Disclaimer: In previous interactions, I have noticed a reflex-like tendency for many here to respond as if there is a lurking argument for God's existence waiting to emerge from my posts. I can assure you that this thread does not include that intention (nor is there any intention for an argument, I really just want to talk). I am here to learn about the ways other people understand reality, especially the ways in which atheists so understand. No need to try and "head him off at the pass!" or "predict" or "categorize" the latent argumentative angle. If something is not clear, I am a human being and you can ask me directly. I will do my best to clear it up. I am an imperfect and not particularly likable person, so I ask for your patience as well. Now to my question(s)...

What is a homo sapiens according to the secular humanist anthropology?

You might phrase the same question this way: What (if anything), besides genetic code and genetic expression, distinguishes a thing as human?

This seems to me a fundamental question for which someone who ascribes to secularhumanism to have a robust answer, or at least a question which occupies a central aspect of the worldview. Thanks in advance for your input!

(March 11, 2015 at 5:06 pm)Ignorant Wrote: What is a homo sapiens according to the secular humanist anthropology?

You might phrase the same question this way: What (if anything), besides genetic code and genetic expression, distinguishes a thing as human?

This seems to me a fundamental question for which someone who ascribes to secularhumanism to have a robust answer, or at least a question which occupies a central aspect of the worldview. Thanks in advance for your input!

There isn't such a thing as secular humanist anthropology. There is such a thing as anthropology which is the scientific study of the human species. It is necessarily secular in the sense that like all science it does not have a religious viewpoint though I'm sure there are anthropologists who are religious. Anthropologists would, I presume use the same definition of humans as biologists which would be DNA and body structure.

Secular humanism is a philosophy which rejects god as the source of morality, but presumes that humans are capable of being moral and ethical and should strive to be moral and ethical. Humanists might extend the definition of human to any self aware intelligent being, but I doubt there's any humanist definition of a human being.

Atheists simply do not have a belief in god. That does not necessarily make them either anthropologists or humanists. I am not an anthropologist (I'm not sure we have an anthropologist member on the site), nor do I adhere to any formal set of humanist dogma. I do not call myself a humanist. I do believe that morals are biological and cultural not god given.

That said there is tons of philosophy on the question of what makes humans different from the rest of the animals. I do not have a robust answer. I think its a matter of degree. But generally, I'd say what makes us human is: self awareness; and a capacity for rational thought, empathy, self awareness, and language.

Since Christianity is about man's relationship with god, wouldn't that imply a robust definition of both humans and god? If so, how would your definition of man be different than mine?

Your inquiry seems a bit confused. Classification of homo sapiens is a matter of taxonomy (biology) and not under the purview of anthropology (leaving aside for the moment that I have no idea what secular humanist anthropology is).

The genetic code is what distinguishes any particular species from another. What I think you might be really after is how the differences between particular genetic codes give rise to varying ostensible traits. Do we possess cognitive traits that vary only in degree? Or do we possess cognitive traits that are wholly unique?

I vehemently disagree with your assertion that a secular humanist be able to unpack the confusion laid out above. One just simply needs to be able to differentiate a human from a non-human which doesn't require the explanation you deem fundamental. Do you understand what secular humanism is? Or are you just throwing it out because you've heard it packaged as a euphemism for atheist? The reason I ask is because you used it as an adjective for anthropology.

Why not let's discuss what humanism is. Secular humanism is simply humanism without the need for a god. I'm sure you've heard "you don't need god to be good" before.

Quote:You might phrase the same question this way: What (if anything), besides genetic code and genetic expression, distinguishes a thing as human?

The sure and certain knowledge that I will one day die. Humans are (insofar as we know) the only organisms that possess a sense of their own mortality.

As to the rest of your opening question, secular humanism - at its core, I think - is the position that human morality is an exclusively human concern, because it is a uniquely human creation.

I hope this helps.

Boru

Secular humanist anthropology?

Is that atheistic science?

I have no idea what the question is asking. If you're defining homo sapiens in terms other than merely classifying it, it depends in what respect or what level of abstraction you mean. I have no idea what "to be human" means to you. Scientifically, we are an organism that can be classified in various ways, by various different criteria.

