[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:

Literary 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.

And lots more reading
http://americanhumanist.org/Humanism/What_is_Humanism

[onlooker]

I would say Pops I am referring to Philosophical Humanism

[Ibon]

To hold ourselves accountable.

we need some incentives like consequences in order to do this.

You can organize a kyoto or Rio or Copenhagen event around hoding ourselves accountable to our beloved mother earth putting her back in the center and everyone will leave after the conference feeling smug about the consensus around the cerebral concepts discussed.

But low and behold, afterwards we all go back to the day to day grind of the unsustainable status quo and nothing that we achieved in this consensus can translate into any meaningful change.

Consequences of human overshoot introduces the physical constraints that give structure and backbone to any consensus around prioritizing ecosystems and our biosphere on equal footing as our narcissistic humanism.

We need limits and consequences to give skeletal structure to any consensus, as I have expressed a couple hundred times on these threads.

[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.

The 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.

I dig that.

Although I do understand the problem of the humanist in explaining death to children for example, ditto the very human need for ceremony and marking of milestones; I shy away from any organization that tries to pontificate the Truth.

But in the sense of, again, putting man in the system rather than the purpose of the system, anything other than a god created in our own image with commercial middlemen who translate His wisdom for a profit would be an improvement.
.

[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]

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.

Yes, I wouldn't have to explain myself if you could just separate the word religion from institutions.

When you immerse yourself deeply in the natural world there is a sense of reverence that transcends cerebral and logical analysis. A child knows this. So does anyone who takes their heads out of their cyber asses and allows their over stimulated nervous systems time to reacquaint themselves with the timeless rhythms that are inherent to natural areas.

That timeless rhythm is also surrounding the dying. Present also during birth.

Why have modern humans chosen to drown out the hum of existence with empty distractions?

[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.

Imagine 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.

I think an "ecologist" would disagree with the idea that it is "OK to disagree". I use "ecologist" to mean someone whose philosophy is like Deep Ecology.

Deep ecology's core principle is the belief that the living environment as a whole should be respected and regarded as having certain inalienable legal rights to live and flourish, independent of its utilitarian instrumental benefits for human use.

As I understand it, our task is to understand our place in the environment and to live accordingly. While we may disagree as to the desirability of particular actions, there can be no disagreement on the need to respect the environment and be in ecological harmony. This is a requirement because we ultimately cannot survive outside of our ecological place. I suppose this leads to an apparently ironic view that, in order to flourish, humanity should drastically reduce its numbers and revise its activities.

[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

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.

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/22/atheist ... believers/


Regardless of that, the group is strong, so go ye forth and prosthelytize to the wild-eyed baptist deniers that armageddon is coming on a black horse and he brings famine as the cost of a days food rises to equal a days work for the peasant while the owners revel in wine and oil...

“I looked, and behold, a black horse; and ... a voice in the center of the four living creatures saying,
A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; but do not damage the oil and the wine.”
— Revelation 6:5-6

[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]

LOL, there are maybe three carrots to religion; (i) the explanations, (ii) the group, (iii) the reward.

Well put. I am biased, in that 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." (From Timequake)

There is a basic human conflict here, which Vonnegut exposes ruthlessly. In Christianity, the reward of heaven or eternal life is what the vast majority of Christians are after. This is ironic, given the spirit of Jesus' teachings of selflessness and de-emphasizing status, etc.

I always translated this quote in my mind to be something like "I just try to do the right thing because it IS the right thing, and let the chips fall where they may". (When my mother had alzheimers and her Christian old lady friends would say things like "You will have a crown for taking care of your mother" and I would say (inwardly distressed), "Um, I don't WANT a crown" -- instead of just accepting that, they would ALWAYS say something like (after a pause) "Well, I think you'll get a crown anyway"). Nice -- you'll get "rewarded", even if you don't want anything to do with such a "reward" (and would rather just be left the Hell alone). At least it must make many old ladies feel better.

Clearly religion (for many) fulfills a human need, and clearly in the past it gave some great power and the ability to control many people, but at the end of the day, I'm not convinced organized religion is a net positive, despite how much emotion it stirs up among its constituents and rivals.

[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]

To hold ourselves accountable.

we need some incentives like consequences in order to do this.

You can organize a kyoto or Rio or Copenhagen event around hoding ourselves accountable to our beloved mother earth putting her back in the center and everyone will leave after the conference feeling smug about the consensus around the cerebral concepts discussed.

But low and behold, afterwards we all go back to the day to day grind of the unsustainable status quo and nothing that we achieved in this consensus can translate into any meaningful change.

Consequences of human overshoot introduces the physical constraints that give structure and backbone to any consensus around prioritizing ecosystems and our biosphere on equal footing as our narcissistic humanism.

We need limits and consequences to give skeletal structure to any consensus, as I have expressed a couple hundred times on these threads.

Ibon, those consequneces are coming! Rest assured, there will be consequences. These consequences will not be voluntarily imposed as a means to influence better humanist behavior. Rather, the consequences we'll all be facing are the inevitable flip-side to the decades of easy living we've all taken for granted will persist uninterupted forever. What's the first law of physics? For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Well, we're about to face the reactions to all of the actions we've been making over the past 100+ years of using fossil fuels. There's a flip-side to everything. What's the flip-side to the BAU status quo? Who knows, but we're about to find out.

[Plantagenet]

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."

But what does behaving "decently" actually mean?

To a christian it means taking care of the poor, and doing good works I suppose. I suspect most people here would accept those things are "good".

But to a Muslim on jihad the decent and expected behavior is to kill as many of the infidels as possible and die as a glorious martyr.

To some esoteric Hindu cults decent behavior means eating human corpses dredged up from the Ganges (yes, they actually do that).

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

There is no universal "humanist" doctrine of what is good----the humanist ideals are essentially identical to western christian ideals but without christianity.


Hug a Humanist for Christ

[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]

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."

But what does behaving "decently" actually mean?

Fine. We can make semantic arguments about virtually ALL words and ALL aspects of society and its consequences. And clearly, what is "good" or "decent" will vary wildly due to cultural norms. I certainly do NOT argue that point.

The point I was focusing on, and I honestly believe Vonnegut was focusing on is, that for the non-religious (whether they call themselves humanist, athiest, agnostic, or Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer), the motivation for doing the "decent" thing isn't necessarily for some tangible reward -- the motivation is something else.

Now, for mainstream religions touting heaven and hell (or some facsimile thereof), do you deny a central focus is the carrot/stick? I was initially responding to Pops' (IMO accurate) observation about that aspect of (organized) religion.

[Pops]

But what does behaving "decently" actually mean?

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

Perfect example, thanks Plant.

Obviously it doesn't take a preacher to point out the golden rule, empathy is the central feature of "decency", pity the one who doesn't understand that.

But it does help to have a preacher to gather together a tribe to battle The Other - whoever that might be; we good, they bad. We take care of the poor, they kill infidels and eat babies.

The tribal aspect of religion is a main feature that will be the hardest thing to overcome in building a consensus to protect the environment

There is just no way you can drive that out of our brains, certainly not by invoking the wonder of a speckled nuthatch or whatever
.