That AHA article was pretty good, it laid out some of the breath that Humanism has, went into the tenets too, and touched on some history. Though I still think that Corliss Lamont did a better job of describing Humanism, but the article was a good short-format piece. Thanks ohio204. The author was obviously passionate about Religious Humanism, but I still don’t see it clearly. What is it just another name for the Unitarian Universalist Protestant church, or is it different? What is religion?
What is religion?
When one speaks of religion I usually think of something that is based on God or a supernatural power or influence. But also, I understand that it could mean that one having a cause, activity or principles that is of great importance to them, i.e. pro basketball fanatics.
Another name for UU?
I had studied the UU’s years ago, a very interesting organization. Not being a member I will let this link speak for them concerning religious humanist.
In pinning down a specific definition of humanist is all the more difficult when we live in a world of hyphens.
Perhaps in no denomination but Unitarianism, with its aversion to creeds and dogmas, could such a frankly nontheistic movement as religious humanism have arisen without provoking a schism, and even Unitarianism found itself hard pressed to encompass the new thought
It seems a genuine effort to resolve the age old differences and hatreds in favor of a more tolerant humanitarian approach. IMO it is a step forward, but I still detect an underlying acknowledgement of theistic creationism as a valid concept. IMO, it is that very concept which creates “a confounding of language”.
My question is why the simple term of Humanist is not sufficient as it includes (as opposed to tolerates) all humans be they theist, deist, and atheist?
Quick recap of UU. The Unitarians started out believing in one god rather than the trinity. However, by the 18th century they were divesting themselves of any real necessity to believe in a god. In the early 1930s a number of philosophers, scientists and Unitarian ministers formed the AHA. It mentioned god in its first manifesto, but got rid of any mention in the second and third. However, they weren’t militant enough (or else there were some internecine politics) so Paul Kurtz split off and formed the Secular Humanists.
Meanwhile, Unitarian membership was growing fast in the 40s and early 50s, but most were young people without much money. The Universalists had split off of the Methodists in the 19th century only because they felt god was too good to damn anyone to hell forever, but they were still strong theists. As most of the 20th century sects got rid of the hell’s fire story, the Universalists were rapidly losing membership, but they were loaded with real estate and endowments. Since both were politically liberal they suggested that they would be a good fit with the Unitarians. Unfortunately, too many of the leadership were seduced by all the money they’d bring so they joined. Since then the Universalist mafia has quietly taken over leadership of the UUs and it’s gone way back to become “spiritual” and acceptiing a god. That’s when I left them.
If you check the link above, you’ll see that Shutz and I have rather different views. Believe what you want.
I agree, but for me the booming tapping beat of drum tones stirs my inner musical notes to march with a different drummer is ‘Independent’. Simply being self-reliant, self-governing (autocephalous) and freethinking.
Quick recap of UU. The Unitarians started out believing in one god rather than the trinity. However, by the 18th century they were divesting themselves of any real necessity to believe in a god. In the early 1930s a number of philosophers, scientists and Unitarian ministers formed the AHA. It mentioned god in its first manifesto, but got rid of any mention in the second and third. However, they weren’t militant enough (or else there were some internecine politics) so Paul Kurtz split off and formed the Secular Humanists.
Meanwhile, Unitarian membership was growing fast in the 40s and early 50s, but most were young people without much money. The Universalists had split off of the Methodists in the 19th century only because they felt god was too good to damn anyone to hell forever, but they were still strong theists. As most of the 20th century sects got rid of the hell’s fire story, the Universalists were rapidly losing membership, but they were loaded with real estate and endowments. Since both were politically liberal they suggested that they would be a good fit with the Unitarians. Unfortunately, too many of the leadership were seduced by all the money they’d bring so they joined. Since then the Universalist mafia has quietly taken over leadership of the UUs and it’s gone way back to become “spiritual” and acceptiing a god. That’s when I left them.
If you check the link above, you’ll see that Shutz and I have rather different views. Believe what you want.
I agree, but for me the booming tapping beat of drum tones stirs my inner musical notes to march with a different drummer is ‘Independent’. Simply being self-reliant, self-governing (autocephalous) and freethinking.
hehe, as a former bassplayer it was my function to bridge the melody with the rhythm…
Actually I’m finishing John Shook’s “The God Debates” and he addresses the differences between humanists and athiests.
Can you tell us a few of the differences?
Before reading Shook I had no idea of the various shades of belief, non belief and thought a humanist was, well just a person who put man before any god. According to him a humanist isn’t necessarily an athiest. I’m probably preaching to the choir here but was unaware of this. there are religious humanists as well as secular humanists. Also, and I have never encountered this word before, apathiests as well as athiests. An apathiest is a person with no religious world view and could be a secular humanist, or not. The same with a fideist, a view that faith trumps reason. They may also fit the catagory of religious humainst or not. I’m going to reread the book, as philosophy isn’t my long suit and Shook’s views are a bit confusing to a novice and an absolutist!
I have taken a couple of Dr. Shook’s classes. I have also had dinner with him and watched him debate the existence of god. He’s a very sharp guy. I have to get that book.
I do not (yet) consider myself a humanist. Mostly because I don’t understand the logical basis for it. I understand that it can be a good philosophical position to hold, as an atheist, for the benefit of society. But of course, that’s just an appeal to consequences, not a real justification for it. What are some of your guys’ reasons for being a humanist?
What is wrong with an “appeal” to consequences? That very framing of the issue betrays a bias about what matters most. I disagree with that bias. What matters most is what works best over the long term. That is also our most reliable test for truth. I am constantly amused and frustrated by would-be philosophers who think that we can best gain knowledge through “reason” divorced from observation, and then insist by dint of fiat not only that they are right but that their so-called philosophizing is a legitimate discipline.
