Crosswords2 mins 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've called myself a Humanist ever since I came across the word many years ago.
I guess the main distinction is that Humanists have no particular "side" in the Great Debate. They tend to look on at believers and regular theists, and let them get on with it.
Atheists, by definition, take a theological stance.
I've been to several Humanist funerals, attended mostly by believers, and been surprised at how many of them rate the service very highly.
I guess if folk were to attend an Atheist service they probably be anticipating Saturnalia at the gates of the Crem.
I guess the main distinction is that Humanists have no particular "side" in the Great Debate. They tend to look on at believers and regular theists, and let them get on with it.
Atheists, by definition, take a theological stance.
I've been to several Humanist funerals, attended mostly by believers, and been surprised at how many of them rate the service very highly.
I guess if folk were to attend an Atheist service they probably be anticipating Saturnalia at the gates of the Crem.
Builder - I think you've made an excellent point. The existence of a god can neither be proved nor disproved, so an atheist's belief is as irrational and faith-based as that of a Christian, Muslim, Pagan, whatever.
Whereas Humanism seems to me to be completely rational. My mum and dad both had Humanist funerals and the celebration of their lives was a truly wonderful thing.
Whereas Humanism seems to me to be completely rational. My mum and dad both had Humanist funerals and the celebration of their lives was a truly wonderful thing.
kiki-frog //The existence of a god can neither be proved nor disproved, so an atheist's belief is as irrational and faith-based as that of a Christian, Muslim, Pagan, whatever. //
That claim has already been debunked so many times.
The lack of evidence for the existence of a god renders the theist position completely irrational.
An atheist does not require faith in the absence of evidence but faith is absolutely essential for a belief in god because there is nothing that supports such a position.
That claim has already been debunked so many times.
The lack of evidence for the existence of a god renders the theist position completely irrational.
An atheist does not require faith in the absence of evidence but faith is absolutely essential for a belief in god because there is nothing that supports such a position.
probably.
because the word 'humanist' has more positive connotations, whereas the word 'atheist' for some reason seems to have negative connotations for some people.
it seems as though some people equate lack of belief in a god as therefore proof of being inherently evil 'deep down' ... or at least, lacking in moral fibre and goodness and of questionable character.
because if you were a truly good person, you would believe in god...
they see it as an emptiness of soul.
i think for some there is even a belief it equates to full on satanism.
humanist implies there is at least some thought and care towards fellow humans and a desire for the greater good.
because the word 'humanist' has more positive connotations, whereas the word 'atheist' for some reason seems to have negative connotations for some people.
it seems as though some people equate lack of belief in a god as therefore proof of being inherently evil 'deep down' ... or at least, lacking in moral fibre and goodness and of questionable character.
because if you were a truly good person, you would believe in god...
they see it as an emptiness of soul.
i think for some there is even a belief it equates to full on satanism.
humanist implies there is at least some thought and care towards fellow humans and a desire for the greater good.
Er, I think you'd have to define goombi-woombi for me. I've no idea what one is.
However, the experience of the Divine is common to all human societies, the 'God-shaped blank' as theologians have termed it, so one might conclude that there could be 'something in it'. But there is no proof, so one cannot be certain. So in a way, the agnostic would seem to have the most rational line of thought.
As for 'debunking' I have yet to see that in any of the R&S threads, I'm afraid. Just anti-faith bigotry versus faith bigotry with no reasonable or reasoned dialogue.
However, the experience of the Divine is common to all human societies, the 'God-shaped blank' as theologians have termed it, so one might conclude that there could be 'something in it'. But there is no proof, so one cannot be certain. So in a way, the agnostic would seem to have the most rational line of thought.
As for 'debunking' I have yet to see that in any of the R&S threads, I'm afraid. Just anti-faith bigotry versus faith bigotry with no reasonable or reasoned dialogue.
Jno, //I'm not that bothered about capital letters, but people should feel free to award themselves some if it helps.//
You’re not required to be bothered, but you’re missing the point entirely. People are not awarding themselves anything. When talking about atheists who are also Humanists, the capital ‘H’ is imperative. It defines their position. Read your own link.
