Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

I'm not sure humanism is a religion, but it *is* a notesfile!
To add it to your notebook type

	ADD ENTRY DLOACT::HUMANISM or press kp7

Peace,
Richard

Judging by the lack of activity in the HUMANISM conference (of which I am a
moderator), Christians have nothing to fear from humanism.  I guess most
humanists aren't very excited about their belief system - they are excited
by their families, jobs, politics or whatever, but not by their lack of
reliance on God.

If humanism is a religion it isn't a very successful one.

				-- Bob

    Is there such a thing as Secular_Humanophobia?  Have you ever witnessed
    it, expressed it or experienced it?
    
    Richard
    

re Note 504.3 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     Is there such a thing as Secular_Humanophobia?  Have you ever witnessed
>     it, expressed it or experienced it?
  
        Well, I'm sure I've seen NEA-ophobia, OBE-ophobia, and even
        Clintophobia in recent weeks.

        Bob

    Regardless of what the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled
    (Was there a dissenting opinion?), I personally know of no one who,
    when asked her religion, defines herself as a 'Secular Humanist.'
    
    Richard
    

91.4161 Leech
steve,

I agree. My point was just because the Supreme Court says it,
doesn't make it right. Actually I would be interested in the
specific arguments in that case, given the dictionary definition
of religion. 

And, to Richard's point, religion or not I would not define myself
as a secular humanist, although I might share some beliefs with
them. (On the other hand, I also share some beliefs with Christians...)

Steve

I'd be interested in seeing the actual text of the Supreme Court decision
that said that (secular?) humanism is a religion.

I consider myself a humanist.  I don't think humanism is a religion in the
dictionary sense of the word, but on the other hand I do think that
humanism should enjoy the same constitutional protection that Christianity
does.  If I were denied a job or housing because I am a humanist I wouldn't
be very happy to be told "sorry, your beliefs aren't protected by the
Constitution because humanism isn't a religion".  So it doesn't bother me
if the Supreme Court considers humanism to be a religion in the sense
that it's protected by the First Amendment.

I certainly don't belong to an *organized* religion, though.

				-- Bob

 Z   So it doesn't bother me
 Z   if the Supreme Court considers humanism to be a religion in the sense
 Z   that it's protected by the First Amendment
    
    Bob, since the theory of evolution is based on humanism, i.e. all life
    evolved naturally and no deity intervened or began the process, would
    it still bother you if they didn't teach evolution anymore?  
    
    -Jack

re Note 504.8 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Bob, since the theory of evolution is based on humanism, i.e. all life
>     evolved naturally and no deity intervened or began the process, would
>     it still bother you if they didn't teach evolution anymore?  
  
        Certainly, evolution in its most basic form (as proposed by
        Darwin) did not address the beginnings of the process (in the
        sense of the creation of the universe).

        I certainly don't consider it "humanism" if you believe (as I
        tend to) that the potential to "evolve" life is inherent in
        the very nature of the elements of the universe, and that God
        formed it so.

        (Instead of the six days of creation being literal days, or
        even very long epochs, they just might be sub-nanosecond
        periods at the start of the "big bang" in which the
        properties of energy, matter, and space were determined so
        that there would be light, and water, and earth, and grass,
        and fruit, and fish, and fowl, and ... us!)

        (the other) Bob

    
    > Bob, since the theory of evolution is based on humanism
    
    The theory of evolution is based on humanism any more than the theory
    of relativity, or particle theory and quantum mechanics. 
                                                                               
    > all life evolved naturally and no deity intervened or began the 
    > process
    
    This is not necessarily true. My understanding is that most evolution
    theories do not attempt to scientifically prove the origin of life.
    There is plenty of room for a creative God within the mechanics of
    evolution. 
    
    Eric
    
    

    I'd be interested in knowing how many staunch evolutionists are
    atheists!
    
    -Jack

    I am a staunch believer in the theory of evolution.  I am most
    certainly not an atheist.  
    
    Darwin was the origin of the species.  He did not attempt to say how
    the world started.  
    
    The "big bang" was the first great right, according to many pagans.
    
    meg

    or and that is "great rite"

    
    I got the following from the American Humanist Association web page. It
    defines several camps under the umbrella of "humanism" (small 'h') and
    centers upon two distinct forms of modern humanism: Religious Humanism
    and Secular Humanism. Furthermore, it suggest that all of western
    civilization is based on the idea of cultural humanism, which is the
    desire for the betterment of humanity and the human condition.

    So while humanism *can* be the core around which a religion is based
    (Religious Humanism) it is wrong to suggest that all things that value
    humanity are be definition Religious Humanism. 
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
             
    It is indeed true that Religious Humanists, in embracing modern
    science, embrace evolution in the bargain. But individuals
    within mainline Protestantism, Catholicism, and Judaism also
    embrace modern science--and hence evolution.  Evolution happens to
    be the state of the art in science today and is appropriately
    taught in science courses. That evolution has come to be
    identified with Religious Humanism, but not with mainline
    Christianity or Judaism is a curious quirk of politics in North
    America. But this is a typical feature of the whole controversy
    over humanism in the schools.

