Secular Humanism and Humanity: What are they?

[Mudhammam]

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?

If we're gonna slice it that way I think we would probably want to extricate the human brain.

[Jenny A]

Ignorant:

I think you are almost willfully refusing to grasp what humanism is and is not. It is not a branch of biology or anthropology. Nor is it a necessary part and parcel of being an atheist. Nor is it a static well defined philosophy. This little Think Humanism's Are You a Humanist Quiz should give you some idea of the diverse views of humanists. Hint: look at the answer key first.

Wikapedia's broad definition of humanism is not too bad:

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). The meaning of the term humanism has fluctuated, according to the successive intellectual movements which have identified with it. Generally, however, humanism refers to a perspective that affirms some notion of a "human nature" (sometimes contrasted with antihumanism).

In modern times, humanist movements are typically aligned with secularism, and today "Humanism" typically refers to a non-theistic life stance centred on human agency, and looking to science instead of religious dogma in order to understand the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

You might take a moment to read the Wikipedia entry. Notice that what humanism means has changed over time and that there is such a thing a theistic humanism. You might also read the entry on Secular Humanism

Fundamental to the concept of secular humanism is the strongly held viewpoint that ideology—be it religious or political—must be thoroughly examined by each individual and not simply accepted or rejected on faith. Along with this, an essential part of secular humanism is a continually adapting search for truth, primarily through science and philosophy. Many Humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some, such as Sam Harris, advocate a science of morality.

ID.

Should you want to engage with humanists, there are better forums than this one. I'd be interested to know how many members here consider themselves humanists. There are many humanist websites.

If what you really want to know is how my definition of human differs from most theists I know, the answer is really very simple: their definition includes a soul and mine does not. But it's possible to be an atheist and believe in a soul, just not a god given one. Some theists, particularly those in the Judeo-Christian tradition would add that humans are created "in the image of god," whatever that might mean and it is generally hard to pin down what exactly they mean by that and harder yet to get them to define god (I noticed that you let that question fall by the wayside). Obviously atheists do not include created in the image of god in their definition of human.

[The Grand Nudger]

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

Well, what distinguishes you as a human (just a few everyday "human things" - that you can think of)? I walk my kids up my lane out to the state road to get mail and send their letters to their great grand parents off...I'd say that this activity distinguishes me as a human. I think that -our answer will almost necessarily be more robust than -my answer.

[robvalue]

Well, if you're going to say humans and not Homo sapiens then you're including a sliding scale of evolution both before and after Homo sapiens. Labels like "human" are an arbitrary way of grouping together various species. So really, being human is being part of that group. And again, whatever traits may be be involved in being human will not be unique to just humans.

Why not check this out:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

I think what you are really asking is what makes Homo sapiens different from other known species. Right? That would cut out a lot of confusion here, at least the kind of confusion caused by anal little pedants like me. Otherwise you're arbitrarily including some of our ancestors which may or may not be "human" as you like to imagine the concept.

[Ignorant]

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.

If you say so. There are others here who responded to the question without considering it an odd expectation. You know, you don't have to participate in a discussion that you find silly. I accept that you think I am ignorant. Thanks for your time.

---

If we're gonna slice it that way I think we would probably want to extricate the human brain.

Would you mind elaborating a bit?

---

You might take a moment to read the Wikipedia entry. Notice that what humanism means has changed over time and that there is such a thing a theistic humanism. You might also read the entry on Secular Humanism

I really appreciate your suggestions, but I am more interested in how regular individuals (even though I am sure most of you are much more that "regular") understand their own worldviews (e.g. secular humanism). Of course I could read about it in books and articles, but I much prefer hearing about it from people in their own words.

If what you really want to know is how my definition of human differs from most theists I know, the answer is really very simple: their definition includes a soul and mine does not.

That really isn't what I wanted to know. I just wanted to know more about what your definition of human is. If someone asked you what it "meant" to be human, what would you tell them? You already gave a great start to an answer in your original reply. I am trying to respond to everyone on their own terms.

---

I walk my kids up my lane out to the state road to get mail and send their letters to their great grand parents off...I'd say that this activity distinguishes me as a human.