Mibs, //No need to be gettin' all Uppity on me now, just because you've adopted a Label. :o) //
I vividly recall telling someone here many years ago that I don’t attach a label to myself, but a label was nevertheless pretty much foisted upon me on these very pages – I’ve just decided to change it. Have a custard pie. Sperlatt! Oops, sorry. I see you already have one. ;o)
Kiki, //…an atheist's belief is as irrational and faith-based as that of a Christian, Muslim, Pagan, whatever.//
Not at all. How can it possibly be irrational to conclude that something for which there is no evidence doesn’t exist? And if you’ve seen “no reasonable or reasoned dialogue” here, read what I’ve just said.
You’re not required to be bothered, but you’re missing the point entirely. People are not awarding themselves anything. When talking about atheists who are also Humanists, the capital ‘H’ is imperative. It defines their position. Read your own link.
Mibs, //No need to be gettin' all Uppity on me now, just because you've adopted a Label. :o) //
I vividly recall telling someone here many years ago that I don’t attach a label to myself, but a label was nevertheless pretty much foisted upon me on these very pages – I’ve just decided to change it. Have a custard pie. Sperlatt! Oops, sorry. I see you already have one. ;o)
Kiki, //…an atheist's belief is as irrational and faith-based as that of a Christian, Muslim, Pagan, whatever.//
Not at all. How can it possibly be irrational to conclude that something for which there is no evidence doesn’t exist? And if you’ve seen “no reasonable or reasoned dialogue” here, read what I’ve just said.
@Kiki Thats a very dismissive and presumptious attitude - to categorise all debate here as bigotry. Many posters here have expended time and effort to produce nuanced and thoughtful posts, and would likely be quite offended at your response.
Your choice of words, with talk of "experience of the divine across cultures", and "god shaped holes in our heads" suggest to me that you are on the theist side of the theist - atheist divide, so you can make no claim of objectivity when commenting on bigotry or bias expressed in the posts of others.
But these "experiences", this talk of god shaped holes is simply a fancy way of describing a humans need to develop a narrative to explain the unknown, because the unknown is scary. And as we civilisation has developed, shaped by rational thinking, critical analysis and the scientific method, what was once unknown becomes understood. The superstitions are no longer required.
Indeed, "god shaped holes" can be more convincingly explained as an evolutionary by-product rather than being anything empirical.
So, the likelihood of a divinity, of a god, becomes less and less likely. Whilst we cannot categorically prove or disprove the existence right now, that does not mean that we will not be able to in the future.
There have been plenty of examples of debunking in this section. Just because you dont agree does not mean that the debunking has failed - it just means that you are unable to appreciate the argument.
Your choice of words, with talk of "experience of the divine across cultures", and "god shaped holes in our heads" suggest to me that you are on the theist side of the theist - atheist divide, so you can make no claim of objectivity when commenting on bigotry or bias expressed in the posts of others.
But these "experiences", this talk of god shaped holes is simply a fancy way of describing a humans need to develop a narrative to explain the unknown, because the unknown is scary. And as we civilisation has developed, shaped by rational thinking, critical analysis and the scientific method, what was once unknown becomes understood. The superstitions are no longer required.
Indeed, "god shaped holes" can be more convincingly explained as an evolutionary by-product rather than being anything empirical.
So, the likelihood of a divinity, of a god, becomes less and less likely. Whilst we cannot categorically prove or disprove the existence right now, that does not mean that we will not be able to in the future.
There have been plenty of examples of debunking in this section. Just because you dont agree does not mean that the debunking has failed - it just means that you are unable to appreciate the argument.
Lazygun - I apologise if my words come across as dismissive - that is not my intention. But there is a certain irony in your words, when you then go on to say 'The superstitions are no longer required.' Superstition in your opinion - fair enough; but for someone else, their faith may be the central point of their life. Dismissive or what?
And for your information, I'm not a theist (assuming that by that you mean Christian, Jew, Muslim, whatever). But I do find that there is a lot to be learned from faith studies, and to dismiss faith as superstition is possibly throwing the baby out with the bath water.
And for your information, I'm not a theist (assuming that by that you mean Christian, Jew, Muslim, whatever). But I do find that there is a lot to be learned from faith studies, and to dismiss faith as superstition is possibly throwing the baby out with the bath water.
@Kiki But I make no attempt to appear objective in this debate. I am broadly a humanist from a social and cultural perspective, left of centre from a political perspective, and atheist from a faith perspective.
