1 of 2
1
Poll
Is there really a significant difference between 'secular humanism' and 'neo-humanism?'
Yes 0
No 1
I wish I knew 2
I don’t care 11
Total Votes: 14
You must be a logged-in member to vote
neo-humanist vs. secular humanist
Posted: 25 May 2010 08:22 AM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2010-02-04

Now that Paul Kurtz is starting a new movement, neo-humanism, does that mean one can choose to be either a ‘secular humanist’ or a ‘neo-humanist?’  What is the big difference? We need a chart to show where they differentiate.  Evidently, Paul didn’t feel he could simply update ‘secular humanism’ but had to create a new term ‘neo-humanism.’

RE: Neo-humanism: http://paulkurtz.net/index.html

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2010 08:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2010-02-04

I think one thing that disappoints me is that Paul Kurtz himself didn’t explicitly say why he is creating a new term.  It must be a big deal if one has to create a new word (neo-humanism).  He needs to have an article called “Why Secular Humanism can’t be reformed and we need to create neo-humanism” or “How neo-humanism is different than secular humanism.”

I read the article (critical review of Kurtz’s neo-humanism) by Ron Lindsay.

So, is it that ‘secular humanists’ are mostly rabid atheists; and neo-humanists can get along peacefully with religious people (while still not considering supernatural explanations for anything, as an atheist or agnostic)?

Does it all boil down to how to deal with religious people?  Or does neo-humanism make an attempt to somewhat or somehow rebuke atheists (like ‘the new atheists’) for being dogmatic in the assertion ‘there is no God?’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2010 08:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7665
Joined  2008-04-11

...or is a neo-humanist one who doesn’t belong to CFI?

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2010 08:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2010-02-04
asanta - 25 May 2010 08:42 AM

...or is a neo-humanist one who doesn’t belong to CFI?

If not CFI, then where does a neo-humanist go… a new national organization in the making…?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2010 09:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3028
Joined  2010-04-26

Why does everybody feel they have to tack the prefix “neo” onto everything?  Neo-humanism, neo-atheists, neo-kiss my ass.  I’m tired of it.  It means nothing.  Stop it people.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2010 11:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2010-02-04
Dead Monky - 25 May 2010 09:08 AM

Why does everybody feel they have to tack the prefix “neo” onto everything?  Neo-humanism, neo-atheists, neo-kiss my ass.  I’m tired of it.  It means nothing.  Stop it people.

Another problem, what’s next? Neo-neo-humanism?  Post-neo-humanism?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2010 01:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4751
Joined  2007-10-05

DM, you’re just a neo-curmudgeon.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2010 02:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3028
Joined  2010-04-26

Nice.  Mind if I use that?  Maybe print up t-shirts?

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2010 02:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4751
Joined  2007-10-05

Go ahead and use it, I don’t care. Maybe it will go viral.

As for Paul Kurtz, I think he is flat out wrong. Frankly, I am sick of getting religion thrown at me wherever I go, and I will ridicule ridiculous religious assertions whenever I feel the need.

 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2010 04:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2010-02-04

Oops- I think Paul Kurtz thought he invented a new term (neo-humanism) but someone else already got to define that word before him.

RE:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-humanism

Excerpt:
In 1959, Sarkar propounded the Progressive Utilization Theory, a socio-economic theory based on the cardinal values of Neohumanism. The theory or PROUT rejects both the systems of capitalism and communism, with a focus on adequate and maximum utilization of all resources and fair distribution of wealth, based on cooperatively managed business enterprises and industry.[10]  Neo-Humanism is an over-reaching philosophy that aims for the physical, mental and spiritual well-being of not only humans, but also of plants and animals. Sarkar created PROUT, then, as the practical means to establish Neo-Humanism in communities and nations around the world.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 25 May 2010 06:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

I think Kurtz’ hero is Jesus Christ.  Having a messianic complex, JC wasn’t satisfied with being a voice within Judiasm, but had to have a cadre of wide eyed, obsequeous followers.  I see Kurtz as fitting that mold.  Since he couldn’t control the AHA as their dictator, he formed the Secular Humanists.  People there finally got tired of him and deposed him from dictatorship.  So, now wants to the the messiah of a new organization. 

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2010 09:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3028
Joined  2010-04-26

I know nothing about the guy so I can’t say much about him.  Of course, that won’t stop me from mocking him if given the chance.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2010 10:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  65
Joined  2010-04-18

Each time I see a thread that goes on and on and on about the difference between terms like agnostic and atheist, I just move on. This looks like another pointless distinction. Voted ‘don’t care’.

 Signature 

minigiggles

Profile
 
 
Posted: 26 May 2010 03:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  88
Joined  2010-02-04
Tom Wood - 26 May 2010 10:23 AM

This looks like another pointless distinction. Voted ‘don’t care’.

I think Kurtz thinks he has a distinction with a point… I wish he’d say clearly what it is instead of just posting the new document without any preface as to why it was needed.  I suppose he intended it as a stand-alone document to be read and understood through the ages on its own merits.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 27 May 2010 03:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2011
Joined  2007-08-09

A longstanding criticism I have of Paul Kurtz is that he appears to have a conception of language that is exactly backward in several key areas. In many of his writings, he insists on dogmatic and narrow definitions of words, often stating, for example, “faith means x and only x,” when in fact the word has many meanings. This is no more debatable than the sun rising in the morning, because the other uses of the word are visible and demonstrable. Like many non-theists, he has long made the self-defeating mistake of insisting that words be given their least humanistic/naturalistic meaning. This divides us from the larger community and thereby weakens us; and often embitters us. It’s the worst possible approach.

The latest offering is yet another attempt to build language exclusively from the intellect. That’s not mainly how it works. Language evolves through experience and association, mainly. Words like eupraxwhatever, bright and now neo-humanist don’t catch on because they don’t have any experiential hooks - saying them triggers no episodic memories, for example. Neo-humanist also has the disadvantage of further emphasizing divisions among Humanists, which is among the last things we need.

 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 2010 03:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7665
Joined  2008-04-11

People tend to forget that definition follows usage, and not the other way around. In elementary and middle school, you are taught meaning through the use of a dictionary. And some people get stuck on that level. If they only stop to think of the definitions which have changed during their lifetimes (especially true with Kurtz), they will realize this, but most don’t…

 Signature 

Church; where sheep congregate to worship a zombie on a stick that turns into a cracker on Sundays…

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 2
1