Humanism, opinions please

[nichjake]

Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values—be they religious, ethical, social, or political—have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny. • The Humanist Magazine

There are of course several types of Humanism, some of which are compatible with theism. I consider myself a Secular Humanist. The basic tenents of Secular Humanism as described by wikipedia are

Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
Reason, evidence, scientific method - Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
Fulfillment, growth, creativity - A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

I’ve heard it said several times that Jesus (assuming he existed at all) was a great humanist. If you look at many of his teachings this claim makes sense but of course there are things that don’t quite fit.

I’m curious as to what you’re guy’s take on Jesus as a humanist and humanism in general is.

heres a link to wikipedias page on humanism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

 

[freesoulhope]

There are of course several types of Humanism, some of which are compatible with theism. I consider myself a Secular Humanist. The basic tenents of Secular Humanism as described by wikipedia are

I’ve heard it said several times that Jesus (assuming he existed at all) was a great humanist. If you look at many of his teachings this claim makes sense but of course there are things that don’t quite fit.

I’m curious as to what you’re guy’s take on Jesus as a humanist and humanism in general is.

heres a link to wikipedias page on humanism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

There is a contradiction in humanist philosophy.

Its says that one must search for objective truth, and there for, i assume, inorder for one to be considered a rational being, that person must live only by what we know to be objectively true and proven by science. However the tenents then go on to speak about ethics, and that we must treat eachother in a certain way, as if to say we are obligated as rational beings to be ethical in are socail lives toward eachother. This is all good and well, but In order for this to be the case, it must be “objectively” true, that the “objective world” has an “objective value” apart from are own personal “Subjective” veiw of it. If the world is nothing but pure freakish chance popping out of an inhuman impersonal nothingness, then, objectively, it has no value at all, and any value we place upon it, can only ever be a fallacy that we have made up to suit are selves: a freakish result of evolutionary programing. Therefore Ethics has no place in Humanism, since it requires a belief in something that does not exist.

 

[nichjake]

I don’t see where you’re seeing the contradiction…objectivity isn’t really in the equation. Objectivism can be nice but the humanist philiosophy is entirely subjective…its just that the majority os generally come to the same conclusions when it comes to ethics, daily life and building a better world. Where does it say humanists much search for the objective truth…I must have missed that one :ehh:

Humanists find value in day to day life. I don’t see how thats a fallacy either. Having the mind to see value outside of religious dogmas can be a very useful and valuable thing

I don’t see how ethics don’t belong in humanism either…ethics are simply a code of whats right and wrong and thats what humanism is meant to build through finding the worth and value of people and figuring out the best way to help them and the world around us.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

What do I think of Jesus as a humanist? Not much. Perhaps some of His teachings are similar to some humanist teachings. God gives us the ability to think and to reason. So, it doesn’t surprise me that some humanist teachings might have some similarity with Christian teaching.

What do I think of humanism in general? Too broad a topic, I think, to discuss generally. If some forms of humanism can be made compatible with orthodox Roman Catholicism, I might be more interested. Is that possible?

Also, looking over the basic tenets of secular humanism has me wondering. Do you, or do secular humanists in general, believe that religious persons do not share many of those ideas and goals?

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Perhaps we’re not all that different. Consider the following:

Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion.

Catholicism is also informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. We don’t, however, base our beliefs solely on such worldly things. And we’re not irrational, either.

Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility.

As a Catholic, I am a firm supporter of the Consistent Life Ethic. From the moment of conception to natural death, Roman Catholicism affirms the dignity of the human person. Of course, we believe in freewill, as well as social and planetary responsibility. We just happen to believe that God plays a role in deciding such matters.

It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice.

I’m a big fan of participatory democracy. I don’t know what you mean by an open society, but human rights and social justice are very important in Roman Catholicism.

Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values—be they religious, ethical, social, or political—have their source in human experience and culture.

We believe in God and the supernatural. To my knowledge we do not deny that humans are part of nature and the world we live in. However, the relativism displayed here on values is not shared.

Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny. • The Humanist Magazine

Theological and ideological abstractions appear to play an important role to human need and interest. Therefore, they are a goal of human life, are they not?