Faith, in all its apparitions, is clearly a belief in a force, spirit, manifestation with supernatural powers that are able to influence the natural environment.
Religions are hierarchies that grow up around such faiths.And at the heart of all of this is a desire to explain the unexplainable. But what is unexplainable, what is unknown, recedes with each passing generation, and the hypothesis that there is a divinity is less likely, by weight of observation and evidence, than the hypothesis that experience of divinity or a god shaped hole is a byproduct of the thoroughly naturalistic process of evolution.
When I talk about a theist- atheist divide, I include any manifestion of faith - wiccan, buddhist, abrahamic,gaia worship. All who proclaim the existence of the devine are theists.
I have seen many people defend faith on the grounds that it is an outward expression of an inner spirituality - and spirituality is linked with creativity. And without spirituality, humans would be reduced to mechanistic robots. I think this is an artificial duality, that spirituality is an imprecise term and in any event is intermixed with all that powers us, and therefore faith studies are an irrelevance.
Not sure that I have articulated that last point too well :)
Faith, in all its apparitions, is clearly a belief in a force, spirit, manifestation with supernatural powers that are able to influence the natural environment.
Religions are hierarchies that grow up around such faiths.And at the heart of all of this is a desire to explain the unexplainable. But what is unexplainable, what is unknown, recedes with each passing generation, and the hypothesis that there is a divinity is less likely, by weight of observation and evidence, than the hypothesis that experience of divinity or a god shaped hole is a byproduct of the thoroughly naturalistic process of evolution.
When I talk about a theist- atheist divide, I include any manifestion of faith - wiccan, buddhist, abrahamic,gaia worship. All who proclaim the existence of the devine are theists.
I have seen many people defend faith on the grounds that it is an outward expression of an inner spirituality - and spirituality is linked with creativity. And without spirituality, humans would be reduced to mechanistic robots. I think this is an artificial duality, that spirituality is an imprecise term and in any event is intermixed with all that powers us, and therefore faith studies are an irrelevance.
Not sure that I have articulated that last point too well :)
Kiki, I see you’ve ignored my example of ‘reasonable or reasoned dialogue’. Maybe that’s why you’ve missed all the others.
//their faith may be the central point of their life.//
For many it is, but the problem arises when they expect their faith to be allowed to have some influence on the lives of others.
Unless you’re seeking a study in psychology I wouldn’t say there’s much to be learned from ‘faith’ studies per se, but in other areas there is much to be learned from religious books and associated ancient texts.
As for ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’, that smacks of a niggling little doubt that results in a propensity to hedge your bets. ;o)
Please continue this discussion – it’s very interesting - but while that’s going on is there any chance of any more religious people having a go at answering the question? Would the term ‘Humanist’ be more acceptable to you than ‘Atheist’? A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ would do.
//their faith may be the central point of their life.//
For many it is, but the problem arises when they expect their faith to be allowed to have some influence on the lives of others.
Unless you’re seeking a study in psychology I wouldn’t say there’s much to be learned from ‘faith’ studies per se, but in other areas there is much to be learned from religious books and associated ancient texts.
As for ‘throwing the baby out with the bath water’, that smacks of a niggling little doubt that results in a propensity to hedge your bets. ;o)
Please continue this discussion – it’s very interesting - but while that’s going on is there any chance of any more religious people having a go at answering the question? Would the term ‘Humanist’ be more acceptable to you than ‘Atheist’? A ‘yes’ or ‘no’ would do.
Sorry, Naomi, I was not ignoring you. I wouldn't dare! I just didn't notice your reply, probably because you were trying to address so many people in one go.
Where I find atheism irrational is when an individual's religious experience is dismissed as imagination or chemical imbalance in the brain or wishful thinking or lies or being a victim of a con trick or...... whatever. But how can you or I possible know that this person has not had an interaction with God/dess or the Great Spaghetti Monster or whatever? We can't; we can only guess at explanations. Which is why I find the agnostic stance far more rational.
Where I find atheism irrational is when an individual's religious experience is dismissed as imagination or chemical imbalance in the brain or wishful thinking or lies or being a victim of a con trick or...... whatever. But how can you or I possible know that this person has not had an interaction with God/dess or the Great Spaghetti Monster or whatever? We can't; we can only guess at explanations. Which is why I find the agnostic stance far more rational.
