Religious vs Rational Humanism?

[Upchurch]

So, after three plus years of being a Unitarian, I've finally been indirectly challenged about my philosophical stance. Without getting into too much of the back story, I was part of a conversation where we were discussing a woman's philosophical stance. She described herself, in part, as a humanist. This took a second woman by surprise. The second woman then started a brief description what she had read online about rational humanism, which included at least one straw man that I caught. The first woman then described rational humanists as "the fundamentalist fringe of humanism" and described herself as a religious humanist, as if that were more mainstream.

So, either I do not have a good grasp of the various forms of humanism, I do not have a good grasp on mainstream humanism, and/or she was way off base.

Does anyone know more about this than I do?

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

I am more clueless than you so that should make you happy. What is all this humanist, unitarian etc; item?

What is it with the segregation items. I'm blah, or I'm blah and he is blahblah. What is wrong with being a human being. Like it is not a disease or something that is shameful.

Oops, sorry I'm ranting again, segregation - grouping bugs me as much as religion.

 

[Beerina]

So, after three plus years of being a Unitarian, I've finally been indirectly challenged about my philosophical stance.

Whoa! Slow down, guy! You're getting a little crazy taking on so much so quickly, don't you think?

 

[Upchurch]

Whoa! Slow down, guy! You're getting a little crazy taking on so much so quickly, don't you think?

Well, I try to ease into things, but heat of the moment, and all that.

 

[Apathia]

So, after three plus years of being a Unitarian, I've finally been indirectly challenged about my philosophical stance. Without getting into too much of the back story, I was part of a conversation where we were discussing a woman's philosophical stance. She described herself, in part, as a humanist. This took a second woman by surprise. The second woman then started a brief description what she had read online about rational humanism, which included at least one straw man that I caught. The first woman then described rational humanists as "the fundamentalist fringe of humanism" and described herself as a religious humanist, as if that were more mainstream.

So, either I do not have a good grasp of the various forms of humanism, I do not have a good grasp on mainstream humanism, and/or she was way off base.

Does anyone know more about this than I do?

"In the room the women come and go
talking of Michaelangelo."

I don't mean to imply anything sexist. It just reminds me of some of the threads we have here about what is a true atheist.
"Fundamentalist Humanist," huh?
I think I'm going to need a Reiki session for a headache.

 

[Upchurch]

Reiki

er.... that was another way this woman described herself.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Upchurch, she may mean that she belongs to an American Religious Humanist organzation. The wikipedia article on religious humanism mentions them.

American Religious Humanism
In 1915, a Positivist defined the term "humanism" in a magazine for the British Ethical Societies. Unitarian minister John H. Dietrich read the magazine and adopted the term to describe his own religion.[4] Dietrich is considered by some to be the "Father of Religious Humanism" (Olds 1996).

In 1929 Charles Francis Potter founded the First Humanist Society of New York whose advisory board included Julian Huxley, John Dewey, Albert Einstein and Thomas Mann. Potter was a minister from the Unitarian tradition and in 1930 he and his wife, Clara Cook Potter, published Humanism: A New Religion. Throughout the 1930s Potter was a well known advocate of women’s rights, access to birth control, "civil divorce laws", and an end to capital punishment.

A Humanist Manifesto, also known as Humanist Manifesto I to distinguish it from later Humanist Manifestos, was written in 1933 primarily by Raymond Bragg and was published with thirty-four signatories. Unlike the later ones, the first manifesto talked of a new "religion", and referred to humanism as a religious movement meant to transcend and replace previous, deity-based religions. However it is careful not to outline a creed or dogma. The document outlines a fifteen-point belief system, which, in addition to a secular outlook, opposes "acquisitive and profit-motivated society" and outlines a worldwide egalitarian society based on voluntary mutual cooperation.

The Fellowship of Humanity was founded in 1935 by Reverend A. D. Faupel as one of a handful of "humanist churches" seeded in the early 20th century as part of the American Religious Humanism movement. It was the only such organization to survive into the 21st century and is the first and oldest affiliate of the American Humanist Association.[5]

Other American Religious Humanist organizations that have survived into the 21st century include the HUUmanists, formerly the Friends of Religious Humanism, and the Humanist Society, formerly the Humanist Society of Friends.

That, or she might just be getting her info on humanism from people like these morons.

Humanism is an ideological, political, and religious belief that denies the existence of God. Atheists are humanist, as are new-agers, and many others. The theory of evolution was developed by humanists to create a world devoid of God. Humanism today is prevalent in our media, schools, and government. The religious humanist believes, as the Humanist Manifesto states, that the religions of the world are outdated due to a vastly increased knowledge and experience, and are powerless to solve the problem of human living in this time. Christians know the power of God, but to the humanist the human is divine and must be responsible for furnishing adequate human goals and providing for the spiritual needs of today. Because humanists believe that the universe and its peoples are self-existing and not created, they believe humanism is the only religion capable of leading humans along the evolutionary path to "Christ Consiousness". In humanism there is no right or wrong, only experience and an endless struggle to become enlightened, to evolve.

 

[Upchurch]

Upchurch, she may mean that she belongs to an American Religious Humanist organzation. The wikipedia article on religious humanism mentions them.

Thanks for the info.

I think I'm more concerned about whether or not the rational humanists are the "fundamentalist fringe" in the humanist spectrum. I was under the impression that they were more the norm than the exception and not nearly as beligerantly confrontational as these women were, to my ear, implying with strawmen like "if it can't be explained they [rational humanists] think it doesn't exist".