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

What is the definition of faith that is used here? It sounds very much like blind faith, which is not a part of Catholicism. Dogmas are not accepted solely based on some blind faith. The history of the Church, particularly the use of councils, will show that discussion, debate, inquiry, etc, have and are used to determine dogma. As for traditions, you’re probably aware that we have man-made traditions and Sacred Traditions from God. Man-made traditions can be changed or abolished. Determining if something is Sacred Tradition requires “weighing and testing.” This is just not done individually.

Reason, evidence, scientific method - Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
Fulfillment, growth, creativity - A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

We use reason and evidence. To my knowledge, we don’t have any problem with the scientific method. This seems to be confusing all forms of faith with only one - blind faith.

Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

Objective truth? Didn’t you just tell freesoulhope that humansit philosophy is subjective?

This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

Nothing here that contradicts Catholicism. We have a concern for this life and for people.

Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

Catholic ethics also take into consideration the well-being of man and also of individual responsibility.

Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

I’m not sure that will work out for you. The world will also have self-centered socipaths who don’t really care about reason, open exchanges, or goodwill. However, nothing there that I disagree with in principle.

 

[nichjake]

Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

Objective truth? Didn’t you just tell freesoulhope that humansit philosophy is subjective?

Okay, there it is. I was overlooking where it said objective truth before. I interpret that to mean the search for it…searching for it doesn’t mean you’re gonna find it and in searching you learn new things and experience things that change what our idea is objective truth is…I think it goes back to the whole “knowledge is power” idea. And it is very subjective because its based on personal knowledge and experience…since individuals don’t know everything and haven’t experienced everything it can only be subjective. A person can be objective within the scope of their knowledge and experience but as a whole their opinion is subjective

Yes, the faith described in the need to test beliefs does sound like blind faith but I think the general definition of faith is what it’s after…which is a confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing that is not based based on logic or material evidence. I take the need to test beliefs to mean that people should weigh and measure dogmas, traditions and ideologies for themselves and come to a conclusion on their own…whatever that conclusion may be.

I think progress can be made for building a better world even with all the self centered people who don’t care about others. Progress may be slow but theres no finite end goal mentioned…just to make things better but it doesn’t speficy how much better or a time frame, any bit of progress made fulfills the idea. The self centered folks just provide resistance and slow things down.

As for your other points…there are a couple of them I don’t agree with but I don’t have the knowledge base to argue the virtues and tenets of Cathocism so I’m not even going to go there, arguing from ignorace is a waste of everyones time…but yes, there are a lot if similarities. I think the largest difference is religious folks generally believe that god has a part in it all while humanism says people are the driving factor (even though it isn’t necessarily saying god either doesn’t or can’t exist). I imagine theres quite a few humanists who are deist…the two seem fairly compatible.

 

[nichjake]

What do I think of humanism in general? Too broad a topic, I think, to discuss generally. If some forms of humanism can be made compatible with orthodox Roman Catholicism, I might be more interested. Is that possible?

Also, looking over the basic tenets of secular humanism has me wondering. Do you, or do secular humanists in general, believe that religious persons do not share many of those ideas and goals?

I’m not sure if compatible with orthodox Roman Catholicsm, I don’t know enough about the specifics of Catholicism to really be able to answer that.

I think a lot of religious people do share the same goals of humanism…its just the means of reaching the reasons for having those goals that are different.

 

[Joab_Anias]

I’m curious as to what you’re guy’s take on Jesus as a humanist and humanism in general is.

For me I think the biggest problem with it is that it fails to care what offends God but instead relies on a naturalist sense of preserving self; though these may be considered one and the same by some.

Jesus cannot be considered a humanist in its strictest sense because though He was concerned with humans as such, His motivation and perfect morality was due to His unity with the will of our heavenly Father which is Love in its essance. Humanists may consider themselves a little like Christ though.

To a disordered perspective, true Love can be perceived as cruel. Such as believing selfishly in self preserving philosophies like the Pagans do or attributing sin to using what God has placed at our disposal even without abuse.

I think natural humanism is only compatible with theism in that the desire for self preservation should lead one to eventually be concerned with Gods will as the best means of doing so.

This is why I would suppose it seeks to exclude faith and mysticism in the human experience and claims as the ancient Greek philosopher that everything should be question and tested by each individual instead of ascending to the consensus of the whole.

