Humanism: On what basis they believe what they believe?

[Shadow Wolf]

Liberal Christianity was the mother of Humanism, as such there is practically no difference between them.

Just because they may look the same doesn't mean they are related. We can actually find earlier predecessors of what we would call Humanism in cultures around the world, with many predating Christianity, and the modern concept of Humanism we know today came about from the Enlightenment era and it was harshly attacked by the church. Thomas Paine was even one of the earlier proponents of modern Humanism, and he was certainly no friend of the church.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Some say 'god', the others say 'reason', ultimately though if you pretty much want the same thing then what is the point of pretending that one is better than the other?

Humanism is a distinct split from from believing the divine will take care of us and advance our causes to believing in our own abilities as humans and that it is up to us to take care of each other and to develop ourselves. It's not at all "some say god while others say reason" is the since that a Universalist would say "some say Allah, some say Krishna," because Humanism is a secular movement. Thus, there is no god at the core of it.

 

[gnostic]

I'm of the opinion that science and logic can and should be in the business of informing morality. Why should morality be something that allows for no expertise? I understand that traditionally morals aren't in science's wheelhouse, I just think that should change.

There is science to morality, known by its larger broader term - "social science".

Morality don't meet with any branch of formal science (like mathematics), physical science (like physics, chemistry), life science ( biology), etc.

Human behaviour and human emotion are not precise enough.

Social science can have different fields like psychology, sociology, political science, anthropology, etc.

 

[paarsurrey]

I don't see any new good concept in Humanism about humanity that has not already been put forward by Religion. Right?
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

The opinion is of an individual, world-view as the word suggests encompasses the people of the whole world is not an opinion of an individual.
Regards

In that case, Humanism is a worldview.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't see any new good concept in Humanism about humanity that has not already been put forward by Religion. Right?
Regards

In Humanism, it's that humans are capable of moving on and bettering ourselves without god.

 

[paarsurrey]

In Humanism, it's that humans are capable of moving on and bettering ourselves without god.

Religion also does not hamper humans from moving on and bettering ourselves.
Regards

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Religion also does not hamper humans from moving on and bettering ourselves.
Regards

Lol. Try cracking open a history book and you'll see how wrong you are.

 

[George-ananda]

But doesn't humanism promote free-thought?

So does good religion. You choose to believe as the result of free-thought. That is how I came to my religion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Religion also does not hamper humans from moving on and bettering ourselves.
Regards

Except that religion does things with god. Humanism does things without. The driving forces behind the two are as different as AC and DC.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

So does good religion. You choose to believe as the result of free-thought. That is how I came to my religion.

If you did so from free-thought then can you provide me with what religion it is and what was your logic for coming to it?

 

[George-ananda]

If you did so from free-thought then can you provide me with what religion it is and what was your logic for coming to it?

Haven't we been through this just recently? Yes. I told you it took hundreds of hours of free-thought study and deliberation. And then I gave you the synopsis two times and I am not doing it a third time. Watch out, my memory is not bad.

 

[Taylor Seraphim]

Haven't we been through this just recently? Yes. I told you it took hundreds of hours of free-thought study and deliberation. And then I gave you the synopsis two times and I am not doing it a third time. Watch out, my memory is not bad.

Sorry, I get similar claims from a lot of different people and I can lose track.

If you gave it 2 times already I obviously do not find it credible.

 

[George-ananda]

If you gave it 2 times already I obviously do not find it credible.

I'm shocked

 

[Augustus]

Because reason is a reliable and objective thing.

"god" is not because it is subjective and changes on human fancy.

Humanism is nowhere near being 'objective', it is a cultural construct. It's like children arguing over who has the best imaginary friend.

'Reason' is also neither reliable nor objective. It aims to be, but humans are nowhere near intelligent enough to get even close to that target. Unfortunately, their hubris makes them think they are much smarter than they are. Neither is 'reason' intrinsically good, Soviet communism was based on 'reason' as was scientific racialism, eugenics and the invasion of Iraq.

 

[idav]

'Reason' is also neither reliable nor objective.

This is correct, but more because reason and logic are only as objective as the premises the logic stands on.

 

[idav]

Humanism is a philosophical construct that attempts to use secular means to assign importance to humans and our endeavors in order to strive for common values that we might actually agree on.

 

[Augustus]

Just because they may look the same doesn't mean they are related. We can actually find earlier predecessors of what we would call Humanism in cultures around the world, with many predating Christianity, and the modern concept of Humanism we know today came about from the Enlightenment era and it was harshly attacked by the church. Thomas Paine was even one of the earlier proponents of modern Humanism, and he was certainly no friend of the church.

There might well be things that resemble humanism in other cultures, but that still doesn't change where the Humanism we have now came from.

Humanism didn't just appear from nowhere during the enlightenment, it was simply the final step on a continuous journey: Christian humanist reformers like Erasmus, the Quaker movement, deism etc.

Humanism is a distinct split from from believing the divine will take care of us and advance our causes to believing in our own abilities as humans and that it is up to us to take care of each other and to develop ourselves. It's not at all "some say god while others say reason" is the since that a Universalist would say "some say Allah, some say Krishna," because Humanism is a secular movement. Thus, there is no god at the core of it.

The way many liberal Christians (and people of other faiths) live their life is functionally no different to the way Humanists live their life.

If 2 people have ideologies that make them think and act in almost the same way then I don't really see the point in considering one superior to the other based on a technicality.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't see any new good concept in Humanism about humanity that has not already been put forward by Religion. Right?
Regards

So what?

 

[Sunstone]

'Reason' is also neither reliable nor objective. It aims to be, but humans are nowhere near intelligent enough to get even close to that target. Unfortunately, their hubris makes them think they are much smarter than they are. Neither is 'reason' intrinsically good, Soviet communism was based on 'reason' as was scientific racialism, eugenics and the invasion of Iraq.

What do you mean by "reason"? How are defining that term? And what do you see as the relationship of your definition of "reason" to "reason" as valued in humanism?