Now here is an interesting angle! So the sorts of relationships we have with others is a defining characteristic? Is there anything more you can say about that?

---

Labels like "human" are an arbitrary way of grouping together various species. So really, being human is being part of that group. And again, whatever traits may be be involved in being human will not be unique to just humans.

So "humanity" or "human nature" or anything like that are merely naming conventions? Did I understand that correctly?

Why not check this out:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

Well, because I want to know what you think, not what wikipedia says. =)

I think what you are really asking is what makes Homo sapiens different from other known species. Right? That would cut out a lot of confusion here, at least the kind of confusion caused by anal little pedants like me. Otherwise you're arbitrarily including some of our ancestors which may or may not be "human" as you like to imagine the concept.

I am asking you to answer the question in the way you think makes the most sense. If the question doesn't make sense, then it is enough to say just that. Thanks!

[robvalue]

OK cool, I was trying to understand what I'm being asked, to further conversation.

"Human" is a naming convention, yes. From a scientific standpoint. So humanity and human nature are relative to that. More informally, people just mean Homo sapiens I'm sure, for all these words.

But really, "human nature" is nothing special, all animals have some sort of nature. We'll eventually evolve in cyber-monkeys probably, and then it'll be "cyber monkey nature" and so on. We certainly do feel very special as a species and feel the need to display our superiority. Our self awareness often makes us prone to want to bestow ourselves with more than we really are.

So simple answer to the opening question, they're nothing special, and they have nothing to do with humanism.

[Mudhammam]

If we're gonna slice it that way I think we would probably want to extricate the human brain.

Would you mind elaborating a bit?

I just mean that if we look at the genetic differences, say between human and chimpanzee and then between human and human, or any other species, the factor that contributes most to whatever special honors we give ourselves probably lies in the material responsible for the construction of the human brain. Take that out, and you just have what appears to be a person, but no person is there.

[Ignorant]

---

OK cool, I was trying to understand what I'm being asked, to further conversation.

"Human" is a naming convention, yes. From a scientific standpoint. So humanity and human nature are relative to that. More informally, people just mean Homo sapiens I'm sure, for all these words.

---

But really, "human nature" is nothing special, all animals have some sort of nature. We'll eventually evolve in cyber-monkeys probably, and then it'll be "cyber monkey nature" and so on. We certainly do feel very special as a species and feel the need to display our superiority. Our self awareness often makes us prone to want to bestow ourselves with more than we really are.

So simple answer to the opening question, they're nothing special, and they have nothing to do with humanism.

So when you say "human nature is nothing special", does that also mean that the life of say, an antelope, has just as much value as the life of a human? Or have I misinterpreted that?

---

---

---

Would you mind elaborating a bit?

I just mean that if we look at the genetic differences, say between human and chimpanzee and then between human and human, or any other species, the factor that contributes most to whatever special honors we give ourselves probably lies in the material responsible for the construction of the human brain. Take that out, and you just have what appears to be a person, but no person is there.

Thanks for that! So, would it be fair to say that the distinctly "human" characteristics are derived from and involve those realities leading to the development, function, and biological behavior of the human brain?

[robvalue]

What I meant was its not anything more than just the nature of humans. It's not magical or spiritual or anything, we're just another animal. As I said, I really don't understand the question.

Value is entirely subjective, to most humans another human life is more valuable than an animal's, but that's to be expected; each animal tends to value it's own species. There is no external value to anything.

[Mudhammam]

---

---

I just mean that if we look at the genetic differences, say between human and chimpanzee and then between human and human, or any other species, the factor that contributes most to whatever special honors we give ourselves probably lies in the material responsible for the construction of the human brain. Take that out, and you just have what appears to be a person, but no person is there.

Thanks for that! So, would it be fair to say that the distinctly "human" characteristics are derived from and involve those realities leading to the development, function, and biological behavior of the human brain?

Sure, I would agree with that. I think that allows us to see the fluidity in behavior between animals and humans and yet there are factors involved in our actions that are quite distinct. For example, we both have passions to procreate, but humans have additional conceptions, of "love" and "rape" and "casual sex" for example.