Though humanism may borrow from Christian virtues and values it is lacking in that it is devoid of the protection of aspiring to Gods will which alone instills morality, wisdom and proper discernment.

Hard science with its speculations removed proves the existance of God.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Catholicism is also informed by science

There is nothing scientific in catholic beliefs. On the contrary many of its practices are quite unscientific. Like the prohibition of contraception.

 

[AgnosTheist]

I’m curious as to what you’re guy’s take on Jesus as a humanist and humanism in general is.

he wasnt informed by science, nor was he inspired by art. but he sure was motivated by compassion.

close, but no cigar.

 

[Joab_Anias]

There is nothing scientific in catholic beliefs. On the contrary many of its practices are quite unscientific. Like the prohibition of contraception.

Science is at the service of man to inform him on nature and hard science is accepted in the light of morality.

The Church, primarily in the service of God through which it serves man for God presents morality to science to inform science of morality.

They are complimentary so long as science accepts morality.

Moral law must take precidence over the natural lest science becomes modernistic and humanistic.

Contraception is a good example as it saught to deny Gods will which the Church has always stood for.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

There is nothing scientific in catholic beliefs. On the contrary many of its practices are quite unscientific. Like the prohibition of contraception.

That is not correct. Science can not tell us if something is moral, friend. We use science to help us better understand things. It is that simple. Therefore, we are informed by science as well. Do not insult our faith. Thank you.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Okay, there it is. I was overlooking where it said objective truth before. I interpret that to mean the search for it…searching for it doesn’t mean you’re gonna find it and in searching you learn new things and experience things that change what our idea is objective truth is…I think it goes back to the whole “knowledge is power” idea. And it is very subjective because its based on personal knowledge and experience…since individuals don’t know everything and haven’t experienced everything it can only be subjective. A person can be objective within the scope of their knowledge and experience but as a whole their opinion is subjective

I see. Perhaps someone should update that tenet and explain it a little bit better.

Yes, the faith described in the need to test beliefs does sound like blind faith but I think the general definition of faith is what it’s after…which is a confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing that is not based based on logic or material evidence. I take the need to test beliefs to mean that people should weigh and measure dogmas, traditions and ideologies for themselves and come to a conclusion on their own…whatever that conclusion may be.

Isn’t that what faith is? People aren’t born with it. They come into later. I was not born Catholic. Nor am I a cradle Catholic. I converted in my late teens. I “tested and weighed evidence” until reaching my own conclusion.

I think progress can be made for building a better world even with all the self centered people who don’t care about others. Progress may be slow but theres no finite end goal mentioned…just to make things better but it doesn’t speficy how much better or a time frame, any bit of progress made fulfills the idea. The self centered folks just provide resistance and slow things down.

I still think that is too optimistic. Self-centerd sociopaths have, as history has shown, the ability to fool people on a very large scale. Even one of those madmen in power throws a monkey wrench into any plans to better the world.

As for your other points…there are a couple of them I don’t agree with but I don’t have the knowledge base to argue the virtues and tenets of Cathocism so I’m not even going to go there, arguing from ignorace is a waste of everyones time…but yes, there are a lot if similarities. I think the largest difference is religious folks generally believe that god has a part in it all while humanism says people are the driving factor (even though it isn’t necessarily saying god either doesn’t or can’t exist). I imagine theres quite a few humanists who are deist…the two seem fairly compatible.

Which ones don’t you agree with? I could be wrong, after all. Better to bring disagreement to light than to ignore it because you’re not sure.

 

[freesoulhope]

I don’t see how ethics don’t belong in humanism either…ethics are simply a code of whats right and wrong and thats what humanism is meant to build through finding the worth and value of people and figuring out the best way to help them and the world around us.

In otherwords, create a belief that one knows is not objectively true?

Hows is this reasonable? Humanism is not a rational philosophy as it claims; in fact rationality becomes irrelivant and meaningless, since it suggest that people are obligated to think in a certain way, but in the real world, rationality as a modal, does not objectivly exist, if God does not exist.

Humanism is an athiestic fantasy that takes pride in taking advantage of our sense of morality and guilt."
If an Ultimate Good does not exist “objectively” in the real world, then right and wrong does not exist; it becomes meaningless.
To say to somebody that their acts toward somebody is right or wrong, is quite simply a lie.

