3 of 3
3
Questions on Religiousness
Posted: 13 June 2008 04:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15305
Joined  2006-02-14

Discussion about Mod policy moved to the Complaints folder, as per rule (5).

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2008 05:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
redcrayon - 12 June 2008 05:59 PM

daisy, i see what you mean with the complication part…. today i was thinking about that and PLaClairs responses of mixing “mystic ideas” with the reality of the world.  now i’m thinking that it doesn’t matter really what i think about “god” in terms of my actions.  because if i met someone who was a really nice person, and they were helpful and thoughtful of their actions towards others and not imposing of their ideas, what does it matter if they think that, let’s say, there is a big invisible rabbit behind pluto that we all go eat delicious pizza with when we die?  so between myself and this pluto rabbit pizza person, we should be understanding of what it is useful to be agreeing about.

red, I don’t go quite that far. It does matter if someone thinks things are true without a basis for belief. So I agree with you to the extent of seeking common ground, but I would do that with everyone. Some things make it harder than others. So while someone’s belief in a big invisible rabbit may not immediately affect their relationship with me or their ability to get along with others, beliefs like that cause problems because they set up the conditions for conflict.

For example, a close family member, knowing that I do not believe in her concept of God asked me “do you mind if I do.” My answer was “I can’t stop you. It won’t make me care about you any less. It need not interfere with our getting along, although it’s already creating a tension. But I can’t defend it and I don’t think it’s a good thing to believe.”

 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: 13 June 2008 05:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
Mriana - 12 June 2008 10:05 PM

No, it does not sound sound like agnosticism or Humanism.  Humanism does not rely on any supernatural being and the majority are either atheist or agnostics.  Agnosticism doesn’t know if there is a god and it cannot be known and one can be a theistic agnostic or an non-theistic agnostist.  Here: This gives more info of what I mean:  http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/Agnosticism_Agnostics_What_Do_Agnostics_Believe_Whats_Agnosticism.htm  Only it calls what I called theistic agnostism “agnostic theism”.  This one specifically covers the two specifically:  http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/theism.htm  One can be an agnostic and be a Humanist, but as a rule this group of agnostics are not agnostic theists.

Next you may say, “yeah, but there are Religious Humanists.”  Don’t let that fool you or even confuse you, however, since it does keep the peace, due to it’s confusing people, here in the Bible Belt I sometimes add the adjective “Religious” before the word Humanism.  Somehow being open to the study of religion smooths things over a little with some theists, because they don’t know what it is and just assume what it is as a rule.  Here are two great articles on that, one by Robert Price:

Price’s Article:  http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/price_22_3.htm  I love what he said about it being “all lobe”, because on a psychological level, it is lobe.  LOL  Anyway, Religious Humanism isn’t much different from Secular Humanism as far as belief, or rather lack of belief, goes.

This one is not as thorough I wish to explain all of this, but it does clarify some.  http://atheism.about.com/od/abouthumanism/a/religioushuman.htm  An example of a Christian Humanist, or “humanistic religionist” would be Bishop John Shelby Spong.  An example of Religious Humanists would be Robert Price and Greg Epstein.  This is not to say that some Unitarians are not Religious Humanists or some humanistic theists- there is both under one roof.  Confused yet?

Some atheists are also Humanists, but not all atheist are Humanists and if you follow the links to the left on about.com you can find a little info on all of this, but again, none of what is said about any of the topic is the whole of it.  It only clarifies some.  There are no real set principles, dogma, or what have you in any of the three (excluding Christian Humanism and possibly Humanistic Judaism.  Yes, I threw in yet another and yes, there is Humanistic Hinduism.  You lost yet?) One last link that gives definitions to some of the forms of humanism (notice how I switched from capital “H” to lower case “h”, there’s a reason for this, but this is another topic):  http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/whatis.php  The thing is Humanism is a non-theistic philosophy and not a religion, but theism can be humanistic.  To clarify or rather simplify, if one is a theist, yet have humanistic views, they might be a humanistic religionist, but if they are atheists or agnostics, yet are similar to Bob Price or Greg Epstein, they might be a Religious Humanist.  Secular Humanists are agnostics or atheists.  Humanism focuses on the human, not a deity of any kind nor is there a belief in a deity.

