Common Misconceptions About Humanism

[lilithu]

1. That it is the same as atheism, or incompatible with theism.

2. That is the same as individualism.

3. That it orginated in Western Europe in like the 14th century.

 

[Katzpur]

1. That it is the same as atheism, or incompatible with theism.

2. That is the same as individualism.

3. That it orginated in Western Europe in like the 14th century.

Without posting a link, could you explain these a little further, particularly number 1. I don't know that I'd ever given it all that much thought, but most humanists I've met are atheists.

 

[Valjean]

4. Humanism is an atheistic religion that will lead men to perdition.

 

[Random]

1. That it is the same as atheism, or incompatible with theism.

2. That is the same as individualism.

3. That it orginated in Western Europe in like the 14th century.

Well, if these are common misconceptions about it (Humanism), then what is the acurate view of it according to you, Lil?

 

[lilithu]

Without posting a link, could you explain these a little further, particularly number 1. I don't know that I'd ever given it all that much thought, but most humanists I've met are atheists.

I'm not sure what you mean by links. You mean reference someone else who has also made these statements? Theyre' not facts that can be verified; they'e interpretations of history and partly semantic arguments. My main intent was to generate discussion. Some people will find the statements provocative, which I hoped would generate responses. And some people will be like, 'meh, I already knew that.'

As for number 1. Humanism is not the same as atheism and is not incompatible with theism.

I'll start by saying that every single UU is a humanist, whether we are non-theist or theist.

Humanism affirms the worth of all human beings. That's the bottom line. A humanist approaches everything with the belief in the ability (agency) of humans to make choices (free will) that will promote their own ability to thrive. So when faced with ethical decisions, the humanist conception of what is the "right" or "good" choice is determined by what will protect humans from harm and promote human welfare.

The phrase immortalized by Lincoln "of the people, by the people, and for the people" is a the essential gist of humanism. (And Lincoln paraphrased those words btw from a well known Unitarian theologian and abolitionist at the time, Theodore Parker.)

In terms of the search for truth, it is grounded in the human experience. A humanist trusts human experience above all else. To the extent that "revealed" truths or even truths arrived at through "reason" contradict human experience, they are called into question.

In terms of its compatability with theism, Theodore Parker is one example. Another
would be St Theresa of Avila:

Christ has no body but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world,
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good,
Yours are the hands, with which he blesses all the world.
Yours are the hands, yours are the feet,
Yours are the eyes, you are his body.

She's still speaking very much as a theist, but also a humanist. A humanist theist would not wait for God to act. A humanist theist understands that we have been endowed by God with the ability and the responsibility to act on our own behalf and the behalf of others, and that taking the initiative to act to promote human good is not against God's will but rather IS God's will.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

In terms of its compatability with theism, Theodore Parker is one example. Another
would be St Theresa of Avila:

Christ has no body but yours,
No hands, no feet on earth but yours,
Yours are the eyes with which he looks
Compassion on this world,
Yours are the feet with which he walks to do good,
Yours are the hands, with which he blesses all the world.
Yours are the hands, yours are the feet,
Yours are the eyes, you are his body.

She's still speaking very much as a theist, but also a humanist. A humanist theist would not wait for God to act. A humanist theist understands that we have been endowed by God with the ability and the responsibility to act on our own behalf and the behalf of others, and that taking the initiative to act to promote human good is not against God's will but rather IS God's will.

Just to be clear, from a Christian perspective like that of St. Theresa of Avila, it shoul be pointed out that we absolutely "wait for God to act", although we recognize that this could and even should be through us. Independently of God we can do nothing. Our will neither replaces nor supercedes His.

 

[lilithu]

4. Humanism is an atheistic religion that will lead men to perdition.

Hi Seyorni, lol. thanks for your input. From my perspective this falls under 2. Humanism is the same thing as individualism.

Humanism does not mean "anything goes" or moral relativism. Both the theistic humanist and the non-theistic humanist believe in a greater good. While humanist champion human liberty, such liberty is constrained by the requirements of this greater good.