@Kiki "Where I find atheism irrational is when an individual's religious experience is dismissed as imagination or chemical imbalance in the brain or wishful thinking or lies or being a victim of a con trick or...... whatever"
Out of the many explanations that there might be for an alleged religious experience - why do you maintain that it is more rational to ascribe it to a divine entity for which there is no evidence of existence, than to suggest that it might actually be an artifact of brain chemistry or imagination or hallucination or waking dream or whatever, when we know that our brains are susceptible to just this kind of activity?
And no, we dont just guess at explanations - we have an understanding of the architecture of the brain, how the wiring works, how the biochemistry works, what waking dreams are, what hallucinations are, how memories are accessed, how sensory stimuli are processed. This is known, we have examples of all of these. So its not just a 50:50 coin flip between two equal positions, faith:science, both of which have an equal validity. The evidence supports the rational, empirical scientific world view.
The idea of a divine entity has become, in the light of what we know, an unlikely proposition - and as such, demands extrardinary evidence to support it.
Out of the many explanations that there might be for an alleged religious experience - why do you maintain that it is more rational to ascribe it to a divine entity for which there is no evidence of existence, than to suggest that it might actually be an artifact of brain chemistry or imagination or hallucination or waking dream or whatever, when we know that our brains are susceptible to just this kind of activity?
And no, we dont just guess at explanations - we have an understanding of the architecture of the brain, how the wiring works, how the biochemistry works, what waking dreams are, what hallucinations are, how memories are accessed, how sensory stimuli are processed. This is known, we have examples of all of these. So its not just a 50:50 coin flip between two equal positions, faith:science, both of which have an equal validity. The evidence supports the rational, empirical scientific world view.
The idea of a divine entity has become, in the light of what we know, an unlikely proposition - and as such, demands extrardinary evidence to support it.
No, LazyGun, you misunderstand what I'm saying. I am most definitely not saying that it is more rational to ascribe religious experience to a divine entity. Far from it. What I am saying is that a knee-jerk reaction that religious experience cannot possibly be genuine makes little sense to me. The individual may have had an encounter with God, they may be ill or they may be telling porkies just for fun. Who am I to say?
To go on to your concluding paragraph ///The idea of a divine entity has become, in the light of what we know, an unlikely proposition - and as such, demands extrardinary evidence to support it./// Might it not be the case that what we know is just not sufficient to encapsulate something that by definition must be infinitely vast? Surely if there is a divine being out there, then we cannot fully comprehend what it really is - hence the multiplicity of faith systems around the world.
But of course, they all believe that their view is the only true one, and that's where the problems begin. And don't forget, societies that have made a point of supressing any kind of religious expression and advcated atheism (or rather belief in the State as being all-supreme) have also been 'in the right' and thus capable of excusing all sorts of atrocity.
To go on to your concluding paragraph ///The idea of a divine entity has become, in the light of what we know, an unlikely proposition - and as such, demands extrardinary evidence to support it./// Might it not be the case that what we know is just not sufficient to encapsulate something that by definition must be infinitely vast? Surely if there is a divine being out there, then we cannot fully comprehend what it really is - hence the multiplicity of faith systems around the world.
But of course, they all believe that their view is the only true one, and that's where the problems begin. And don't forget, societies that have made a point of supressing any kind of religious expression and advcated atheism (or rather belief in the State as being all-supreme) have also been 'in the right' and thus capable of excusing all sorts of atrocity.
@Kiki - Thanks for the clarification of your position :)
I get what you are saying, sort of. But we appear to address issues of divinity from different starting points. My understanding of your point is that if you get a random individual claiming a religious experience, then we have no means of determining whether that was a genuine experience of the divine, some sort of artefact derived from the way the mind operates in processing information, or an outright lie. And up to a point I agree with you.
But where we appear to differ is that you would attach an equal validity to all 3 possibilities, whereas I would not. A sceptical approach would test the veracity of the claims - it may be possible to determine at the outset whether it is a lie or not. An assessment of mental status could also be made, to rule in or out some of the more obvious biochemical or neurological reasons for such an experience. Only when those avenues were exhausted and found wanting would it be reasonable to hypothesise a divine experience.
And yes, it is a reasonable proposition to suggest that divinity remains beyond the scope of measurement of existing science.This is sometimes described as the "God of the Gaps" theory. That divinity resides within the gaps in our scientific understanding. The problem is, that gap gets smaller and smaller with each passing year.
