I am getting closer to fully embracing the “Humanist” label. As such, I am trying to learn all I can about it. A name I keep running into is Jen Hancock. What you y’all think of her? I see that CFI is now going to be offering an online course (“Practical Humanism”) by Jen along with John Shook starting March 1. Anyone thinking of taking it? (For some reason it is still not showing up in the online listing but I got a link in an email: http://action.centerforinquiry.net/site/Calendar?id=102361&view=Detail)
Hey Free, have you read John Shook’s book “The God Debates” yet? Deep and somewhat confusing to me but I’m going to tackle it again. It it he outlines the major debate tactics used by atheists and theists. I noticed that ole Egor used some of the theist tactics listed there. Check it out if you haven’t already.
“Humanism in the modern sense of the term is the view that whatever your ethical system, it derives from your best understanding of human nature and the human condition in the real world.”
That broad definition is not loaded with any ethical system, it simply means ethics derived from our best understanding of ourselves. It means human-centered, or derived from humans.
If you want to go further with Jen Hancock (assuming she is like most humanist advocates) then technically that’s the ideologies of liberalism, one-worldism, which is not necessarily what all humanists follow (there are more conservative humanists who take a less idealistic, more pragmatic and restrained view of human nature).
So, we all should start with Grayling’s definition, and then qualify what type of humanist we are: a liberal humanist, a conservative humanist, etc. Accuracy of language breaks through the otherwise-muddled use of the word ‘humanism’.
“Humanism in the modern sense of the term is the view that whatever your ethical system, it derives from your best understanding of human nature and the human condition in the real world.”
That broad definition is not loaded with any ethical system, it simply means ethics derived from our best understanding of ourselves. It means human-centered, or derived from humans.
If you want to go further with Jen Hancock (assuming she is like most humanist advocates) then technically that’s the ideologies of liberalism, one-worldism, which is not necessarily what all humanists follow (there are more conservative humanists who take a less idealistic, more pragmatic and restrained view of human nature).
So, we all should start with Grayling’s definition, and then qualify what type of humanist we are: a liberal humanist, a conservative humanist, etc. Accuracy of language breaks through the otherwise-muddled use of the word ‘humanism’.
I like that. Too many words just cause disagreement. That def is concise; a good thing.
Humanism in the modern sense of the term is the view that whatever your ethical system, it derives from your best understanding of human nature and the human condition in the real world.”
Put me down as a humanist for sure. Emphasis on “The real World”!!!!!
Personally, I think that definition is pretty weak and doesn’t really make a positive statement about wht it means to be a humanist. I like the one from the third Humanist Manifesto better, though I still think it could be improved upon:
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
I don’t know, those two definitions are very similar.
progressive philosophy -> modern sense (progressive might be somewhat better than modern)
without supernaturalism -> in the real world (I prefer the inclusive over the exclusive)
Take the better of both and you get something like:
Humanism is a progressive philosophy that affirms our ability, as derived from human evolution, to act ethically in the real world with an aspiration toward the greater good. (I left out “of humanity” because it excludes the rest of nature.)
I don’t know, those two definitions are very similar.
progressive philosophy -> modern sense (progressive might be somewhat better than modern)
without supernaturalism -> in the real world (I prefer the inclusive over the exclusive)
Take the better of both and you get something like:
Humanism is a progressive philosophy that affirms our ability, as derived from human evolution, to act ethically in the real world with an aspiration toward the greater good. (I left out “of humanity” because it excludes the rest of nature.)
I like your definition too, Traveler. I don’t worry too much one way or the other about humanism excluding the rest of nature (in definition). I have no problem with humanism focusing primarily on the human species. Although we have done a lot of damage to the ecosystem in the past in the pursuit of our own self-interest, I think it has become apparent to thinking people in recent decades that our own self-interest actually meshes pretty well with the interest of all other living things on this big old rock.
Just ran across this and really like it. I think it is more a definition of a Humanist than it is an atheist.
“An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed should be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.” ~ Madalyn Murray O’hair defining an atheist for the US Supreme Court
By the way, I did enroll in the class. Unfortunately, my internet access form home went kaput this weekend after a tornado wiped out my ISP. I’m hoping to be back on the grid in the next day or two. For now I only have access from work. Speaking of which, I’d better get back to that…
“An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed should be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death.” ~ Madalyn Murray O’hair defining an atheist for the US Supreme Court
How do you respond to a message Traveler and have the prior message or parts of the prior message greyed out?
Yes I can see why you like this quote because it values deeds over unclear and arbitrary emotions. I also like this quote! I agree that it is good to state concrete goods but I refuse to not use emotion words or words that describe the human condition like soul or spirit or love or better. The definitions of these words are different for me than for a supernaturalist. I don’t want to give up any linguistic ground or descriptive capability. If I talk to someone for the firs time I would probably use a mushy definition over a more exact statement because it is more inviting. Thanks for the quote!!!