I do not share many of these definitions. For example, I am a religious Humanist, but I do not believe in a creator-god. My Humanism is very much a religion. Is “religion” (a) a set of beliefs about a god, (b) an organization dedicated to worshiping the divine, (c) an approach to life in which one tries to bring all things into coherent harmony as best one can, and live vitally from that perspective, or (d) something else? For me, the answer, emphatically is (c).

Is an atheist someone who says definitively “there is no God!” or merely someone who does not “have” a god? What is it that an agnostic does not know?

I am in accord with Mriana’s last sentence to the effect that what matters most is mainly a matter of focus, but I don’t think that’s what these definitions offer. They are more nearly centered on drawing lines than on placing focus. In my experience, those two approaches lead to very different places.

 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: 13 June 2008 05:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3121
Joined  2008-04-07
redcrayon - 11 June 2008 07:10 PM

placlair,  you totally blew me away with the latin for religion… there is an axiom from judaism that says that spiritual knowledge is not learned, rather it is recognized… i think that is relevant to the idea of of the latin for religion…english is a rather muddled language by this point in time which can cause problems.  another instance from the jewish example is the word for sin.  a better meaning of the hebrew word for sin that the bible copped would be ‘missing the target’.  the ideas that humans miss a targert and the idea that humans are sinners are related but carry wildly different connotations.

as for a sound conclusion about the totality of our existence, traveler asks a fantastic question that never ceases to paralyze me, what produced the “ultimate source”.  a tree comes out of the ground, the ground is earth, the earth comes from space things, space things come from the big bang, the big bang comes from the huge crash which comes from the massive whomp, ad infinitum.  one can always ask of the previous source, what is that thing’s source.  so the conclusion then is that everything is never ending.  couple that with the idea that you can’t get nothing from something and viola, an ultimate source that is the totality of never ending existence.  for me i like to put it in those terms because otherwise, like i said my brain is paralyzed.

i am very influenced by the hindu version of existence on this.  i like meditating on this idea of never endingness because while having the idea of infinity is possible the actual thing that is infinity is incomprehensible.  trying to grasp it makes my mind peaceful, but then again so does holding my head underwater

The answers are not there for any of us - and that’s cool. I am a science type with a conscience, like most of those here. That conscience makes me wonder and ponder what might be, but the science part of me won’t accept any ponderance without a preponderance of evidence. For those things that have no evidence, I feel that the only option left is to keep looking for answers. I believe religion is a premature answer to things people need answers to but are not willing to wait for. I wait, happy that I respect the question enough to keep looking for a true answer. The ask a Christian thread annoys the hell out of me because a troll pretends to have every answer. That’s ok for him, but until someone much smarter than he comes up with a reasoned answer, I exercise patience.

Sam Harris has taken some flack for his study of meditation. His approach to meditation is exploratory and scientific in the sense that he has not made any conclusions about anything - and he won’t until there is experimental (i.e., repeatable) objective evidence. I know the mind is an incredible sea of mystery because of savants, genius and hallucinagenics. For me, studying the brain is as fascinating as studying the cosmos. Good luck with your search.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2008 08:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
traveler - 13 June 2008 05:55 AM
redcrayon - 11 June 2008 07:10 PM

placlair,  you totally blew me away with the latin for religion… there is an axiom from judaism that says that spiritual knowledge is not learned, rather it is recognized… i think that is relevant to the idea of of the latin for religion…english is a rather muddled language by this point in time which can cause problems.  another instance from the jewish example is the word for sin.  a better meaning of the hebrew word for sin that the bible copped would be ‘missing the target’.  the ideas that humans miss a targert and the idea that humans are sinners are related but carry wildly different connotations.

as for a sound conclusion about the totality of our existence, traveler asks a fantastic question that never ceases to paralyze me, what produced the “ultimate source”.  a tree comes out of the ground, the ground is earth, the earth comes from space things, space things come from the big bang, the big bang comes from the huge crash which comes from the massive whomp, ad infinitum.  one can always ask of the previous source, what is that thing’s source.  so the conclusion then is that everything is never ending.  couple that with the idea that you can’t get nothing from something and viola, an ultimate source that is the totality of never ending existence.  for me i like to put it in those terms because otherwise, like i said my brain is paralyzed.

