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

Well, if we've learned nothing about humanism from this thread, at least we've learned about who doesn't want to Ann Widdecombe.

Yep, we're light years in front of Wikipedia.

It seems to me that the B.H.A. have hijacked the concepts of Humanism to advertise their own brand of militant atheism. Dawkins is proud of them - this is them stirring up trouble and discord with their atheist bus campaign. http://humanism.org.uk/about/atheist-bus-campaign/

The B.H.A. Mission Statement: "We work on behalf of non-religious people who seek to live ethical lives on the basis of reason and humanity. We promote Humanism, a secular state, and equal treatment of everyone regardless of religion or belief."

We work on behalf of non-religious people ... regardless of religion of belief. A contradiction in one sentence. Clearly to join the B.H.A. one needs to burn all gods and godly role models at the entrance and then embrace the Dawkins ideology: live life all is merry, something Dr Pangloss would be proud of.

So for me the reason why the B.H.A has failed is because it's exclusive to non-religious folk, treats them as mental defects that need to be cured, and welcomes them into the glory of the neo-liberal secular and globalised society which is currently trashing the earth. Well maybe Who knows maybe I'm wrong.

Mu-B >> 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. <<

I'm not sure it can be said to be unspeakably arrogant (what would we expect from something that is by definition viewing things from a human perspective) but the rest I cannot fault. Basically it seems to me that the B.H.A. is perhaps wanting to provide all the "ritual" services without the God element ... which is fine as long as they are honest about it ... there is no need to have a thuggish campaign against those members of the public that have a religious belief. We do live in a secular state ... the separation of powers from religion happened some time ago. Of course I am no expert on that brand of religion that is said to be endemic in the US.

> the B.H.A has failed is because it's exclusive to non-religious folk

Could we have a tautology alert here? There are various forms of humanism out there -- it can be anything from an art style to a philosophy -- but the BHA is specifically and unapologetically about Secular Humanism. They are "exclusive to non-religious folk" because that is *precisely the entire point of their organisation*. If you're interested in other forms of humanism, you may be best off looking elsewhere.

Seriously, we're not going to work out whether humanism has "failed" till we work out what humanism *is* for the purpose of this conversation. (Words have different meanings in different contexts, as I may have said one or two times before. (I'm beginning to think I should have a hotkey on my keyboard to produce that sentence.)) Once we've worked out what the hell we're talking about, we can perhaps have a discussion. But when paulh is talking about one form of humanism, and you're talking about another, and I'm talking about yet a third, we're not going to get very far. The heat can be fun, but the light is more ... enlightening. (Sorry. I'm short on sleep and completely unable to metaphor.)

TRiG.

The B.H.A accreditation of rituals: http://humanism.org.uk/ceremonies/?gclid=CKy7oojso7gCFXMbtAodrXQAcw

I would have to say the B.H.A is setting itself up as an alternate provider to rituals. Which seems fair enough. Maybe they could be privatised and then floated on the stock market. Perhaps that is the future for all religions --> to be sold off as service providers. I wouldn't mind having a few shares in Roman Catholic Inc. ... it would be a godsend to get ones hands on those assets.

"there is no need to have a thuggish campaign against those members of the public that have a religious belief."

There isn't. Which is why they had a tongue-in-cheek bus advert campaign as opposed to going round your house and breaking your knees.

>>> the B.H.A has failed is because it's exclusive to non-religious folk
Could we have a tautology alert here? There are various forms of humanism out there <<<

Just to make clear then - I don't think the B.H.A. has failed in terms of providing / accrediting service ceremonies for those such as Deb and many others who are not particularly or at all religiously affiliated - hence need alternatives to what would otherwise be services monopolised by religion.

However it has failed as being truly Humanistic (IMO) as it is clearly not inclusive of all humans with its aggressive (Dawkinist) and ideological stance against those normal folk who happened to have been raised with religious notions. It clearly defines humanism in its own ideological image which is aggressive atheism asserting and defining that you can't be Humanist and religious at the same time - which is just plain wrong - if one knows anything about the history of religion and how it is generally practiced amongst ordinary folk. In this respect the B.H.A. is no different to the exclusive and divisive nature of fundamentalist religion.

