Thought this would be an interesting topic of discussion.  Defining "humanism" is a little difficult so I thought I would start by using some words that the humanist society uses to describe themselves:

"Humanism is the view that we can make sense of the world using reason, experience and shared human values and that we can live good lives without religious or superstitious belief.  Humanists seek to make the best of the one life we have by creating meaning and purpose for ourselves.  We choose to take responsibility for our actions and work with other for the common good.  We think that other people for example are moral concerns, not because they are made in the image of something else, but because of who they are in themselves.  Humanism is a naturalistic worldview encompassing atheism.  We believe people can and will continue to find solutions to the world's problems so that the quality of life can be improve for everyone."

What I find interesting is that some atheists have the most penetrating critique of humanism.  In particular Professor John Gray.  What he argues is:

"Humanism is the new religion or new faith in a post-Christian Europe.  It is the dominant worldview that informs everything else.  However, a truly secular view of the world is one that does not permit belief in or the hopes of humanism.  A truly naturalistic worldview is one that does not leave any room for secular hope."

His central argument in his book "The Silence of Animals" is:  "Humanism is essentially the Christian faith expressed in secular terms.  In which we have replaced the idea of God's providence with a conviction of the nature of progress.  Christians understood history as a story of sin and redemption.  Humanism is the transformation of this Christian doctrine of salvation in to a project of universal emancipation.  The idea of progress rests on the belief that the growth of knowledge and the advance of the species go together, if not now then in the long run.  However, the biblical myth of the fall of man contains the forbidden truth, that knowledge does not make us free, it leaves as we have always been, prey to every kind of folly.  To believe in progress is to believe that by using the new powers given to us by growing scientific knowledge, humans can free themselves from the limits that frame the lives of other animals.  However, Darwin shows us that humans are like other animals.  Humanists claim they are not.  Humanists insist that by using our knowledge we control our environment and flourish like never before.  In affirming this, they renew one of Christianity's most dubious promises, that salvation is open to all.  The humanists belief in progress is a secular version of this Christian faith.  In the world shown to us by Darwin, there is nothing that can be called progress.  The idea that humanity takes charge of its destiny makes sense only if we ascribe consciousness and purpose and meaning to the human race, but Darwin's discovery was that species are only currents in the drift of genes.  The idea that humanity can shape its future assumes that it is exempt from this truth."

Sorry this is so long, but I thought it was interesting enough to have a discussion.

You know lkingpinl, I'm always just a little bit suspicious if something ends in ism.

What I subscribe to are humanitarian values in their broadest sense. Hoping for a better world than we have now. And that includes getting rid of isms, since in their vast majority they're just flags to rally behind. Well, maybe there is an ism I can subscribe to: Individualism. Which I don't define as everyone for themselves, but as trying to make up one's own mind about what is iimportant for one's life.

(August 25, 2015 at 2:19 pm)abaris Wrote: You know lkingpinl, I'm always just a little bit suspicious if something ends in ism.

What I subscribe to are humanitarian values in their broadest sense. Hoping for a better world than we have now. And that includes getting rid of isms, since in their vast majority they're just flags to rally behind. Well, maybe there is an ism I can subscribe to: Individualism. Which I don't define as everyone for themselves, but as trying to make up one's own mind about what is iimportant for one's life.

I can understand that and kind of reiterates what i said in other threads about how when we identify ourselves with certain labels we are incontrovertibly align ourselves with ideas we may not support as an individual.  For example if I say I am a white  upper-class, Jewish democrat, you automatically assume I believe and prescribe to certain claims and ideas.  I've opened myself up to unfair ridicule for something I may not actually believe in.  I have no problem with individualism.  

Hmm. I rather disagree with Professor Gray there.

"Darwin shows us that humans are like other animals. Humanists claim they are not." That's a really vacuous statement. We're like all other animals in a whole freaking lot of ways, but to argue that there's no substantive difference between humans and other animals seems untenable.