    Other courses of study have come to be identified with Humanism as
    well, including sex education, values education,  global
    education, and even creative writing. Today's Christian
    fundamentalists would have us believe that "situation ethics" was
    invented by 1974 Humanist of the Year Joseph Fletcher. But
    situational considerations have been an element of Western
    jurisprudence for at least 2,000 years! Again, Secular and
    Religious Humanists, being in harmony with current trends, are
    quite comfortable with all of this, as are adherents of most major
    religions. There is no justification for seeing these ideas as
    the exclusive legacy of Humanism. Furthermore, there are
    independent secular reasons why schools offer the curriculum that
    they do. A bias in favor of "the religion of secular humanism" has
    never been a factor in their development and implementation.

    The charge of Humanist infiltration into the public schools seems
    to be the product of a confusion of cultural humanism and
    Religious Humanism. Though Religious Humanism embraces cultural
    humanism, this is no justification for separating out cultural
    humanism, labeling it as the exclusive legacy of a nontheistic and
    naturalistic religion called Religious Humanism, and thus
    declaring it alien. To do so would be to turn one's back on a
    significant part of one's culture and enthrone the standards of
    biblical fundamentalism as the arbiter of what is and is not
    religious. A deeper understanding of Western culture would go a
    long way in clarifying the issues surrounding the controversy over 
    humanism in the public schools.                                     

More...
    -------------------------------------------------------
    
    Once we leave the areas of confusion, it is possible to explain,
    in straightforward terms, exactly what the modern  Humanist
    philosophy is about. It is easy to summarize the basic ideas held
    in common by both Religious and Secular  Humanists. These ideas
    are as follows:

    1 Humanism is one of those philosophies for people who think for
    themselves. There is no area of thought that  a Humanist is afraid
    to challenge and explore.

    2 Humanism is a philosophy focused upon human means for
    comprehending reality. Humanists make no claims  to possess or
    have access to supposed transcendent knowledge.

    3 Humanism is a philosophy of reason and science in the pursuit of
    knowledge. Therefore, when it comes to the  question of the most
    valid means for acquiring knowledge of the world, Humanists reject
    arbitrary faith,  authority, revelation, and altered states of
    consciousness.

    4 Humanism is a philosophy of imagination. Humanists recognize
    that intuitive feelings, hunches, speculation,  flashes of
    inspiration, emotion, altered states of consciousness, and even
    religious experience, while not valid  means to acquire knowledge,
    remain useful sources of ideas that can lead us to new ways of
    looking at the  world. These ideas, after they have been assessed
    rationally for their usefulness, can then be put to work,  often
    as alternate approaches for solving problems.

    5 Humanism is a philosophy for the here and now. Humanists regard
    human values as making sense only in the  context of human life
    rather than in the promise of a supposed life after death.

    6 Humanism is a philosophy of compassion. Humanist ethics is
    solely concerned with meeting human needs  and answering human
    problems--for both the individual and society--and devotes no
    attention to the  satisfaction of the desires of supposed
    theological entities.

    7 Humanism is a realistic philosophy. Humanists recognize the
    existence of moral dilemmas and the need for  careful
    consideration of immediate and future consequences in moral
    decision making.

    8 Humanism is in tune with the science of today. Humanists
    therefore recognize that we live in a natural  universe of great
    size and age, that we evolved on this planet over a long period of
    time, that there is no  compelling evidence for a separable
    "soul," and that human beings have certain built-in needs that
    effectively  form the basis for any human-oriented value system.

    9 Humanism is in tune with today's enlightened social thought.
    Humanists are committed to civil liberties,  human rights,
    church-state separation, the extension of participatory democracy
    not only in government but  in the workplace and education, an
    expansion of global consciousness and exchange of products and
    ideas  internationally, and an open-ended approach to solving
    social problems, an approach that allows for the  testing of new
    alternatives.

    10 Humanism is in tune with new technological developments.
    Humanists are willing to take part in emerging  scientific and
    technological discoveries in order to exercise their moral
    influence on these revolutions as they  come about, especially in
    the interest of protecting the environment.

    11 Humanism is, in sum, a philosophy for those in love with life.
    Humanists take responsibility for their own  lives and relish the
    adventure of being part of new discoveries, seeking new knowledge,
    exploring new  options. Instead of finding solace in prefabricated
    answers to the great questions of life, Humanists enjoy the 
    open-endedness of a quest and the freedom of discovery that this
    entails.

Re: .8 Jack

>    Bob, since the theory of evolution is based on humanism,

I don't think this is true.  (Secular) humanism is at least partially based
on the theory of evolution, but the theory of evolution is not based on
humanism.  One can believe in the theory of evolution without being a
humanist,

>    would it still bother you if they didn't teach evolution anymore?  
    
Yes, it would bother me if evolution weren't taught in the public schools.
It would also bother me if secular humanism were taught in the schools, which
it isn't.

				-- Bob