Two thirds of all the posts on this page are Stone Aart, so I'm not sure who he's arguing with...

Stone Aart, I have to comment on your statement "We work on behalf of non-religious people ... regardless of religion of belief. A contradiction in one sentence." It was actually two sentences, one saying they work on behalf of non-religious people, and the other saying they promote equal treatment of everyone regardless of religion or belief. There's no contradiction.

Just to be clear, I have no particular interest in the BHA. I read your opening post and did a quick Google search to try for a bit more knowledge than I already had, and found their website. I apologise for that because now it seems we're all discussing the merits of the BHA rather than humanism

Deb

Hi Deb no need to apologise. Since the B.H.A. were the only available Humanist Organ on offer to look at - I just had a look at them and my comments relate to them. I think we will just agree to disagree whether or not there is a contradiction in their mission statement.

"Since the B.H.A. were the only available Humanist Organ on offer to look at - I just had a look at them and my comments relate to them."
[Stone Aart]

But they aren't the only oganization devoted to humanism. I looked for humanism in other countries, and found quite a lot, though
I didn't try to be exhaustive.

There's a humanist organization in the U.S.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/

Humanism in France has a long history

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism_in_France

India has a humanist organziation

india.humanists.net/

The hu,manist organizations in Europe have formed links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Humanist_Federation

In Brazil, 6there is a humanist organzation as well as a humanist
political party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Humanist_League_of_Brazil

The Brazilian humanist party is affiliated with an international humanist organization

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_International


So, rethinking tyhe topic of this thread a bit, even if it was concluded that humanism has failed in Britain, it's quite possible that humanism is alive in other parts of the world.

>> so I'm not sure who he's arguing with... <<

It's kind of an internal Socraticism, a stream of consciousness
outflow of point/counter-point with no real conflict since each
thought is open ended and intended to stimulate the opening
of other minds to wider, even contrary, possibilities. I find it
quite stimulating and refreshingly non-entrenched (opinionated).

I suspect SA has never owned a dogma.

~jwf~

I owned a dogma, but my karma ran over it.

If there's an upside to getting older,it's that one gets too tired to maintain elaborate dogmas. I care much less about doctrine than I used to. So much is happening in the world, by the time I learn about the existence of a fact or factoid, chances are someone is already part way to debunking it. People who disagree with me in threads at H2G2 are probably doing me a service by bringing information to light, as long as they are reasonably polite. I'm not thrilled if someone calls me an idiot, though I can usually figure out why they think I am. I try to see other people's point of view, though I must add that if I really am an idiot I probably lack the ability to do so.

When the heck did Secularism become a bad thing?

Surely unless you actually believe in single religion theocracy then everyone has a degree of secularism? In fact to have the freedom to worship for anyone who doesn't ascribe to an established state religion then a degree of secularism is a necessary precondition to be able to worship?

I know plenty of people who are personally religious but believe in a secular state.

In fact I'd go as far as to say secularism is marvellous for everyone, those of faith or otherwise, except those who would seek to forcibly impose their own belief structure on others.

And about those really them. If opposing others right to force their own religious beliefs on me then I am happy to be called a fundamentalist. Any anyone who would apply that label on me, for those reasons then I really wouldn't want to be acquainted with them.

FB

I wonder what our Humanist Organs have to say on the following:
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/blogs/world-of-sport/qatar-spend-staggering-134-billion-world-cup-101315417.html

Nothing. Because you're confusing them with the sports pages of the newspapers.

"AND WHAT DID THE VATICAN SAY ABOUT THE MONACO GRAND PRIX, EH?" - Stone Aart, when asked for the time.

"When the heck did Secularism become a bad thing?"

He he. I mis-read this as "when the heck did Socialism become a bad thing?" and was going to give you an answer...

B