No, it isn't, but I don't care to repeat myself any more.
Then you haven't understood it.
Irrelevant to the discussion at hand - at least my half of it.
Why would they after all? Their mythos had no room for such concepts, as did their empiricism and scepticism. It took someone irrational to believe in something that is obviously untrue: we don't say all pigs are created equal and born with innate rights. Humans are not exceptional from any scientific perspective, we are just animals.
What is exceptional about us is our ability to create myths, stories and narratives that explain the world we live in. These myths affect all aspects of the way we interact with the world we live in for better or for worse.
These myths develop into cultures and world views which make people behave and think differently (as you see when you travel the world), and become internalised to the extent that people are not even aware of where many fundamental ideas in their society came from (and often think they are universal or simply 'common sense').
These beliefs make certain things possible and certain things impossible. For example, there is no concept of 'honour killing' in contemporary Northern European culture as they are not an honour based society. Self effacing humour in public is not really possible in societies that place a high values on 'face'.
Would you agree that culture and worldview make certain beliefs and ideologies possible, and others impossible (or at least highly unlikely)?
Do you believe that 'inside we are all pretty much the same', or that across times and cultures there is a wide diversity of ways of thinking? For example would you see the pre-modern mind as being very different to the modern one in how it sees the world?
DO you believe reason and empathy when governing human behaviour and morals depend on the myths we tell ourselves (i.e the ideologies we hold)?
It actually has a very narrow appeal throughout history though, pretty much limited to the modern West.
Go back in time and try to explain it in most societies and it would make no sense.
"Mr Caesar sir, don't you realise you have a duty of care to the barbarians?"
"Why is that?"
"We are all part of a common Humanity and are born with inalienable rights that you shouldn't violate"
""
"Mr Aurelius sir, if we all work together we can solve humanity's problems through our collective reason. Our world will keep on gradually getting better and better for ever"
"Hubris is neither wise nor virtuous my dear chap, one cannot conquer fate. One must have the moral courage to live knowing the world is beyond their control and understanding. That is what it means to be a man."
You are consistently making the mistake of choosing how you think Christianity ought to be defined and conceptualised in a normative sense, rather than looking at how specific people interpreted it in the past in a positive sense. You are also saying that because Christian A believes X, then Christian B can't believe Y.
Seeing as you are unwilling to accept a Christian theologian reasoning directly from scripture and explicitly stating his reasoning as being evidence for even a quantum of Christian influence though, it is unlikely you will consider the more subtle influences as having any impact whatsoever. I believe that culture has a big impact on ways people think though and that European culture cannot be neatly abstracted from its Christian (and Greek and Roman, etc.) influences.
Even if the influences were 'anything but Christianity', would you at least agree that: Universalism, Humanity, Progressive history & Rights that derive simply from existence are necessary for Humanism to exist and that they are not found in the vast majority of human societies throughout history?
Like I mentioned before, you can't have a concept of honour killing without an honour based society. If you are anything like me you can't even imagine how people who carry out honour killings must think and reason. I certainly can't empathise with them in any way or put myself in their shoes. Their actions are 'rational' according to their own worldview though, and can be motivated by empathy (for the family rather than the victim of course).
Would you also agree that just as honour killing makes no conceptual sense to you, many of the ideas on which Humanism is based would make no conceptual sense to people in most historical societies?
These topics interest you more than me. You keep coming back to them.- Greeks, Buddhists. It's about Christianity and humanism. Other topics are digressions.
Humanism is not an offshoot of Christianity, and owes it nothing, although the reverse is not true. That is my position. That is what I have been discussing. You have posted nothing to make me think otherwise.
But I have been forced to review my thoughts in the process - thoughts that have become more explicit in the process. I haven't had to make these arguments before.Today, I can make them more quickly and comprehensively.
What has your experience been like? Do you also feel like you made a case that your collocutor could not or did not refute? I would presume so.
