Humanism

[brightlights]

I find that at least some goodness (specifically in the sense of a desire to be a good person) does come naturally, or at least appears to do so. It's possible that this is the result of good parenting.

Acting good in some situations may be difficult if greater courage than I am currently capable of is required.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It requires a lot of effort to be other-focused at the expense of self. Being self-focused at the expense of others is easy. Do you disagree?

 

[Eudaimonist]

It requires a lot of effort to be other-focused at the expense of self. Being self-focused at the expense of others is easy. Do you disagree?

I disagree. Both are trivially easy. One of the easiest things that one can do is to give up one's own values.

It is being self-focused in ways that don't involve the expense of others that is difficult, because that means that you have to earn your values.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[brightlights]

I disagree. Both are trivially easy. One of the easiest things that one can do is to give up one's own values.

It is being self-focused in ways that don't involve the expense of others that is difficult, because that means that you have to earn your values.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Are you a parent?

 

[brightlights]

Also, the Christian faith would claim that being self focused is always at the expense of others.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't see how you get this out of what I had written. Just because I disagree with your understanding of humanism, that doesn't mean that I can -- or try to -- justify whatever I like. I have a consistent view of humanism.



How did we get on the subject of religious humanism?

It is not my view that secular humanism and religion humanism are very different philosophically. The main difference seems to be whether the trappings of religion are involved or not. The religious humanists would, for instance, build temples to reason, in which rituals upholding and reinforcing their values would be performed. Secular humanism dispenses with religious rituals.

Are you perhaps asking about Christian humanism?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Do you have an example of such practice? I never know one. Why would humanists want to have a "temple"? Is an apartment or a normal house a temple?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Are you a parent?

No, but I have experience spending money to support someone. I do know what it is like to be "burdened" with someone else. But let's not make this a discussion about my past.

Also, the Christian faith would claim that being self focused is always at the expense of others.

If so, Christian ethics is seriously flawed.

But I do have to point out here that I'm not speaking for humanists on ethics. Humanists tend to have views closer to August Comte's altruism.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Do you have an example of such practice? I never know one.

There are plenty of examples mentioned here:

Religious humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The earlest example I know of is this:

Cult of Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note also August Comte's religion of humanity, which has this temple in Brazil.

And I believe this chapel as well:

Why would humanists want to have a "temple"?

Why wouldn't they? It's a place to assemble and carry out any meetings, sermons, ceremonies, or aesthetic appreciation specific to their values and worldview. A temple doesn't have to involve the worship of a deity.

Note the following Wikipedia information about Comte's Religion of Humanity:

The Religion of humanity was described by Thomas Huxley as "Catholicism minus Christianity".[2] In addition to a holy trinity of Humanity, the Earth and Destiny, it had a priesthood. Priests were required to be married, because of the ennobling influence of womanhood. They would conduct services, including Positivist prayer, which was "a solemn out-pouring, whether in private or in public, of men's nobler feelings, inspiring them with larger and more comprehensive thoughts." The purpose of the religion was to increase altruism, so that believers acted always in the best interests of humanity as a whole. The priests would be international ambasadors of altruism, teaching, arbitrating in industrial and political disputes, and directing public opinion. They should be scholars, physicians, poets and artists. Indeed all the arts, including dancing and singing should be practiced by them, like bards in ancient societies.

My views are quite a bit different than Comte's, but I personally would love to see temples built to philosophical ideals, which actually makes me closer to a religious humanist than a secular one.

(Although my ethical views are perhaps a little unusual for humanists, so I don't normally call myself any kind of humanist.)

Is an apartment or a normal house a temple?

I personally would not consider someone's residence a temple, although a room set aside in someone's home could be a chapel.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Well of course it is only an assumption but it is better then putting faith in people still. That is the point of it

Why is it better? It seems like many religions deify all the good things about human beings while humanising all the bad things.

 

[juvenissun]

There are plenty of examples mentioned here:

Religious humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The earlest example I know of is this:

Cult of Reason - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note also August Comte's religion of humanity, which has this temple in Brazil.

And I believe this chapel as well:

Why wouldn't they? It's a place to assemble and carry out any meetings, sermons, ceremonies, or aesthetic appreciation specific to their values and worldview. A temple doesn't have to involve the worship of a deity.

Note the following Wikipedia information about Comte's Religion of Humanity:

The Religion of humanity was described by Thomas Huxley as "Catholicism minus Christianity".[2] In addition to a holy trinity of Humanity, the Earth and Destiny, it had a priesthood. Priests were required to be married, because of the ennobling influence of womanhood. They would conduct services, including Positivist prayer, which was "a solemn out-pouring, whether in private or in public, of men's nobler feelings, inspiring them with larger and more comprehensive thoughts." The purpose of the religion was to increase altruism, so that believers acted always in the best interests of humanity as a whole. The priests would be international ambasadors of altruism, teaching, arbitrating in industrial and political disputes, and directing public opinion. They should be scholars, physicians, poets and artists. Indeed all the arts, including dancing and singing should be practiced by them, like bards in ancient societies.

My views are quite a bit different than Comte's, but I personally would love to see temples built to philosophical ideals, which actually makes me closer to a religious humanist than a secular one.

(Although my ethical views are perhaps a little unusual for humanists, so I don't normally call myself any kind of humanist.)



I personally would not consider someone's residence a temple, although a room set aside in someone's home could be a chapel.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Thanks.

So, it is only a difference on the building, for the matter of psychology. If you can get access to an awesome temple, you will use it. Right? So it is also a matter of $$$.