i am very influenced by the hindu version of existence on this.  i like meditating on this idea of never endingness because while having the idea of infinity is possible the actual thing that is infinity is incomprehensible.  trying to grasp it makes my mind peaceful, but then again so does holding my head underwater

The answers are not there for any of us - and that’s cool. I am a science type with a conscience, like most of those here. That conscience makes me wonder and ponder what might be, but the science part of me won’t accept any ponderance without a preponderance of evidence. For those things that have no evidence, I feel that the only option left is to keep looking for answers. I believe religion is a premature answer to things people need answers to but are not willing to wait for. I wait, happy that I respect the question enough to keep looking for a true answer. The ask a Christian thread annoys the hell out of me because a troll pretends to have every answer. That’s ok for him, but until someone much smarter than he comes up with a reasoned answer, I exercise patience.

Sam Harris has taken some flack for his study of meditation. His approach to meditation is exploratory and scientific in the sense that he has not made any conclusions about anything - and he won’t until there is experimental (i.e., repeatable) objective evidence. I know the mind is an incredible sea of mystery because of savants, genius and hallucinagenics. For me, studying the brain is as fascinating as studying the cosmos. Good luck with your search.

Terrific post. Makes me think: Religion is a marvelous idea gone horribly awry. Seeking answers to the great questions - we would scarcely be human if we didn’t. Claiming to have the answers is where religion went wrong, and what a disastrous - epically disastrous - turn it was!

 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: 13 June 2008 09:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02
PLaClair - 13 June 2008 05:55 AM

I do not share many of these definitions. For example, I am a religious Humanist, but I do not believe in a creator-god. My Humanism is very much a religion. Is “religion” (a) a set of beliefs about a god, (b) an organization dedicated to worshiping the divine, (c) an approach to life in which one tries to bring all things into coherent harmony as best one can, and live vitally from that perspective, or (d) something else? For me, the answer, emphatically is (c).

Is an atheist someone who says definitively “there is no God!” or merely someone who does not “have” a god? What is it that an agnostic does not know?

I am in accord with Mriana’s last sentence to the effect that what matters most is mainly a matter of focus, but I don’t think that’s what these definitions offer. They are more nearly centered on drawing lines than on placing focus. In my experience, those two approaches lead to very different places.

If you read some of those links, one of them also puts humanism into that perspective too.  I consider myself a religious Humanist too in that for me, the human condition is worth researching, observing, etc, including the study of religion and it’s effect on the human.  For me, what pretains to the human is very important and they should be treated with dignity, even if they are superstitious.  I do not believe in the god of religion and do not have a god concept, except maybe a vague almost Taoist, even somewhat Gnostic, like idea of what it MIGHT be, BUT IF there is a god, it is within the human and not some external force and probably manifests itself in our neurology.  I cannot define what is internal to the human though, except explain it in the form of neuro-psychology, maybe to the point of not truly existing except as a human concept, but my focus is on the human, not some deity. To define it, even as love, is to not truly define it (what was it Tzu said about defining the Tao?  My older son knows it.), and makes it, whatever we are talking about, a human concept nor is there any room to define it as a creator deity, for it is all “lobe”.  Thus, I fit the agnostic definition in those links, probably towards the atheistic side of their definitions.  However, my concept, even without any defining with human words, which is impossible, is not ruled by any deity and the focus can only be on the human and the human condition- thus, for example, love is not God, it is part of the human condition which can cause feelings of transcendence, which is a very “numinous” (3rd definition in Webster’s 11th edition) feeling to experience and appreciate.  In this respect, we can, as Sweet Reason has stated, reclaim some of the words that religionists have taken over and seemed to have claimed as completely religious.  I am very much the Religious Humanist in that respect, just as I am sure you are too with your thoughts.

