h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

As far as I can tell humanism is supposed to be religion stripped off any notion of God(?) In overturning religion, humanism tries to salvage the baby from the bathwater ... in the sense of the baby being a set of human moral values ... and seeks to uphold a set of "human" moral values (?).

However in the media and elsewhere, including in the community, I see no evidence of humanists nor humanist organisations and structures that work in the community or attempt to make "a difference" in the community.

So has humanism failed?

Furthermore, in the absence of religion - is humanism actually needed?

As far as I can tell from the British Humanist Association http://humanism.org.uk/ humanists decide their own morals based on respect for others, empathy and compassion. I don't think they actively go out into the community looking for people. I think the fact there's no obvious evidence of them doing anything to help society doesn't mean they're not.

My only dealing with humanism really was my husband's funeral. The funeral director put us in touch with them as we didn't want a religious service. The "minister" spent a lot of time, not only with me but with other family members, to find out who Jeff was and that really came across at the funeral. There was a lot of remembrance, and laughter, and he would have been pleased at how it went.

According to their quiz, I'm 83% humanist. This doesn't surprise me. I did think it was quite a respectful quiz though. I did it again as if I believed in god and got the result I was 16% humanist, I definitely had a religious faith and humanism is not for me. That to me is a very good thing, because the acceptance of other opinions is all part of respect & empathy for others.

In response to your final question, I think humanism is needed, but only as a way to navigate those formal occasions like funerals where the only other option is often the church.

Deb

I don't think humanism has failed.

What I do think is that the term is often misused as a synonym for 'atheism', or perhaps 'secularism', when it really entails a bit more than that.

I don't think it has: I'm not sure how a philosophy/moral code could fail. It's a set of ideas, it doesn't have an agenda.

The only experience I've had with humanism is at a mates funeral last year and I was very impressed: their service was very heartfelt, warm and (for want of a better word) real. It struck me as the kind of thing I'd want for myself when I go.

The only other time humanism has cropped up on my radar was a couple of years ago when the BHA seemed to be picked stupid fights.

Maybe we're defining the term too narrowly. For example a lot of people do voluntary work motivated by a desire to help people or to do good in the community. That's a humanistic motivation, whether or not they identify as humanists or belong to a group like the British Humanist Association.

It seems that the question is whether or not we need to introduce
a capital H kind of Humanism, an organised and recognised system
to replace the established sky-fairy religions with a human-centric,
secularist, socialist and naturalist philosophy.

To which I would have to say, where do I sign up! And would anyone
mind if I skipped the weekly meetings and had a lie in? I've spent
most of my life sleeping in on Sunday mornings to avoid the mass
communal hypocrisies. This served me well and now that I am retired
I have extended the policy to include 7 days a week. Perhaps a new
Humanism will canonise me for my dedication and devotion. Not that
I would ever believe I am more Human than Thee.


~jwf~

If I introduce the words 'left wing hippy crap' to the conversation here, am I going to be shouted at?

B

There's no reason humanism has to be atheist, incidentally, or left-wing, or hippy.

But hey, don't let the facts get in the way.

Shout? At someone expressing their opinion? At h2g2?
Never!!



Trouble with any organisation is the way it inevitably comes
to be self-serving to its most devoted adherents.

In my younger days, after examining the assorted philosophies
of the whirled, I coulda been happy to be called an Epicurean.

But it was hi-jacked by those who focused only on the higher
delights of sensuality, developing a hideous form of snobbery,
an Us vs Them, highbrow elitism that redefined an epicure as a
member of some selective, exclusive, highly discriminating club
qualified to dictate on matters of taste beyond the ken of the
average Joseph.


~jwf~

B >> If I introduce the words 'left wing hippy crap' to the conversation here, am I going to be shouted at? <<

Does that mean you yourself do not subscribe to humanist principles and that you consider humanism to be not needed in the absence of religion?

Deb >> According to their quiz, I'm 83% humanist. This doesn't surprise me. I did think it was quite a respectful quiz though. I did it again as if I believed in god and got the result I was 16% humanist <<

Do you have a link to their quiz? I am surprised that "believing in a god" resulted in "not being humanist (i.e. 16%)" ... so in your view would you say believing in a god means you cannot be a humanist?