 

[lilithu]

Just to be clear, from a Christian perspective like that of St. Theresa of Avila, it shoul be pointed out that we absolutely "wait for God to act", although we recognize that this could and even should be through us. Independently of God we can do nothing. Our will neither replaces nor supercedes His.

Of course, but as you say, God's action could or even should be through us. I don't think (and I concede that I'm not Christian) that it's so much a matter of waiting for God to act, as waiting for discernment of God's will. When we act, have we taken the time to discern whether this is really God's will or our own ego/individualism?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Of course, but as you say, God's action could or even should be through us. I don't think (and I concede that I'm not Christian) that it's so much a matter of waiting for God to act, as waiting for discernment of God's will.

I'd say it's some combination of both. There's a point where God can reveal His will to us, but it is only through Him and His empowerment that we can accomplish His purposes.

 

[Sunstone]

That it orginated in Western Europe in like the 14th century.

Where and when did Humanism originate?

 

[lilithu]

Where and when did Humanism originate?

Well in terms of Western society, which which I am most familiar (having grown up in the U.S.) it originated in Judaism. (Or I should say that's where I am aware of the first record of it.) It had been traditionally accepted that whatever the king said was right. That somehow by virtue of their position they could dictate what was moral and what was not. And the prophets of Israel basically said, no way. Even kings are subject to a higher law, and a king can be held accountable when he violates another human being. Witness King David being called to task in his own court for killing Bathsheba's first husband because he wanted her for himself.

If Jay were here, he'd concur. The basis of Judaism is humanistic. Throughout Jewish scripture humans argue with even God. They don't always win the argument but the act of arguing itself is not questioned.

But I don't mean to say that this was the singular starting point. I think the humanist impulse originated in many places independantly. I think that Buddhism is humanist in its emphasis on personal experience over dogma or even reason, and the belief that any human can attain nibbana.

What happened in the 14th century could not have happened without what came before it. The seed of the idea was already there and had been there for centuries, getting better defined over time.

 

[Sunstone]

Do you think the ancient Greeks had anything to do with the origin of Humanism in the West?

 

[lilithu]

Do you think the ancient Greeks had anything to do with the origin of Humanism in the West?

Of course!! But, (and I may be off on my dates) didn't they come after the ancient Hebrews?

 

[eudaimonia]

Well in terms of Western society, which which I am most familiar (having grown up in the U.S.) it originated in Judaism. (Or I should say that's where I am aware of the first record of it.) It had been traditionally accepted that whatever the king said was right. That somehow by virtue of their position they could dictate what was moral and what was not. And the prophets of Israel basically said, no way. Even kings are subject to a higher law, and a king can be held accountable when he violates another human being. Witness King David being called to task in his own court for killing Bathsheba's first husband because he wanted her for himself.

This strikes me as a very weak link. While this might be the earliest recorded instance of humanism in the West, isn't it more likely that it is Greek humanism that is actually responsible for humanism today?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[lilithu]

This strikes me as a very weak link. While this might be the earliest recorded instance of humanism in the West, isn't it more likely that it is Greek humanism that is actually responsible for humanism today?

If you would care to explain why you think the Greeks were more influential, I would be happy to listen.

 

[Sunstone]

Of course!! But, (and I may be off on my dates) didn't they come after the ancient Hebrews?

Dang if I can remember when the Doric invasion was! At any rate, I do recall that by 800 B.C. there were Doric Greeks living in cities along the Agean coast of Asia Minor. And at least one of them is recorded to have formented a rebellion against a king by pointing out that the king was neither a God, nor derived his position from the Gods, but was rather just another man like all men. Scandalous!

 

[Quiddity]

Considering humanism is a component of a variety of philosophical systems, I can't imagine it completely disagreeing or agreeing with theism.

 

[Quiddity]

I thought this was a good read for those interested. It's more of a comparative between Christian Humanism and Secular Humanism.

http://web.archive.org/web/20030604074536/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ513.HTM

~Victor

 

[UnTheist]

Didn't Socrates have something to do with Humanism?

 

[Sunstone]

Didn't Socrates have something to do with Humanism?

Perhaps. But I think Aristotle may have been a greater advocate for a POV that could be considered humanist.