By the same token, there are those who consider themselves Christians, but by all accounts are humanistic- ie Spong.  What he writes sounds very much like Humanism, only with some sort of deity involved.  In fact, when I wrote him and questioned him on this, he wrote back and said, “Mriana, Humanism is not anti-Christian or anti-God.  It is through the human that we experience the Holy, the Other.  The Divine is the ultimate depth of the human.”  I cannot argue that religious POV, for it is quite humanistic at the same time.  So, I do not feel we can dismiss Christian Humanism, Humanistic Judaism, and alike as being (or not being) a form of humanism. Spong, in my opinion, is just as much of a Humanist as I am, you, or anyone else here that calls themselves a Humanist, only he does have a god concept.  His concept is that God is like the wind and we can only experience it’s effects via the human- we experience God, but we cannot describe God.  Can any of us here describe the wind without describing it in terms of it’s effects?  It has no form or mass, but we can feel it on our skin and see it move the leaves.  Our first breath (God’s breath is another term he uses) is also indescribable, but it is what determines whether we live or die in the first few moments of our lives.  So, Spong’s POV is entirely focused on the human, not some external force somewhere. I don’t think it can be dismissed as a form of humanism, even though it has a god concept.

Am I making any sense at all?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2008 09:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09
Mriana - 13 June 2008 09:32 AM
PLaClair - 13 June 2008 05:55 AM

I do not share many of these definitions. For example, I am a religious Humanist, but I do not believe in a creator-god. My Humanism is very much a religion. Is “religion” (a) a set of beliefs about a god, (b) an organization dedicated to worshiping the divine, (c) an approach to life in which one tries to bring all things into coherent harmony as best one can, and live vitally from that perspective, or (d) something else? For me, the answer, emphatically is (c).

Is an atheist someone who says definitively “there is no God!” or merely someone who does not “have” a god? What is it that an agnostic does not know?

I am in accord with Mriana’s last sentence to the effect that what matters most is mainly a matter of focus, but I don’t think that’s what these definitions offer. They are more nearly centered on drawing lines than on placing focus. In my experience, those two approaches lead to very different places.

If you read some of those links, one of them also puts humanism into that perspective too.  I consider myself a religious Humanist too in that for me, the human condition is worth researching, observing, etc, including the study of religion and it’s effect on the human.  For me, what pretains to the human is very important and they should be treated with dignity, even if they are superstitious.  I do not believe in the god of religion and do not have a god concept, except maybe a vague almost Taoist, even somewhat Gnostic, like idea of what it MIGHT be, BUT IF there is a god, it is within the human and not some external force and probably manifests itself in our neurology.  I cannot define what is internal to the human though, except explain it in the form of neuro-psychology, maybe to the point of not truly existing except as a human concept, but my focus is on the human, not some deity. To define it, even as love, is to not truly define it (what was it Tzu said about defining the Tao?  My older son knows it.), and makes it, whatever we are talking about, a human concept nor is there any room to define it as a creator deity, for it is all “lobe”.  Thus, I fit the agnostic definition in those links, probably towards the atheistic side of their definitions.  However, my concept, even without any defining with human words, which is impossible, is not ruled by any deity and the focus can only be on the human and the human condition- thus, for example, love is not God, it is part of the human condition which can cause feelings of transcendence, which is a very “numinous” (3rd definition in Webster’s 11th edition) feeling to experience and appreciate.  In this respect, we can, as Sweet Reason has stated, reclaim some of the words that religionists have taken over and seemed to have claimed as completely religious.  I am very much the Religious Humanist in that respect, just as I am sure you are too with your thoughts.

By the same token, there are those who consider themselves Christians, but by all accounts are humanistic- ie Spong.  What he writes sounds very much like Humanism, only with some sort of deity involved.  In fact, when I wrote him and questioned him on this, he wrote back and said, “Mriana, Humanism is not anti-Christian or anti-God.  It is through the human that we experience the Holy, the Other.  The Divine is the ultimate depth of the human.”  I cannot argue that religious POV, for it is quite humanistic at the same time.  So, I do not feel we can dismiss Christian Humanism, Humanistic Judaism, and alike as being (or not being) a form of humanism. Spong, in my opinion, is just as much of a Humanist as I am, you, or anyone else here that calls themselves a Humanist, only he does have a god concept.  His concept is that God is like the wind and we can only experience it’s effects via the human- we experience God, but we cannot describe God.  Can any of us here describe the wind without describing it in terms of it’s effects?  It has no form or mass, but we can feel it on our skin and see it move the leaves.  Our first breath (God’s breath is another term he uses) is also indescribable, but it is what determines whether we live or die in the first few moments of our lives.  So, Spong’s POV is entirely focused on the human, not some external force somewhere. I don’t think it can be dismissed as a form of humanism, even though it has a god concept.

Am I making any sense at all?

