3 of 4
3
Should the adjective “Secular” be removed from “Humanism”?
Posted: 26 May 2011 04:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

As a Unitarian for quite a few years, as I recall, it was a good line that was often quoted but never once did I see demostrated.  Rather, almost all of them accepted the “Seven Principles” and a variety of politically correct beliefs as doctrine or creed.  Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) an astonishingly small percent of us, no matter our theological, political, social, or philosophical orientation are or were original thinkers.  We may select from a variety of ideas, but we almost never originate any ourselves.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2011 04:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  143
Joined  2008-09-27
Evan - 06 March 2011 05:20 PM

I didn’t even notice the forum title, but now that you mention it, I think that is something we shall have to remedy. I was referring to the International Humanists and Ethical Union’s mandate that all Humanists should use Humanism as the name for Humanism; with no added adjective.  I definitely see a lot more people that are members of the American Humanist Association and it would make socializing and networking easier; but my heart is with the Council for Secular Humanism.

I’ll have to look this up.  I would think that IH and EU would be more tolerant of people’s right to acknowledge their differences.  This sounds as bad as “mandating” that their members only identify as “sexual”, with no right to publicly identify as, say, “queer”.  Or an elementary school that won’t allow students to call themselves “black” or “jewish” or “artists” or “athletes” because… “really we’re all the same”.

Glad your “heart is with the Council for Secular Humanism”.  I don’t know much about the Council itself, but i’m happy to spend time with people who’ve clearly identified themselves as “secular”.  The mish-mash of new-age and other beliefs at “Humanist” and “UU” groups is fine for what it is, but sometimes i prefer to converse with people that i know i have more in common with at the ontological (nature-of-being) worldview level.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2011 04:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I haven’t attended for many years, but I used to get a kick out of seeing the booths at the Unitarian-Universalist Annual General Assembly.  There were usually almost a hundred different ones, and there was always one from the American Humanist Association, one from the Secular Humanists and one from the Religious Humanists.  Even the first two saw themselves as distinct from each other. 

It would have been strange if the Symposium managers were to tell each of the three that they could not use any words to modify “humanist”.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2011 06:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
Evan - 26 May 2011 06:19 AM
PLaClair - 09 March 2011 10:05 PM

It would consist of everything else: every longing, every aspiration, every dream, every bit of knowledge, all of it.

I mean no disrespect but I truly believe that you are missing something essential.

Look past the surface. Why do people believe in a supreme being? What is the genesis in the human mind, which is the source of belief?

Several things are at work, including: the desire to explain life, the world and everything else; the desire to make sense of things; the desire to orient oneself and to have a framework for living.

Whatever brings all of that together into a coherent whole for the individual is that person’s religion. Put another way, religion is the framework for addressing one’s central concerns. It needn’t include a god.

 

Our definitions of philosophy and religion must differ, because you said religion where you should have said philosophy. I see religion as something you adopt and philosophy as something you create.

If you recognize that our definitions differ, then you shouldn’t tell me what I should have said. I said what I meant to say.

I see religion as something we live and philosophy as what we think about what we live. Philosophy is in the intellectual domain, while religion encompasses all three ethical domains: thought, emotion and action.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2011 05:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07

Words!!!!  shut eye
When will we evolve to communicate telepathically?

 Signature 

Turn off Fox News - Bad News For America
(Atheists are myth understood)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2011 09:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  143
Joined  2008-09-27
traveler - 27 May 2011 05:55 AM

Words!!!!  shut eye
When will we evolve to communicate telepathically?

wouldn’t help all that much.  Parts of the brain already do a lot of communication by words and images and imagined physical sensations, and they miscommunicate with eachother all the time.

ok, i guess it would help a lot to be able to beam all of that stuff effortlessly to someone… i just doubt that a physically convenient sensory bypass is likely any time soon.  Except maybe for people with major deficits, where clunky technology is better than what they’ve got…

yes… “Words!!!!”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2011 10:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  143
Joined  2008-09-27
Occam. - 26 May 2011 04:26 PM

As a Unitarian for quite a few years, as I recall, it was a good line that was often quoted but never once did I see demostrated.  Rather, almost all of them accepted the “Seven Principles” and a variety of politically correct beliefs as doctrine or creed.  Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) an astonishingly small percent of us, no matter our theological, political, social, or philosophical orientation are or were original thinkers.  We may select from a variety of ideas, but we almost never originate any ourselves.

Occam

The ones i know were proud of the statistical surveys showing that UUs are more united (/homogenous) in their political and social beliefs than other groups… i suppose that’s what unites them.  They more theologically diverse, though.

As for original thinking, i see two major catagories:  1) ideas one comes up with by oneself, which others have also come up with; and 2) ideas which no one else has ever before come up with.  Maybe we should add “A”) ideas which others have up with, but which have or will die off unless someone else either 0) spreads them; or 1) comes up with them (re-originally) and spreads them.

hmm… re-writes encouraged.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2011 10:10 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  143
Joined  2008-09-27
Occam. - 26 May 2011 04:26 PM

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) an astonishingly small percent of us… are or were original thinkers.