"In the world shown to us by Darwin, there is nothing that can be called progress." Bullshit. That's just a weird secular rehashing of the "but if we all evolved from monkeys then we're just monkeys so there's no morals so incest and pedophilia and jaywalking are ok" stuff evolution gets. There are a million ways to define progress. That there's no objective progress does not mean that it is impossible or inadvisable to pursue subjective progress. This is an is-ought thing, I think.

"The idea that humanity takes charge of its destiny makes sense only if we ascribe consciousness and purpose and meaning to the human race, but Darwin's discovery was that species are only currents in the drift of genes." Lol wut? "The idea that humanity can shape its future assumes that it is exempt from this truth." No assuming required. Humanity can 1) plan on timescales far in excess of a human lifetime, 2) alter its own genetic code, and 3) reach other celestial bodies. There's no inherent property of evolution that says an organism can't advance to a point where it knows enough about itself to change itself.

And I have no idea at all what he's talking about regarding "salvation" and such. I mean, maybe I do get some of what he's saying. Some people who are, say, humanists, or transhumanists, or whatnot, have replaced "heaven" with "the singularity" and really treat the two concepts similarly, probably to their own detriment. But Grey's argument here has nothing to do with that, really; he might be correct in saying that it's wrong to conflate heaven and progress of the species, but he's way off base in his reasoning.

Edit to add: Basically, Kingpin, I think your signature quote applies perfectly to this passage.

There are different kinds of humanists, some of whom specifically identify themselves as religious humanists, and others for whom such a designation is anathema.  So I think you are imagining a uniformity among all who are called "humanists" which leads to problems.  That might also be an issue with which Professor Gray needs to grapple, though I would want to read more of his comments, than what you have included, before committing myself to anything about him.

Humanism by itself is kind of a generic concept and is spelled with a lower case h except at the beginning of a sentence. What the professor is talking about is Secular Humanism. I'll admit that there is a small degree of religious-type baggage in it but as TRJF said, we do have the ability to direct our own evolution in a way lower animals cannot. There is nothing but the laws of physics preventing us from self-evolving to god-like heights.

I usually share a mild discomfort with humanism. But from what is quoted here, Gray's reasoning seems questionable. Replacing Christian religious belief by a hope that progress is possible is not switching faith for faith of the same kind. He would be shouted down if he came here with that claim. The same goes for Evolution. He seems to claim that "Darwin" has shown us that we are the same as animals, and therefore hoping for progress is a delusional belief. This sounds just wrong, especially since history shows that progress towards a more humane society is actually possible. I don't think the theory of Evolution by natural selection provides such a conclusion, and it also is not representative of what Darwin himself thought, so I wonder where Gray pulled this notion out of, though I have an idea...

I originally thought humanism was just putting human wellbeing in general at the centre of or values, as opposed to trying to please some external thing or just pleasing ourselves individually.

I would agree with that, except I generally try to raise the value of animals to be as on par as possible with humans. (Obviously this is an ideal that can't ever be truly achieved.)

It seems there may be more to it than that, if so I have no need for it. This is also covered by "Duh!" for me, as is equality, and other such things that seem very obvious.

For me humanism is perhaps best defined by some of it's famous members like Gene Roddenberry, Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan - it is a belief that humans can achieve great things if they commit to science and rationality to create almost scientific utopia like "Star Trek" with a glittering, hopeful future full of worldwide peace and cooperation, scientific achievement, and universal discovery.

Indeed in Star Trek humans have perhaps overthrown what is perhaps truly the biggest "religion" - money, or at least from their standpoint it seems like religion. Because with abundant energy they have replicators that give them what ever they ask and therefore people have unimaginative freedom, they don't own anything to anyone, but use all their time to better themselves and society they live in.
And it is an interesting notion to think that if there is no money there probably would not be religions, because I think the patriarchs really would not care what people believe in if they didn't profit from it.

Of course theist do jump to proclaim everything as religion even atheism.

Taken from the BHA website: https://humanism.org.uk/humanism/

I quite like the BHA, and though I do not define myself as a humanist, I identify with some of their core beliefs and ideas such as secularism, promotion of equality and freedom of beliefs.