jump_in_the_pit - 24 April 2011 09:05 AM

PLaClair - 23 April 2011 08:24 PM

I’m offering a vision for what might be, and will be if we make it so. For me, religious Humanism means that Humanism addresses my central concerns and provides a framework for living.

Tell us more about the central concerns and the framework.  I don’t see what you mean yet.  Is it different that what you see the CFI doing now-a-days.  What else do you want?  I’m only curious, whatever you like is your choice.

The central concerns are all the things people care about. We want to build lives that work, i.e., are productive, rewarding and satisfying. As in the Steve Earle song, “we are all pilgrims on this road,” trying to make sense of things and navigate through life as best we can.

Humanism can be as satisfying and as appealing as the most successful religion, more so in my opinion because we have no need to employ any fantasies, in fact we recognize the dangers in doing so. That makes our challenge harder but if we succeed, it will also make our endeavors more satisfying because we will know that we have not compromised ourselves.

Not everyone will wish to become a member in a Humanist organization but I wish there were some that were as satisfying in the aspects of community and optimism as a Unity church I attended some dozen or so years ago. There’s a market for that but we are not capturing it. We aren’t even trying, and the resistance to such a thing tends to shut it down. It’s shocking to me, and disappointing, that more secularists are not interested in it. So yes, it’s very different from what CFI, or any other Humanist organization is doing. We don’t celebrate together and we pay almost no attention to members’ personal concerns. How many times do you hear people in our groups talk about love for each other, or about love at all? How often do we talk about supporting members who are having problems? In my experience, almost never. We will never come anywhere close to realizing our full potential that way.

The framework is based on an understanding of what makes a human being tick. I learned it from Calvin Chatlos (see http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol13/chatlos.html - I was the person one of the other members found intimidating, see the article) and have since expanded on it. I opened a topic a couple years ago to present it here but people lost interest and I haven’t brought it up since. I am working on a website but it’s a major undertaking and may not be up and running for a couple years or more. If you’re interested in the model, I can explain it to you in more detail than you probably care to read about.

PLaClair - 24 April 2011 04:33 PM

Not everyone will wish to become a member in a Humanist organization but I wish there were some that were as satisfying in the aspects of community and optimism as a Unity church I attended some dozen or so years ago. There’s a market for that but we are not capturing it. We aren’t even trying, and the resistance to such a thing tends to shut it down. It’s shocking to me, and disappointing, that more secularists are interesting in it. So yes, it’s very different from what CFI, or any other Humanist organization is doing. We don’t celebrate together and we pay almost no attention to members’ personal concerns. How many times do you hear people in our groups talk about love for each other, or about love at all? How often do we talk about supporting members who are having problems? In my experience, almost never. We will never come anywhere close to realizing our full potential that way.

Thanks for finally saying your idea, Paul.  Lovely.  Sure I agree that the CFI isn’t oriented towards that idea, I’ll call it a “loving extended family”, if you’ll agree. 

But I do hear people talk about love and that idea from time to time, and I do see some efforts to create it, though not popular and widespread.  Maybe some people want more family, and some think one is enough.

Personally, I was raised in a very emotional family, with good and bad emotions.  It got me so depressed because of the overbearing emotions and reactions and the lack of thoughtful deep intellectual ideas, a balance that I need to be happy.  I wouldn’t go back to that overbearing idea, I lean toward the intellectual side, rather than the emotional one, but that’s just me.  I think that people are trying to be very helpful on this forum, overall, and I see many people acting that way in person at the CFI events.  My locales might not be yours, but I doubt that mine have been atypical.  So I do have those disagreements with you, not that I think you should stop the idea, just that I’m giving you one honest opinion from the audience that you are trying to appeal to.

I’ll bet you’ll find others to help you create it, good luck.

`
PLaClair, I haven’t been around in the forum in a few weeks, but I just wanted to say that I agree almost 100% with the goals (and complaints) you’ve expressed regarding the current ‘state’ of Humanism…...especially when it comes to addressing all of the things that ‘traditional religion’ has ‘covered’ over millenia ~ ie the emphasis and focus on strengthening the ‘communal’, through things like coming together to ‘rejoice’, etc.  In fact, I think that that is THE biggest ‘hole’ that Humanism desperately needs to redress.

On all of those things, all of the ways that that ‘religion’ and ‘secular humanism’ overlap, I wholeheartedly agree with (and greatly appreciate) your continuing contribution to this forum (among other places, i’m sure :)

Honestly, my lone issue is with the specific word ‘religion’ ~ and it’s only because that term has acquired soooooo much baggage over time and because (as I’ve expressed) I think it can lead to misunderstanding/miscommunication…....because the overwhelming majority of people assume that a ‘religious’ person is, by definition, a supernatural/metaphysical ‘god’ believer.

but having said that, I guess if it is somehow possible to alter the popular understanding of the term ‘religion’, to somehow change the mindset of the majority of people so that they no longer assume/conclude that ‘religion’ necessarily suggests/includes/requires theistic belief, then I’m all for it. 