You are to me.

 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: 13 June 2008 11:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  339
Joined  2008-02-27

Doug,

Thanks for your response, I have heard the name Spinoza but was not sure of his theories.  I would agree that his definition of God made him an atheist. 

It’s always been an interesting question to me as to whether someone believes God is living entity or not.  If living, it would imply an eventual end (by that I mean anything living could be killed even if it were very difficult) and may tend to make him part of the universe rather than above it or could prove Nietzsche correct.  If however, He is not living then it seems strange that He displays emotion or could send a son to teach people about the Gospel.  Further, if not living, how could something non-living assign values such as good and evil.  How can something non-living have concern about another?

[ Edited: 13 June 2008 11:47 AM by JRM5001 ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2008 02:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  212
Joined  2008-02-25
PLaClair - 12 June 2008 02:20 PM


George Carlin might say that people think they need a place to put their stuff.


LOL please don’t get me started on George Carlin, that guy as far as I am concerned is TNT in human form (to GC fans, I am weid in the way I compliment sometimes I admit, but I meant that as a compliment), and I agree with your guess, it makes sense though it feels bad to sound like I am siding against RedCrayon, since he/she seems to be non-hostile person.

redcrayon - 12 June 2008 05:59 PM

daisy, i see what you mean with the complication part…. today i was thinking about that and PLaClairs responses of mixing “mystic ideas” with the reality of the world.  now i’m thinking that it doesn’t matter really what i think about “god” in terms of my actions.  because if i met someone who was a really nice person, and they were helpful and thoughtful of their actions towards others and not imposing of their ideas, what does it matter if they think that, let’s say, there is a big invisible rabbit behind pluto that we all go eat delicious pizza with when we die?  so between myself and this pluto rabbit pizza person, we should be understanding of what it is useful to be agreeing about.

I see but there still is a danger in there since one can only imagine what this false perception will end up evolving into as far as that person’s actions are concerned down the road. Lots of mental patients can occasionally be ‘helpful and thoughtful’,  that doesn’t mean they can be counted on when it comes to handling certain matters.

as for the perceived self stuff, that is something that i think about to understand my life through different perspectives.


the first perspective you need to take into account when it comes to assessing your ‘self’ is your own, you seem to be blurry with it for the time being, and consequently you are not in position to even be concerned with the others. Beside, your perception of yourself is what you’re supposed to relate to since it is the closest to you of them all, and the one you will most likely identify with. If you cannot anchor it, don’t try to anchor the others. 

i would say that the main influences for those ideas are anthropology and hindu philosophies.  In anthropology, broadly speaking, a persons identity and actions are seen through the lens of how those things are shaped by culture ie, i go to college because that is a measure of success(if you are familiar with anthropology forgive me i’m not trying to teach you anything just get through my ideas).  so i might have thoughts about what i want to do, but perhaps that thought is only the product of cultural influences and that there is a better action.  hindu philosophies will say that the entire world is an illusion, and that what we perceive are only waves on a vast ocean…if you concentrate only on the waves, you miss the vastness of the rest of the ocean.  so it’s not so much saying my physical self is an illusion, or that i might not actually be here, (i haven’t read anything on that type of metaphysical philosophies so if you could suggest something in that department i would be interested to read it) but more about my perceived identity…i guess a follow up question would be (under the assumption of discounting metaphysical ideas) “if a persons identity is created by a combination of nature and nurture, then where does self identity come from?”

edit-  if a person’s self is created by a combination of nature and nurture, is there anything that is truly “me” other than my individual body?


you didn’t answer my question about fasting. In posting you need to be able to mean what you say and say what you mean. Both of your posts indicate that you don’t.

Mriana - 12 June 2008 10:05 PM
Daisy - 12 June 2008 01:00 PM
redcrayon - 10 June 2008 02:48 PM

So does this sound like Agnosticism? Humanism? Hinduism?  I think my basic ideas are not logically unsound but where to go from here as far as day to day practice and long terms goals as to how I should live my life in accordance with my views of existence?  Does atheism/agnosticism/humanism have set principles without a god in the traditional western monotheistic interpretation or should it be a choosing of the truest elements of any religion?

