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.
"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.
We are not made happy by what we acquire but by what we appreciate.