I’m all for whatever we can do to communicate/propagate the idea that the most pressing/fundamental ‘humanistic concerns’ are things that are common to ALL of us (‘believers’ or not).

So, thank you again for all of the effort and work you’ve put into here to clarify all of these issues as you see them.  It’s greatly appreciated :)

`

Axegrrl - 21 May 2011 11:18 PM

`
PLaClair, I haven’t been around in the forum in a few weeks, but I just wanted to say that I agree almost 100% with the goals (and complaints) you’ve expressed regarding the current ‘state’ of Humanism…...especially when it comes to addressing all of the things that ‘traditional religion’ has ‘covered’ over millenia ~ ie the emphasis and focus on strengthening the ‘communal’, through things like coming together to ‘rejoice’, etc.  In fact, I think that that is THE biggest ‘hole’ that Humanism desperately needs to redress.

On all of those things, all of the ways that that ‘religion’ and ‘secular humanism’ overlap, I wholeheartedly agree with (and greatly appreciate) your continuing contribution to this forum (among other places, i’m sure

Honestly, my lone issue is with the specific word ‘religion’ ~ and it’s only because that term has acquired soooooo much baggage over time and because (as I’ve expressed) I think it can lead to misunderstanding/miscommunication…....because the overwhelming majority of people assume that a ‘religious’ person is, by definition, a supernatural/metaphysical ‘god’ believer.

but having said that, I guess if it is somehow possible to alter the popular understanding of the term ‘religion’, to somehow change the mindset of the majority of people so that they no longer assume/conclude that ‘religion’ necessarily suggests/includes/requires theistic belief, then I’m all for it. 

I’m all for whatever we can do to communicate/propagate the idea that the most pressing/fundamental ‘humanistic concerns’ are things that are common to ALL of us (‘believers’ or not).

So, thank you again for all of the effort and work you’ve put into here to clarify all of these issues as you see them.  It’s greatly appreciated

`

Thank you. One of the things we don’t do enough of is support each other. Our commitment to reason leads us to spend much of our time on critique. That’s OK to a point but the critique mode becomes a focus, and when that happens we can lose a healthy perspective. We can be equally scrupulous to detail, and more productive, in a support-and-augment mode.

PLaClair - 22 May 2011 02:14 AM

Axegrrl - 21 May 2011 11:18 PM

`
PLaClair, I haven’t been around in the forum in a few weeks, but I just wanted to say that I agree almost 100% with the goals (and complaints) you’ve expressed regarding the current ‘state’ of Humanism…...especially when it comes to addressing all of the things that ‘traditional religion’ has ‘covered’ over millenia ~ ie the emphasis and focus on strengthening the ‘communal’, through things like coming together to ‘rejoice’, etc.  In fact, I think that that is THE biggest ‘hole’ that Humanism desperately needs to redress.

On all of those things, all of the ways that that ‘religion’ and ‘secular humanism’ overlap, I wholeheartedly agree with (and greatly appreciate) your continuing contribution to this forum (among other places, i’m sure

Honestly, my lone issue is with the specific word ‘religion’ ~ and it’s only because that term has acquired soooooo much baggage over time and because (as I’ve expressed) I think it can lead to misunderstanding/miscommunication…....because the overwhelming majority of people assume that a ‘religious’ person is, by definition, a supernatural/metaphysical ‘god’ believer.

but having said that, I guess if it is somehow possible to alter the popular understanding of the term ‘religion’, to somehow change the mindset of the majority of people so that they no longer assume/conclude that ‘religion’ necessarily suggests/includes/requires theistic belief, then I’m all for it. 

I’m all for whatever we can do to communicate/propagate the idea that the most pressing/fundamental ‘humanistic concerns’ are things that are common to ALL of us (‘believers’ or not).

So, thank you again for all of the effort and work you’ve put into here to clarify all of these issues as you see them.  It’s greatly appreciated

`

Thank you. One of the things we don’t do enough of is support each other. Our commitment to reason leads us to spend much of our time on critique. That’s OK to a point but the critique mode becomes a focus, and when that happens we can lose a healthy perspective. We can be equally scrupulous to detail, and more productive, in a support-and-augment mode.

Make room… I also want to be part of this group hug. I have been torn somewhat in my support of CFI simply because of blasphemy day (I don’t want to start that debate again, I just prefer kindness).

I’ll open a topic on supportive Humanism.