Content-wise, is there any difference between secular humanism and religion humanism? Does secular humanism discuss religion issues? Or is there a true difference in ideology?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Content-wise, is there any difference between secular humanism and religion humanism?

As far as I can tell, secular humanism arose from religious humanism. There isn't any substantial difference in philosophical content. The seculars simply decided to drop the religious aspects of religious humanism.

Does secular humanism discuss religion issues?

I'm sure that secular humanists discuss religion frequently, but don't like the religious aspect of religious humanism, and are overwhelmingly atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

As far as I can tell, secular humanism arose from religious humanism. There isn't any substantial difference in philosophical content. The seculars simply decided to drop the religious aspects of religious humanism.



I'm sure that secular humanists discuss religion frequently, but don't like the religious aspect of religious humanism, and are overwhelmingly atheists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Please tell me one example of it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Please tell me one example of it.

Secular humanists don't build temples. This is pretty much by definition, but clearly secular humanists generally don't want to head in that direction.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Secular humanists don't build temples. This is pretty much by definition, but clearly secular humanists generally don't want to head in that direction.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I still don't see the difference between secular humanism and religion humanism. Having temple or not is not one.

My guess is that secular humanists WANT to be different. But first, they don't know how (except not having a temple), and second, they are actually not be able to be different.

If you asked me a key question, could you tell if I am a secular humanist or a religion humanist by my answer? I guess you can not, even the question is about the temple.

 

[Skavau]

I still don't see the difference between secular humanism and religion humanism. Having temple or not is not one.

My guess is that secular humanists WANT to be different. But first, they don't know how (except not having a temple), and second, they are actually not be able to be different.

If you asked me a key question, could you tell if I am a secular humanist or a religion humanist by my answer? I guess you can not, even the question is about the temple.

You're not a humanist by any means.

You make that clear when you defend slavery.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you asked me a key question, could you tell if I am a secular humanist or a religion humanist by my answer? I guess you can not, even the question is about the temple.

What is your obsession about finding some philosophical difference between religious and secular humanists? I have no idea where you are going with this.

In any case, at Wikipedia, religious humanism is described this way:

Religious humanism is an integration of humanist ethical philosophy with religious rituals and beliefs that center on human needs, interests, and abilities.

Secular humanism rejects the religious rituals and beliefs.

It's as simple as that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

You're not a humanist by any means.

You make that clear when you defend slavery.

That shows I am MORE than a humanist.

 

[Skavau]

That shows I am MORE than a humanist.

That's one way of looking at it.

 

[juvenissun]

What is your obsession about finding some philosophical difference between religious and secular humanists? I have no idea where you are going with this.

In any case, at Wikipedia, religious humanism is described this way:

Religious humanism is an integration of humanist ethical philosophy with religious rituals and beliefs that center on human needs, interests, and abilities.

Secular humanism rejects the religious rituals and beliefs.

It's as simple as that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I am trying to debunk your claim that you are a secular humanist and is not a religion humanist. I think there is no such difference.

If a group of people perform religious ritual and have religious beliefs, then they are NOT humanists. Whatever ritual religion humanists perform, it is not a religious ritual. It is humanistic ritual.

If you don't think so, then give me an example of "religious ritual" which religion humanists perform.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I am trying to debunk your claim that you are a secular humanist and is not a religion humanist.

I've never claimed to be a secular humanist. I don't call myself one.

I've said that I'm closer to being a religious humanist, although I don't consider myself properly a "humanist" due to differences in ethical views.

I think there is no such difference.

Of course there is a difference. There simply isn't much of a difference philosophically. The difference relates to practice.

If a group of people perform religious ritual and have religious beliefs, then they are NOT humanists.

Yes, they certainly can be. There are Christian humanists, for instance.

Whatever ritual religion humanists perform, it is not a religious ritual. It is humanistic ritual.

You are splitting definitional hairs. You personally don't have to consider the rituals of religious humanists fully religious in the sense of theistic. Religious is what they were calling their rituals because they closely resemble religious rituals. I'm just going by their terminology.

If you don't think so, then give me an example of "religious ritual" which religion humanists perform.

I have already shown you a religious ritual that the Cult of Reason performed. It has religious symbolism.

If you wish to learn more, do some research yourself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

I've never claimed to be a secular humanist. I don't call myself one.

I've said that I'm closer to being a religious humanist, although I don't consider myself properly a "humanist" due to differences in ethical views.



Of course there is a difference. There simply isn't much of a difference philosophically. The difference relates to practice.



Yes, they certainly can be. There are Christian humanists, for instance.



You are splitting definitional hairs. You personally don't have to consider the rituals of religious humanists fully religious in the sense of theistic. Religious is what they were calling their rituals because they closely resemble religious rituals. I'm just going by their terminology.



I have already shown you a religious ritual that the Cult of Reason performed. It has religious symbolism.

If you wish to learn more, do some research yourself.


eudaimonia,

Mark

OK, I got it a little. I guess you will call ancestor worship a religion humanism.

But in a sense, it is not humanism. Those people treat their ancestors not as humans, but as gods (who have some attributes of what a god is). It is a religion, not a humanism. They believe the spirit of their ancestors can do something.


I think I have pushed enough and I can draw conclusion now: Humanism is humanism. There is no difference in the core idea between this humanism and that humanism. It is the same as that the Methodist and the Baptist are both Christians. For a humanist, he does not care if a Christian is a Methodist or a Baptist. And as a Christian, I don't think any kind of humanism has any difference.