I’ve known a number of people—perhaps most especially myself—who tend to have more apparently “original” ideas than we know what to do with.  It is impressive how many of one’s ideas—especially the ones worth repeating—turn out to have been thought of (and repeated) before.  (I suppose the ones not worth repeating have probably mostly been thought of, too.)  But the hard part for me is knowing which ideas are worth sharing.  Which are new?  Which, new or old, are useful to others?  Which will be controversial?  Which will help or hurt me, in sharing them?  Which will waste my and others’ time?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 May 2011 02:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  143
Joined  2008-09-27
Evan - 06 March 2011 05:20 PM

..the International Humanists and Ethical Union’s mandate that all Humanists should use Humanism as the name for Humanism; with no added adjective.

Paul—can you tell me if these charges are in any way true?  You seem like someone who would know, or who could point us to the relevent pages.  I don’t know anything about these organizations, but i find it unbelievable that they would actually “mandate” anything about what individual humanists call themselves or say about their beliefs. 

On the other hand, if they’re just mandating what official member chapters of their organizations can officially call themselves, I have no problem with that whatsoever.  I may even wish to belong to such an organization—as long as i’m also, of course, free to belong to and associate with organizations which don’t follow those guidelines.

Evan—would you care to modify or support your statement?  If they’re making a “strong suggestion” about what “all humanists” should do, then i’m with you in being annoyed by it—kind of like i’m annoyed by people who say that no one should call themselves “jewish-americans” or other “hyphenated americans”.  I mean, people have a right to make whatever “suggestions” they want, but i personally think people should feel ethically and socially free to distinguish themselves in just about whatever way they want.

(although i do have to say: the label “bright” does seem a bit dim-witted to me… but I don’t really mind even that.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 May 2011 03:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I couldn’t figure why this thread was so confusing to me, especially when Isaac sent me a PM suggesting that I may have been a bit harsh with Evan.  After going through it carefully I think I see my problem.  Quoting Evan (Post #4)

I didn’t even notice the forum title, but now that you mention it, I think that is something we shall have to remedy. I was referring to the International Humanists and Ethical Union’s mandate that all Humanists should use Humanism as the name for Humanism; with no added adjective.  I definitely see a lot more people that are members of the American Humanist Association and it would make socializing and networking easier; but my heart is with the Council for Secular Humanism.


WHAT!!!!!  You didn’t even notice the forum title????? 

Hey, guy YOU are the one who originated this thread so YOU gave it the title. 

From your title it appears you are against using the adjective “secular” then in later threads you seem to be arguing the other side.

Let’s try to maintain a modicum of logic, consistency and rational flow in the threads.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 May 2011 04:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
isaac - 30 May 2011 02:24 PM
Evan - 06 March 2011 05:20 PM

..the International Humanists and Ethical Union’s mandate that all Humanists should use Humanism as the name for Humanism; with no added adjective.

Paul—can you tell me if these charges are in any way true? 

No I can’t but like you, I doubt it, and for the same reasons.

 Signature 

I cannot in good conscience support CFI under the current leadership. I am here in dissent and in support of a Humanism that honors and respects everyone.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 May 2011 06:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  143
Joined  2008-09-27
Occam. - 30 May 2011 03:03 PM

From your title it appears you are against using the adjective “secular” then in later threads you seem to be arguing the other side.

Occam—I think he just chose the title he did to raise the question, and then answered it with a “no”... although it probably wasn’t the clearest writing possible.

Occam. - 30 May 2011 03:03 PM

Quoting Evan (Post #4)

I didn’t even notice the forum title, but now that you mention it, I think that is something we shall have to remedy.


WHAT!!!!!  You didn’t even notice the forum title?????

yeah, that seemed a bit odd to me, too.  But maybe he got onto the humanism forum from clicking on a thread in “active topics”, or one of those things that appears at the bottom of the screen, and then clicked “new post” and had no idea that he was “inside” of a particular “forum”, out of the several.  Sounds like normal newbie disorientation that could happen to anyone…

And i did a bit of a double-take at “have to remedy”—i guess he was suggesting that we add “secular” to the title of this forum?  Seems unnecessary to me.  Might want to add it to the title of Cfi… partly so that agnostics and theists know what they’re getting themselves into, if that’s what we are.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 June 2011 11:48 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  219
Joined  2007-05-20

I see religion as something we live and philosophy as what we think about what we live. Philosophy is in the intellectual domain, while religion encompasses all three ethical domains: thought, emotion and action.

Well said, Mr. LaClair voyant.

A mental phrenology as it were, with the humanism area right down in the motor center, our incarnate heritage as a species. Religion is private, and should be respected as such. Humanism is our font of brotherhood, responsibility, and opportunity.

I do like R Joseph Hoffmann’s dismissal of what he calls “movement humanism” (secular h, new h, etc.) but I think the most important non-component is atheism, which has hijacked and enfeebled this noblest creed of all.

[ Edited: 02 June 2011 11:59 AM by Martinus ]
 Signature 

Dwight Jones
http://www.humanism.ws
.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

“Our lives teach us who we are.”
-Salman Rushdie

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 August 2011 06:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  419
Joined  2007-08-24

The word “Secular” is just now coming into it’s own.  I am writing a series of commentaries about a possible Secular Republian movement.  It is catching some attention.  Shoot me!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 19 August 2011 08:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7573
Joined  2007-03-02

Where is it you are writing this series, Sandy?  I would love to read it.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3