I think you are complicating your life and its meaning for yourself more than they actually are in truth. Atheism, humanism, agnostism share pretty much the same values as religion claims to have, the only difference in between is the former does on its own free will and the latter thinks if it doesn’t it will go to hell.

No, it does not sound sound like agnosticism or Humanism.  Humanism does not rely on any supernatural being and the majority are either atheist or agnostics.  Agnosticism doesn’t know if there is a god and it cannot be known and one can be a theistic agnostic or an non-theistic agnostist.  Here: This gives more info of what I mean:  http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/Agnosticism_Agnostics_What_Do_Agnostics_Believe_Whats_Agnosticism.htm  Only it calls what I called theistic agnostism “agnostic theism”.  This one specifically covers the two specifically:  http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/theism.htm  One can be an agnostic and be a Humanist, but as a rule this group of agnostics are not agnostic theists.

Next you may say, “yeah, but there are Religious Humanists.”  Don’t let that fool you or even confuse you, however, since it does keep the peace, due to it’s confusing people, here in the Bible Belt I sometimes add the adjective “Religious” before the word Humanism.  Somehow being open to the study of religion smooths things over a little with some theists, because they don’t know what it is and just assume what it is as a rule.  Here are two great articles on that, one by Robert Price:

Price’s Article:  http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/price_22_3.htm  I love what he said about it being “all lobe”, because on a psychological level, it is lobe.  LOL  Anyway, Religious Humanism isn’t much different from Secular Humanism as far as belief, or rather lack of belief, goes.

This one is not as thorough I wish to explain all of this, but it does clarify some.  http://atheism.about.com/od/abouthumanism/a/religioushuman.htm  An example of a Christian Humanist, or “humanistic religionist” would be Bishop John Shelby Spong.  An example of Religious Humanists would be Robert Price and Greg Epstein.  This is not to say that some Unitarians are not Religious Humanists or some humanistic theists- there is both under one roof.  Confused yet?

Some atheists are also Humanists, but not all atheist are Humanists and if you follow the links to the left on about.com you can find a little info on all of this, but again, none of what is said about any of the topic is the whole of it.  It only clarifies some.  There are no real set principles, dogma, or what have you in any of the three (excluding Christian Humanism and possibly Humanistic Judaism.  Yes, I threw in yet another and yes, there is Humanistic Hinduism.  You lost yet?) One last link that gives definitions to some of the forms of humanism (notice how I switched from capital “H” to lower case “h”, there’s a reason for this, but this is another topic):  http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/whatis.php  The thing is Humanism is a non-theistic philosophy and not a religion, but theism can be humanistic.  To clarify or rather simplify, if one is a theist, yet have humanistic views, they might be a humanistic religionist, but if they are atheists or agnostics, yet are similar to Bob Price or Greg Epstein, they might be a Religious Humanist.  Secular Humanists are agnostics or atheists.  Humanism focuses on the human, not a deity of any kind nor is there a belief in a deity.


Mriana, I am sorry, Have I known my post would have sent you on your way to Andromeda I would have added the word “moral” next to the word “values” b4 hitting the “submit” botton. If you read RedCrayon, you would have seen that he/she is the one who lined up atheism/agnosticim/humanism together sounding as if he/she understand the 3 to be stands on the perception of god. I know what the 3 means.

The key word in my paragraph is “values” as in moral values. And yes, beside the fact that they are not all religions, I believe a humanist, as an agnostic, as an atheist, as a religionist can all have the same moral values, but for a different reasons. A religionist would be mainly motivated by how his/her god wants him/her to act. It might or might not be the case for a humanist or an agnostic (regardless of their relgious belief), and it certainly won’t be the case for the atheist. The atheist would act on his/her conscience and not on the fact that if they don’t be good they are ignoringly threatened with a made up hell. That’s all I am saying.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2008 10:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02

Sorry about that, I guess I should have editted down my reply with quotes a little more than I did.  I was directing it more to redcrayon than you, Daisy, or anyone else, but anyone is free to jump in and add their view of humanism if they like.  You are right, a Humanist, atheist, agnostic, and even a religionist can have similar moral values ie, “Thou shalt not kill” is no matter how one phrases, is generally a common value, just as the Buddhists believe one should do no harm. Few people have a desire to intentionally do harm. Accidental harm is generally followed with regrets, esp if the harmer cares about the one they harmed.

 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 3
3