In Renaissance art, humanism was a departure from the static, two-dimensional depictions in Medieval Art. It turned the viewer's focus away from the spiritual and toward the real, three-dimensional world. It existed in other realms as well, and set in motion a more general willingness of the population to question and challenge the pronouncements that clergymen had been giving for more than a millennium. The little trickle of questioning and challenging has grown into a torrent over the centuries.

Nowadays, most of us expect scientists to tell us how the world began and how the universe works. If we experience emotional turmoil, we're apt to ask the psychiatric profession to help us. Faith healing? There's still some of that, but doctors nowadays seem to have a lot more skill than doctors of the Middle Ages. On every one of these issues, however, there are people who wish to turn back the tide. There are Intelligent Design people who insist that the world was created by God about 5,000 years ago. The dinosaur bones that get dug up were put there to confuse modern scientists. Pastoral counseling is supposed to be just as good as psychiatry, except in the case of homosexuality, where it sometimes claims to have found a "cure." Every so often, you hear about parents who get sentenced to prison for using prayer instead of medical care for their sick children.

Secular humanism is the bogeyman that a number of conservative religious people rage against, but it isn't really supposed to be a religion at all. It's just an approach to understanding the world in a better way. We're human, and we live in the world.

>> Secular humanism is the bogeyman that a number of conservative religious people rage against <<

I didn't have Mu B down as a conservative religious person, conservative neoliberal maybe, but not religious.

Interesting what you say about art, considering in Islam I believe art is restricted to the non-figurative. However realistic art can also be used to promote religious devotion, in the depiction of biblical scenes ... The Last Supper, Martyrdom of St Sebastian, The Creation of Adam / Cistine Chapel.

I don't think you can use the rather perjorative term of having "failed" unless you evaluate whether it has acheieved what it set out to do.

I'm not religious - if I had to I suppose I could describe myself as a humanist, but I rarely need to describe myself in those terms. Many people dont attend regular church services, but still expect to be there for christenings, weddings and funerals. Non-religious versions of these milestones are more and more common, but is that the result of customer-led demand, or the Humanist society encouraging more take-up?

I've come across humanist funerals, and those do give the attendees the satisfation and closure of an actual event. I've also seen on the telly humanist "services" with songs and the like. The "There's probably no God" bus slogans were pretty visible for a while, and at least got some people thinking and discussing.

Stone Aart: "Deb >> According to their quiz, I'm 83% humanist. This doesn't surprise me. I did think it was quite a respectful quiz though. I did it again as if I believed in god and got the result I was 16% humanist <<

Do you have a link to their quiz?"

My link in Post 2 takes you to the Humanism home page - the link to the quiz is right there on that page.

"I am surprised that "believing in a god" resulted in "not being humanist (i.e. 16%)" ... so in your view would you say believing in a god means you cannot be a humanist?"

My full sentence was "I did it again as if I believed in god and got the result I was 16% humanist, I definitely had a religious faith and humanism is not for me." I thought it was clear that that was the quiz result and not my view, so sorry for the confusion. I intended to back up why I thought the quiz was quite respectful to believers in a god.

Whether or not you can be a humanist if you believe in a god, I don't know. The site states that humanists use "science instead of religion" as a means of understanding the world, which does seem to indicate it's either one or the other. But it depends how rigidly you want to define things. Labels are always a bit restrictive.

Although I do think there's a label for religious people trying to dictate how other people live their lives based on the teachings of their god. They're Meanies. This group also includes those people who talk about relgious people believing in sky fairies.

The motto I try to live to is "That it harm none, do as you will, and respect the right of everyone else to do the same". I'm not saying I always succeed, but I try.

The other motto to live by is, of course "Party on Dudes"

Deb

The Wikipedia article on humanism is actually pretty good for giving an idea of how broad "humanism" can be - including religious humanists.

Humanism has been around since the Rennaisance.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/

I occasionally get out to see them locally.




Variations on a theme, "The Agnostics Song"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPSlYHCMsrg

...I don't care...

Oh my, where to start with this one?

POST 2/15 - As far as I can tell from the British Humanist Association http://humanism.org.uk/ humanists decide their own morals based on respect for others, empathy and compassion.

Isn't that what everyone does? Isn't that what morals ARE?

99.9% of the time it's not even possible to empathise with - or be compassionate about - everybody in any case.