 

[ceo_esq]

Well, humanism's roots as a basically Christian intellectual movement, it seems to me, haven't exactly withered (although its progeny - secular or atheist humanism - has obviously expanded). I don't think it's inaccurate to suggest that humanism's "center of gravity" has historically been on the religious side, and that Christian humanism remains part of the humanist mainstream.

 

[Kopji]

One of the first texts regarding Christian humanism was Giovanni Pico della Mirandola's Oration on the Dignity of Man, in which he stressed that Men had the free will to travel up and down a moral scale, with God and angels being at the top, and Satan being at the bottom.

Reading that, I have no idea what the difference between a humanist Christian and regular Christian could possibly be.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Reading that, I have no idea what the difference between a humanist Christian and regular Christian could possibly be.

I dunno, the first definitively Humanist document was the Humanist Manifesto, and that's an outright rejection of any type of religion or faith. Reaching back to the 1400's to a religious document to find the roots of a secular philosophy seems questionable.

ETA: About the difference between a vanilla Christian and a Religious Humanism Christian: Humanism is a "life stance" about how humans can lead good and happy lives. I am not aware of any Christian denomination which makes the happiness of its adherents its primary concern, but rather the avoidance of sin, the importance of faith, and/or the primacy of good deeds. Personal happiness doesn't appear to be high on the agenda.

 

[thrombus29]

My mother's family walked that narrow line between Ethical Culture and the Unitarian church as many other liberal NY Jews did. I was raised out in the sticks and was a pretty hardcore Unitarian until my skepticism got the better of my agnosticism and sent me into atheist land. Now I am leaning towards Ethical Culture/nondenominational Humanism.

This article gives a pretty good explanation of humanism from a Ethical Culture standpoint.

 

[thaiboxerken]

What is it with the segregation items. I'm blah, or I'm blah and he is blahblah. What is wrong with being a human being. Like it is not a disease or something that is shameful.

Yea, and why stop there? We're all just mammals. So when you go to the store, why buy dog food for Rover, just feed him chocolate mousse cake like you would eat, you're both mammals.

As humans, we categorize things so that we can better communicate what the hell it is we're talking about to other people.

 

[thrombus29]

My mother's family walked that narrow line between Ethical Culture and the Unitarian church as many other liberal NY Jews did. I was raised out in the sticks and was a pretty hardcore Unitarian until my skepticism got the better of my agnosticism and sent me into atheist land. Now I am leaning towards Ethical Culture/nondenominational Humanism.

This article gives a pretty good explanation of humanism from a Ethical Culture standpoint.

What a moron, I forgot the link

http://www.ethicalfocus.org/index.php?mpage=33/Four_Types_of_Religious_Humanism.htm

 

[ceo_esq]

I dunno, the first definitively Humanist document was the Humanist Manifesto, and that's an outright rejection of any type of religion or faith. Reaching back to the 1400's to a religious document to find the roots of a secular philosophy seems questionable.

Humanism dates back to the Renaissance, and finds intellectual roots even earlier. It's just not the phenomenon you understand it to be. You're equating humanism with secular humanism, which is a comparatively late offshoot. To suggest that the Humanist Manifesto was the first humanist document not only ignores the famous early humanist works of Thomas More, Erasmus and others, but even 20th-century figures such as Maritain who predate the Manifesto.

 

[Corpse Cruncher]

Yea, and why stop there? We're all just mammals. So when you go to the store, why buy dog food for Rover, just feed him chocolate mousse cake like you would eat, you're both mammals.

As humans, we categorize things so that we can better communicate what the hell it is we're talking about to other people.

Don't be absurd. A dog cannot eat everything that I can. Likewise I cannot eat everything it can. To do so is cruel and to think so is also disturbing.

I am not a mammal thank you - I don't have a pouch. A dog is an animal. I am a human. You are strange

Why categorise, that is what governments are compelled to do or their heads fall off. They need to do this as it is a compulsion, so you are following what a bunch of dimwits who can't cope with humanity do?

 

[SezMe]

...she was way off base.

There's my vote, Up.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Humanism dates back to the Renaissance, and finds intellectual roots even earlier. It's just not the phenomenon you understand it to be. You're equating humanism with secular humanism, which is a comparatively late offshoot. To suggest that the Humanist Manifesto was the first humanist document not only ignores the famous early humanist works of Thomas More, Erasmus and others, but even 20th-century figures such as Maritain who predate the Manifesto.

The humanist movement has roots in the Renaissance thinkers, but humanism has been branching into thoroughly secular and religious sections since the 1850's. Furthermore, secular humanism rejects the theism that is inherent in the writing of such authors as you mentioned. It did not spring fully formed like Minerva, but the phenomenon of Humanism is so secular that it is philosophically divorced from its roots.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Don't be absurd. A dog cannot eat everything that I can. Likewise I cannot eat everything it can. To do so is cruel and to think so is also disturbing.

Murderers and babies are both humans, so we should place them all on death row. That's the kind of logic you're soliciting and I am not buying it.


An atheist doesn't believe everything that the theists do. That's why we categorize. To simply say "let's not categorize humans based on their beliefs" is just retarded. It's just another way of saying "let's not discuss the topic." If it bothers you that people are trying to clarify the differences between rational and religious humanism, then don't participate and don't read the thread.