begin to understand what I'm getting at. I believe I've been pretty lucid here. Can a believer in god understand the atheist? If you look in many dictionaries and expositions on the concept of secular humanism you find that it does hold a meaning and use that means one is a particular kind of heretic or disbeliever, usually used by a believer of some religion as a brush off "Oh, they're just secular humanists." Do some research of your own. I'm not really trying to share any "rocket science" here.

[ October 26, 2002: Message edited by: Chip ]</p>

vixstile

And at what point is that? I'm obviously not there yet.

Is your criticism based on definitions of 'secular humanism' buy non-secular humanist sources? Do you have any criticism of what actual secular humanist believe?

Research what? Definitions? Criticism of secular humanism?

I don't what you're trying to share.

Ierrellus

I am an asocial humanist. I agree with Jonathan Swift who said that he loved individual humans but hated the human race. IMHO, we are all not far from animal drives which we try to ameliorate with romanitcized gloss. So, where do I fit in the given categories? I want human improvement in acquiring basic necessities and mindset improvements of self-image simply because I am human and am severely attached, genetically, to certain other humans.

PAX

[ October 27, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

Chip

Ierrellus, hmmm, quite thoughtful. Maybe you are a wanna be humanist and maybe that is what I am too. I don't think being unhappy with current social constructs (or lack thereof) would necessarily equate to finding soiciology as ultimately pointless. We still might come up with something that works. I know my web site is quite wordy but I do have a theory about how we might make a viable society at <a href="http://www.ergodicity.org" target="_blank">http://www.ergodicity.org</a> . Could just be a pipe dream.

I'm beginning to think that my understanding of secular humanist might be way too simplistic as stated within the chart above. I have a tough time considering the phrase "secular humanist" in a positive light as I think ascription to it just plays into the hands of those who would deny the efficacy of humanism in general. A humanist might want to disown being a part of these failing experiments we euphemistically call society or civilization right now but accepting the classification of being a secular humanist might mean disowning humanity or could be interpretated that way as a attempt to paint humanism as an untenable conundrum. Implies that "secular humanist" is an oxymoron and I do believe that some do try to use the categorization in that way as an argument against humanism in general.

Ierrellus

I found your website to be very enjoyable and informative. I'm still stuck with Einstein's notion that our knowledge exceeds our sense of morality and Huxley's (Aldous) idea that we are amphibious with feet in the animal/physical world and heads in abstract cyberspace. Yes, I'm a wannabee humanist with not much hope for anything better, pending a holocaust which seems to justify some degree of altruism.

PAX