So although a reasonable proposition,it is very improbable, given what science already knows about the laws of physics. A divine entity that is extraordinarily vast, and which must be extraordinarily complex, would be difficult to hide outside the range of our artificially enhanced perceptions.
When considering any event or experience, reason tells us that the most likely explanation is the mundane-but-not-fully-understood-mechanism rather than some manifestation of the divine. Proof of this principle abounds - one recent example is of the statue of Jesus in a christian temple in India that started trickling water from its feet - this was hailed as evidence of a miracle. Further examination proved the phenomenon much more mundane - it was actually the result of capillary suction and a nearby broken water pipe.
The Indian authorities have ordered a warrant for his arrest on the grounds of blasphemy after a complaint about his debunking of the "miracle" was registered by the Catholic Church in India
http://
He is speaking at a meeting in London in November, which I hope to attend.
And there are many other examples of miracles that are later shown to be something much more mundane.
And as for the development of repressive societies -there are examples of societies that discriminate or actively suppress all religious expression - but there are far more that repress and ill treat people on the basis of religion.
I do not advocate banning religious belief - just a secular approach, with no special favours for religious thinking or tradition. I think religion will just wither away over time.
I get what you are saying, sort of. But we appear to address issues of divinity from different starting points. My understanding of your point is that if you get a random individual claiming a religious experience, then we have no means of determining whether that was a genuine experience of the divine, some sort of artefact derived from the way the mind operates in processing information, or an outright lie. And up to a point I agree with you.
But where we appear to differ is that you would attach an equal validity to all 3 possibilities, whereas I would not. A sceptical approach would test the veracity of the claims - it may be possible to determine at the outset whether it is a lie or not. An assessment of mental status could also be made, to rule in or out some of the more obvious biochemical or neurological reasons for such an experience. Only when those avenues were exhausted and found wanting would it be reasonable to hypothesise a divine experience.
And yes, it is a reasonable proposition to suggest that divinity remains beyond the scope of measurement of existing science.This is sometimes described as the "God of the Gaps" theory. That divinity resides within the gaps in our scientific understanding. The problem is, that gap gets smaller and smaller with each passing year.
So although a reasonable proposition,it is very improbable, given what science already knows about the laws of physics. A divine entity that is extraordinarily vast, and which must be extraordinarily complex, would be difficult to hide outside the range of our artificially enhanced perceptions.
When considering any event or experience, reason tells us that the most likely explanation is the mundane-but-not-fully-understood-mechanism rather than some manifestation of the divine. Proof of this principle abounds - one recent example is of the statue of Jesus in a christian temple in India that started trickling water from its feet - this was hailed as evidence of a miracle. Further examination proved the phenomenon much more mundane - it was actually the result of capillary suction and a nearby broken water pipe.
The Indian authorities have ordered a warrant for his arrest on the grounds of blasphemy after a complaint about his debunking of the "miracle" was registered by the Catholic Church in India
http://
He is speaking at a meeting in London in November, which I hope to attend.
And there are many other examples of miracles that are later shown to be something much more mundane.
And as for the development of repressive societies -there are examples of societies that discriminate or actively suppress all religious expression - but there are far more that repress and ill treat people on the basis of religion.
I do not advocate banning religious belief - just a secular approach, with no special favours for religious thinking or tradition. I think religion will just wither away over time.
////I do not advocate banning religious belief - just a secular approach, with no special favours for religious thinking or tradition.////
Bloody hell, LazyGun, we're agreeing on something! We can't have that!
But seriously, I do think that this is the only way forward. Let people explore their relationship with whatever they perceive god to be.... as long as it doesn't involve beating up people whose religious experience is different.
I don't think that faith will ever fade away, though - it's just too much a part of being human. And I suspect that scientific developments will never be able to disprove or prove categorically the existence of a divine being.
Bloody hell, LazyGun, we're agreeing on something! We can't have that!
But seriously, I do think that this is the only way forward. Let people explore their relationship with whatever they perceive god to be.... as long as it doesn't involve beating up people whose religious experience is different.
I don't think that faith will ever fade away, though - it's just too much a part of being human. And I suspect that scientific developments will never be able to disprove or prove categorically the existence of a divine being.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
Is It Safe To Take Paracetamol
How it Works11 mins ago
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.