Let's not get started on the Humanist quiz. What are we SUPPOSED to answer? Most religious subscribees would answer with the 'humanist' answers.

And having a Youtube video of Cousin It there on your front page is hardly likely to shake off the hippy stereotype now, is it?

POST 4 - The only experience I've had with humanism is at a mates funeral last year and I was very impressed: their service was very heartfelt, warm and (for want of a better word) real. It struck me as the kind of thing I'd want for myself when I go.

Because CofE is well known for their cold, heartless and surreal funerals, of course.

I'm not saying a surreal funeral would be a bad thing, mind you. I'd definitely want to go in the most surreal way popular.

I've been to a humanist wedding, which has admittedly prejudiced my views somewhat (although the website did nothing to reverse that). Field, river-bank, flowers, choir of pixies etc etc. Ghastly.

POST 5 - Maybe we're defining the term too narrowly. For example a lot of people do voluntary work motivated by a desire to help people or to do good in the community. That's a humanistic motivation, whether or not they identify as humanists or belong to a group like the British Humanist Association.

So rather than 'humanist', perhaps just 'human'? Or 'nice'?

POST 6 - It seems that the question is whether or not we need to introduce
a capital H kind of Humanism, an organised and recognised system
to replace the established sky-fairy religions with a human-centric,
secularist, socialist and naturalist philosophy.

I would have thought that the whole point behind an organised religion is to try to justify and enlighten the experience of its devotees, using whatever fanciful story-telling is necessary. You can't justify your existence by saying 'the whole point of existence is to be human'. This is essentially a contradiction in terms. Plus it will really upset a lot of animal rights groups.

Seriously, though, it seems to share a common trait with all major religions in that the Universe is somehow human-centric and was put there just to benefit us. I can only see this as unspeakably arrogant.

POST 10 - Does that mean you yourself do not subscribe to humanist principles and that you consider humanism to be not needed in the absence of religion?

Bingo! Give that man a goldfish.

POST 12 - In Renaissance art, humanism was a departure from the static, two-dimensional depictions in Medieval Art. It turned the viewer's focus away from the spiritual and toward the real, three-dimensional world. It existed in other realms as well, and set in motion a more general willingness of the population to question and challenge the pronouncements that clergymen had been giving for more than a millennium. The little trickle of questioning and challenging has grown into a torrent over the centuries.

This is interesting, not least because I remain utterly ignorant of art history. Is the implication that humanists need to be more questioning and less lovey-dovey? Or ARE they actually more questioning and are just suffering from a bad image?

POST 13 - I didn't have Mu B down as a conservative religious person, conservative neoliberal maybe, but not religious.

Neoliberal-ish, with elements of ruthless capitalism. But broadly correct.

POST 17 - Humanism has been around since the Rennaisance.

No, the word has. That's what Paul pointed out. The word 'punk' has also been around since the renaissance but unless the Ramones were professing to be a bunch of prostitutes, it has changed meanings as well. I would like to think we've progressed beyond posting website links as literal fact, but never mind.

---

In summary, I can't get past the impression that humanism is something dreamt up to protect people who didn't want to subscribe to a religion but were generally not self-sufficient or self-reliant enough to exist without the protective umbrella of ignorance that a religion affords. Either that or they didn't want to be a Dawkinist. Which, frankly, is very commendable given that he is now more arrogantly fundamentalist than the people he is attacking.

B

I see it more as a broad term which includes a lot of different philosophies. Like nationalism, for instance. It's an umbrella term which isn't synonymous with "nice" or "human".

In a similar way, think of the word "materialism". Some people equate that with selfish acquisitiveness, but it has many more varieties than that.

Deb: >> As far as I can tell from the British Humanist Association http://humanism.org.uk/ humanists ... According to their quiz ... <<

I had a look at their quiz and would like to argue with the person who designed it as I am wondering whether or not it might be a bit "rubbish". It's supposed to be an "Are You A Humanist" test, but I found many of the questions irrelevant to whether or not one is a Humanist and more relevant to whether or not you fit a certain "religious" stereotype. It's not surprising that you found that according to their test you cannot be religious and humanist as it seems to be fixed accordingly. The quiz lacks transparency and I suspect it has an underlying agenda perhaps linked to a certain ideology. Anyway that is my first thoughts on their quiz. Of course this is just my opinion