If there is no objective ultimate good, if there is no God, then everything is permissible, and nobody has any obligation whats-so-ever to be a good person.

Why would one want to be a humanist if one of its most important tenents are obviously false?

Jesus is the Ultimate Perfect Good along with the Father and the Holy Spirit that people should aspire to; existing objectivly in the real world.

 

[nichjake]

In otherwords, create a belief that one knows is not objectively true?

Hows is this reasonable? Humanism is not a rational philosophy as it claims; in fact rationality becomes irrelivant and meaningless, since it suggest that people are obligated to think in a certain way, but in the real world, rationality as a modal, does not objectivly exist, if God does not exist.

Humanism is an athiestic fantasy that takes pride in taking advantage of our sense of morality and guilt."
If an Ultimate Good does not exist “objectively” in the real world, then right and wrong does not exist; it becomes meaningless.
To say to somebody that their acts toward somebody is right or wrong, is quite simply a lie.

If there is no objective ultimate good, if there is no God, then everything is permissible, and nobody has any obligation whats-so-ever to be a good person.

Why would one want to be a humanist if one of its most important tenents are obviously false?

Jesus is the Ultimate Perfect Good along with the Father and the Holy Spirit that people should aspire to; existing objectivly in the real world.

That doesn’t even warrent a legitmate reply…If you can’t see how good can exist outside of your god I’m not going to waste my time on you. And I would think religion enforces the idea that people are supposed to think in a certain way a heck of a lot more than humanism, humanism provides suggestions and ideas…religion provides demands and ulitmatums.

 

[freesoulhope]

humanism provides suggestions and ideas…

It is not my fault that you refuse to see the errors of humanistic philosophy. Google William Lain Craig.

Humanism suggests that something is wrong when objectively such a suggestion is obviously false as i have pointed out. Humanism therefore promotes false-hood, and in respect to Gods nature; this is morally wrong and is against Gods nature. It is Gods nature that defines right and wrong. God doesn’t simply do Good, he is ultimate goodness in its very nature of being; he is the “choice”. If you do not accept this, that is your choice.

You have made no case to free humanism from its apparent falsehood. If you cannot logically prove to me otherwise, its better to admit that, rather then make make rash judgements on Religion and God.

Peace and God Bless.

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

That doesn’t even warrent a legitmate reply…If you can’t see how good can exist outside of your god I’m not going to waste my time on you.

I am curious about how, if there is no objective moral law, can you really decide what is good and bad? Since it is all subjective, how does it have any real meaning? Why should I, in a godless world, be concerned with what others think I should do? I am not trying to insult your beliefs as a humanist, I am genuinely interested in that question.

And I would think religion enforces the idea that people are supposed to think in a certain way a heck of a lot more than humanism, humanism provides suggestions and ideas…religion provides demands and ulitmatums.

That might be the case and it might not, which brings me back to the subjectivity of secular humanism. In Catholicism, the dignity of the human person is non-negotiable. If humanism provides only subjective suggestions and ideas, do not such things as human dignity become subjective and relativistic? That is, not set in stone?

 

[Peregrino]

There is nothing scientific in catholic beliefs. On the contrary many of its practices are quite unscientific. Like the prohibition of contraception.

There ya go again man, pouring salt in the wounds and poking people in the eye…lol

 

[Peregrino]

Jesus is the Ultimate Perfect Good along with the Father and the Holy Spirit that people should aspire to; existing objectivly in the real world.

There is clear evidence against your statement. Even Jesus says he is not all good, and only God deserves that appelation Mark 10:18.

Aside from the fact that Jesus is saying he isn’t “the same as God” here, if we 1) accept the definition that humanism is the search for an objective truth as well as other tenets described above and recognize that 2) Jesus asks us to “be perfect as the father is perfect” (we can assume that Jesus was attempting the same), and 3) accept that we are made in the image of God, I think the case for Jesus being a humanist is fairly strong. Humanism in this sense is a search for God (truth) and a quest for self-perfection as humans. This would naturally include building knowledge through science, research and exploring our humanity through the arts.

If we require a definition that humanism be completely divorced from theism then Jesus was not a humanist.