(March 11, 2015 at 6:02 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:You might phrase the same question this way: What (if anything), besides genetic code and genetic expression, distinguishes a thing as human?

The sure and certain knowledge that I will one day die. Humans are (insofar as we know) the only organisms that possess a sense of their own mortality.

As to the rest of your opening question, secular humanism - at its core, I think - is the position that human morality is an exclusively human concern, because it is a uniquely human creation.

I hope this helps.

Boru

I forgot knowledge of death. I think it comes with self awareness and rationality though.

The problem I have with this question is that nothing is going to uniquely identify Homo sapiens except genetically. We could list lots of traits that they have, but there could be a different species somewhere, possibly even on Earth, with those traits.

The question could be rephrased to, "What is unique to Homo sapiens among known species" I suppose.

Well, our particular genetic make-up is what makes us human to the extent that we are enabled to engage in activities that we differentiate from other species as uniquely human endeavors. Thoughts, emotions, the need for interaction with other human beings. People may express themselves in a variety of ways, some greater than others due to however their brain has developed. But the ontology of "human-ness" I would say can be defined on compatible levels of abstraction, from one's close genetic relation to others of the same species, to the activities and experiences they share, even when they range in degrees on any given particular comparison.

Philosophical Anthropology

cato Wrote:I vehemently disagree with your assertion that a secular humanist be able to unpack the confusion laid out above. One just simply needs to be able to differentiate a human from a non-human which doesn't require the explanation you deem fundamental.

Sure it does, even if it is simply:

"The genetic code is what distinguishes any particular species from another."
-You

That wasn't so hard. A thing having and expressing the genetic code of homo sapiens, according to you, is what "distinguishes a thing as a human being." Thanks!

But also, for a philosophy which takes on the term "humanism", is it really odd to expect a robust answer of what it means "to be human"?

cato Wrote:Secular humanism is simply humanism without the need for a god. I'm sure you've heard "you don't need god to be good" before.

It seems that secular humanism, to you, is really just human biology (which is fine) and its ethical applications. Is moral philosophy also a misnomer for you? Is ethics actually just an aspect of human biology?

And yes, I have heard that phrase many times. Understood in the way that I think you understand it, I agree with it.

Jenn A Wrote:But generally, I'd say what makes us human is: self awareness; and a capacity for rational thought, empathy, self awareness, and language . . . How would your definition be different from mine?

Thanks! The only differences might be how we understand the terms you used to describe the specifically human capacities, and also I might have a working philosophical description/explanation of the those capacities' relationship to human action?

boru Wrote:The sure and certain knowledge that I will one day die. Humans are (insofar as we know) the only organisms that possess a sense of their own mortality . . . As to the rest of your opening question, secular humanism - at its core, I think - is the position that human morality is an exclusively human concern, because it is a uniquely human creation."

Thanks for your feedback! That is an interesting distinguishing trait! What is it about a human, do you suspect, causes this sure and certain knowledge?

robvalue Wrote:Secular humanist anthropology? . . .Is that atheistic science?

No. You might call it an atheistic philosophical description of what a human is. In other words, what is it about a thing that a secular humanist can point to/describe/observe/etc. and conclude, "that thing is a human"?

robvalue Wrote:The problem I have with this question is that nothing is going to uniquely identify Homo sapiens except genetically.

You are probably right. Using "homo sapiens" has lead to confusion. Does "human" mean something different than "homo sapiens"? If so, what is the difference for you? If not, then please ignore that original formulation of my question.

nestor Wrote:Well, our particular genetic make-up is what makes us human to the extent that we are enabled to engage in activities that we differentiate from other species as uniquely human endeavors . . . I would say can be defined on compatible levels of abstraction, from one's close genetic relation to others...

Thanks, Nestor! Is there any essential (don't read too much into my use of the word, I simply can't think of a better one) unity to a human, or is human-ness merely a mixed composite sum of genetically human parts?

(March 12, 2015 at 6:21 pm)Ignorant Wrote: But also, for a philosophy which takes on the term "humanism", is it really odd to expect a robust answer of what it means "to be human"?

Yes, because the knowledge of what it means "to be human" is ostensible. An understanding of philosophy, taxonomy, genetics, anthropology, etc., is not required.