Humanism must be more than atheism
Feb 4th, 2011 | By admin | Category: Humanism News
Dwight
The Humanist movement is about to become a dominant credo for our species, as the age of orthodox and fundamentalist religion fades in the face of the Internet’s expansion of education to Everyman.
Humanism originated in Greece classicism and was revived during the Italian Renaissance by Petrarch and his followers. In the ensuing five centuries of struggle Humanists had to keep conservative religious oligarchies at bay, defending its distinctive free-thought initiatives. Man’s new-found freedom from supernatural interlopers and priesthoods embodied the Humanist philosophy. That battle is now largely won, with nothing to be gained by continuing it. True Humanists must first deal with anti-religion’s trophy hunters.
It is incumbent on us to welcome a 2nd generation Humanism – an inclusive sensibility for our species, planet, and lives. To be inclusive, it is vital that we not be judgmental about a fellow human’s religion. The criteria that concern us lie elsewhere, private beliefs do not determine whether or not someone can be a good Humanist and a species/planet partner.
Today Humanism is a captive and exploited philosophy, shot for its antlers and hijacked for its name by aggressive atheists. Their inverted religious obsession has obscured Humanism from wider acceptance and misbranded it as moral nihilism or worse. This must end immediately, while we work to earn trust and respect for Humanists as critics and champions of our own species, toward our destined brotherhood.
Can we not pause for a thousand years to harmonize our planet – and utilize our powers to bring forth the paradise that lies within, and all around us?
Loading ...
Atheism is merely a statement of non-belief in a supernatural supreme being. Humanism, on the other hand, is a world-view with attitudes, beliefs and philosophies based on the natural world as perceived by human beings. It is a fact, however, that many Humanists are atheists – and skeptics and rationalists and so on – and incorporate elements of those other philosophies, beliefs and attitudes. That being so, I suspect it is doubtful there will ever be a definitive consensus on what it means to be a Humanist.
WRT Roger’s comment – Can we devise simple tests for Humanism? For example, should a Humanist be concerned with someone else’s religion or his own governance?
You won’t see the ‘new Humanists’ out marching against militarism, nationalism.
They must be intellectuals, or something; holier than us.
Actually Humanism as a philosophy arises in every culture and in every time. To give us only a 500 yr history is to ignore all the Humanists and Humanistically inclined philosophers that came before. Also, the philosophy wasn’t given it’s own name until about 100 yrs ago. The term “Humanism” was coined around 1915 to describe a specifically non-theistic ethical philosophy that was beginning to be articulated in a more formal manner. In hindsight we can look back at history and label philosophers (such as the Greeks) as Humanist or Humanistic, but we are only doing so in hindsight because.
And yes, Humanism and Atheism or not equivalent. One is a statement of belief, one is a statement of values. But, again, Humanism is a word that was coined in the early 1900s to describe a specifically non-theistic approach to life and we shouldn’t ignore that part of our history either. I think you’ll find that while the word Humanist only appears earlier in history as a term to describe scholars of the Humanities.
What we need to be cognizant of is that not all Humanists (scholars of the Humanities) are Humanists (adherents to the philosophy of Humanism). It’s confusing, but a distinction that is rather important.
@jen The (Grudin) article begins ” “Humanitas meant the development of human virtue, in all its forms, to its fullest extent. The term thus implied not only such qualities as are associated with the modern word humanity—understanding, benevolence, compassion, mercy—but also such more aggressive characteristics as fortitude, judgment, prudence, eloquence, and even love of honour. Consequently, the possessor of humanitas could not be merely a sedentary and isolated philosopher or man of letters but was of necessity a participant in active life.”
So he is pointing how humanitas denoted a suite of characteristics not found in the modern meaning. If anything it meant a lot more then than it does now. And certainly the medieval and dark age periods offered nothing comparable – so we must go all the way back to classical Greece, which Grudin assumes as the origin. Modern humanism is a shadow of its former self and little more than a promise of what it could be. Christ was no doubt a humanist, as was Gandhi.
I believe humanism is in the old brain, as you suggest, whereas religion is in the new cortical brain and personal. That’s the distinction I see as valuable. All humans are inherently decent.