Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Atheist or Humanist - what's in a name?
77 Answers
A comment from someone that they had no problem with humanists (or words to that effect), and the “Why are atheists so mistrusted (despised?) by those who believe?” thread got me thinking. Would the religious see atheists as less of a threat if they dropped the word ‘atheist’ and adopted the term ‘humanist’ instead?
http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism
http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think jno has the heart of it.
Not sure Naomi. Atheism obviously only represents a narrow facet of a persons worldview - one defined entirely by that persons response to religion or a deity. Humanism represents a much broader definition and acts as a code for a set of cultural and ethical values too.
There is a lot of discussion about another new descriptor for atheists with a social justice agenda - Atheism+ - but this is still an evolving definition.
http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism
http://
Humans loves their stereotypes - it fits into the human need for a narrative, and allows decision making based upon a set of assumptions about how that individual might act, what common values you might share.
So when people define themselves by their religion - Jewish, Christian, Mormon, JW, Muslim etc - those labels offer some insight into a presumptive set of cultural and social values. I don't like that form of thinking myself - I think it lazy and misleading - but it is deeply ingrained.
So,the term Humanism offers some context to someones presumptive social and cultural values, and may actually serve to reassure those faithful who see atheists as having no ethical or moral framework.
Not sure Naomi. Atheism obviously only represents a narrow facet of a persons worldview - one defined entirely by that persons response to religion or a deity. Humanism represents a much broader definition and acts as a code for a set of cultural and ethical values too.
There is a lot of discussion about another new descriptor for atheists with a social justice agenda - Atheism+ - but this is still an evolving definition.
http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism
http://
Humans loves their stereotypes - it fits into the human need for a narrative, and allows decision making based upon a set of assumptions about how that individual might act, what common values you might share.
So when people define themselves by their religion - Jewish, Christian, Mormon, JW, Muslim etc - those labels offer some insight into a presumptive set of cultural and social values. I don't like that form of thinking myself - I think it lazy and misleading - but it is deeply ingrained.
So,the term Humanism offers some context to someones presumptive social and cultural values, and may actually serve to reassure those faithful who see atheists as having no ethical or moral framework.
//humanists define themselves as believing in something//
I think jno has it entirely wrong. What do humanists believe in?
From the link:
Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:
•trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
I think jno has it entirely wrong. What do humanists believe in?
From the link:
Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:
•trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
LG, //Atheism obviously only represents a narrow facet of a persons worldview - one defined entirely by that persons response to religion or a deity. Humanism represents a much broader definition and acts as a code for a set of cultural and ethical values too.//
That, of course, is true – but in my experience most atheists are also humanists, so perhaps by continuing to describe ourselves as atheists, we are giving a false impression and doing ourselves a disservice. It seems to me that ‘humanist’ somehow comes across as a much gentler term, and might therefore be viewed as less aggressive – and in a less aggressive manner.
That, of course, is true – but in my experience most atheists are also humanists, so perhaps by continuing to describe ourselves as atheists, we are giving a false impression and doing ourselves a disservice. It seems to me that ‘humanist’ somehow comes across as a much gentler term, and might therefore be viewed as less aggressive – and in a less aggressive manner.
you'll find it on the Wiki page. Broadly speaking it says humanists emphasise the value and agency of human beings and tend to prefer rationalism to fideism.
That definition clearly says what humanists believe in, and puts it as the most important of their attributes; which chimes with my first post. They define themselves with reference to who they have faith in. That is positive. Atheists - a+theists - define themselves by who they don't believe in, and that's negative, or reactive.
This isn't a comment on individuals; as you say, many people will be both. It's a comment on what they choose to call themselves, and how others respond to this, which was in answer to your original question.
That definition clearly says what humanists believe in, and puts it as the most important of their attributes; which chimes with my first post. They define themselves with reference to who they have faith in. That is positive. Atheists - a+theists - define themselves by who they don't believe in, and that's negative, or reactive.
This isn't a comment on individuals; as you say, many people will be both. It's a comment on what they choose to call themselves, and how others respond to this, which was in answer to your original question.
I've looked and there appear to be several Wiki pages, but I think this comes from the one you're referring to.
//Today IHEU uses 'Humanism' capitalized and without qualification.[8] Formal positions adopted by Humanist organizations from around the world in the form of the Amsterdam Declaration 2002 would assert the integrally non-theistic nature of Humanism, and IHEU's Minimum Statement (1996)[9] and current bylaws (adopted 2009)[10] both assert a Humanism which is "not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality."
When the first letter is capitalized, "Humanism" describes the secular ideology that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, while specifically rejecting supernatural and religious ideas as a basis of morality and decision-making.//
To clarify, I should have used a capital 'H' in my question - so please read 'Humanist' - not 'humanist'.
//Today IHEU uses 'Humanism' capitalized and without qualification.[8] Formal positions adopted by Humanist organizations from around the world in the form of the Amsterdam Declaration 2002 would assert the integrally non-theistic nature of Humanism, and IHEU's Minimum Statement (1996)[9] and current bylaws (adopted 2009)[10] both assert a Humanism which is "not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality."
When the first letter is capitalized, "Humanism" describes the secular ideology that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, while specifically rejecting supernatural and religious ideas as a basis of morality and decision-making.//
To clarify, I should have used a capital 'H' in my question - so please read 'Humanist' - not 'humanist'.
I find the terms 'atheist/atheism' are used pejoratively (for the most part) by theists to describe those who don't share their beliefs. Without theists, those who believe in a divine creator and overseer of reality, there would be no use for such terms as 'atheist/atheism'.
Atheists are most broadly defined as simply those who are not theists, those who do not believe in the existence of a deity(s), whether or not they share or ascribe to any of the theists moral principles or ideals.
For the moment, I'll let the humanists speak for themselves.
Atheists are most broadly defined as simply those who are not theists, those who do not believe in the existence of a deity(s), whether or not they share or ascribe to any of the theists moral principles or ideals.
For the moment, I'll let the humanists speak for themselves.
just the Wiki page on humanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
I cited the first sentence, because I think that reflects people's first thoughts on humanists (if it didn't the article would be badly written). It also reflects mine, which I laid out in my first post.
I'm not that bothered about capital letters, but people should feel free to award themselves some if it helps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism
I cited the first sentence, because I think that reflects people's first thoughts on humanists (if it didn't the article would be badly written). It also reflects mine, which I laid out in my first post.
I'm not that bothered about capital letters, but people should feel free to award themselves some if it helps.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.