Talk:Humanism

is it a religion

Isn't humanism itself a "religion"? Humanists have faith in what humans can accomplish (is this a correct definition?). Is that "faith" any different from a religious faith?

random complaints

I don't like the way this article has been written either. Humanism is solely a human ethical and philosophical approach to life and Humanists are either athiests or agnostics. The whole point of Humanism is that it comes from a human perspective only and excludes everything eminating from religion. Just because Christians describe themselves as Humanists because their religious beliefs are moral and therefore humane does NOT make them Humanists in the sense of Humanism, it just means they are humane! Humanism is a humane philosophy so Christians like to attach the title Humanism to their faith but this does not make Christians Humanists - it is a contradiction in terms! Religion is a system of belief in/worship of a supernatural power (such as a god) so Humanism is not a religion. This does not mean Humansim is not organised or being promoted, but it does not need a 'church' which is a Christian concept. There is already the 'International Humanist and Ethical Union' organisation which is the world umbrella for representing Humanist, ethical culture, rationalist, secularist and freethought groups as well as the Humanist groups within different countries. Additionally Humanism is being taught about in many British schools. (User:Upfront July 2nd 2005)

Yeah, this is extremely difficult to read and confusingly worded. Protagoran formula? wtf is that? Could someone with more knowledge in this topic please rewrite or heavily edit this? thanks Vonkwink April 10 2005

wikipedia is humanist?

Wikipedia is very much a humanist project. Benw February 04 2005

Humanism as a worldview is so dead to most Wikipedians that it is listed in Category:Renaissance. Wetman 02:13, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:Stevertigo thinks that humanism is a neologism! Wetman 18:50, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

working

There are many good suggestions here, but nobody's implemented them. Out of gentle frustration, I've made a serious attempt to clean up this page. I welcome your criticism and amendments, though I would suggest that most of what I did deserves to be kept pretty much as is. Alienus 19:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

There is an unacceptable bias in understanding right from the start in this article. It is not good to anchor humanism in a secularistic mode of thinking, or in a secular *variation* of humanistic thinking:

 <quote>...humanism does not itself explicity deny the 
 existence of God but instead rejects the importance 
 of the supernatural in human affairs, in general, and 
 the role of religion in public affairs, in specific.</quote>

The very first sentence shows this bias:

 <quote>Humanism is an active ethical and philosophical approach 
 to life, focusing on human solutions to human issues through 
 rational ("reasonable") thought, without recourse to supernatural 
 entities, such as a God or gods, or to sacred texts, traditions 
 or religious creeds.</quote>

Shakespeare and Montaigne are considered high points of humanism, and both seemed to believe that God is a real and active power in the world. One can be fully a humanist and believe that *human* fulfillment requires a depth of spiritual and even religious life or ongoing co-operation with the highest power. There is no contradiction in such a view. The source of the humanist tradition, the Greeks, was quite a religious culture. To draw a big bold line between religious and humanistic spirits does a terrible disservice to the idea and to the readers of the article. The concept is far more complex than the introductory paragraph allows.

--Wilson Delgado 22:34, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, I believe that my description of humanism is accurate with regard to modern, as opposed to historical, versions of the philosophical stance.

Secular and religious humanists alike reject the importance of such things as God or the Bible in matters of ethics. While the religious humanist might believe in the existence of a God, you won't hear them say that abortion is right or wrong because of God's wishes or the words of the Bible. Instead, any arguments on this controversial issue will be rooted in what's good for people, as best as we can determine. Likewise, while a religious humanist might even pause to pray to God for help and guidance, they won't just sit there afterwards, waiting for a response; they'll act on their own.

Contrast this with adherents to divine command theory, who say that something is moral only because God sanctions it. Likewise, contrast it with the sort of existentialist who agrees with divine command theory about the need for God to sanction morality so as to legitimize it, but happens to disagree about the existence of God. Both of them put the supernatural and religious as the source of morality, whereas modern humanists of either stripe do not.

In short, even the most religious humanist looks to humanity for truth and morality, not to the supernatural. In this way, the description I gave is true and unbiased. I'm not claiming secular humanists are right and religious humanists are wrong, or the other way around. Instead, I'm showing where they agree and disagree, while recognizing that secular humanism is the one people think of when humanism comes up.

As for Shakespeare and Montaigne, if they were alive today then I'm not sure whether they'd qualify as humanists in the modern sense. And it is this modern sense that the article should focus on, with historical roots left as an aside. Humanism is a broad enough term as it is, without us stretching it to cover all prior meanings. It is not, as one person jokingly claimed at a UU church, merely the belief in the existence of humans.

Now, if you think you can update the text to remove bias without introducing error, I welcome your suggestions on just how that might be done. We could go on forever about the theory of what humanism is, but it's counterproductive compared to focusing on the concrete details of what the article should say. The fact that you perceived a bias is itself an issue, even when no bias exists, and I would like to believe that thee could be changes that clarify the issue so as to prevent further misunderstandings, without compromising on accuracy. Alienus 16:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for this explanation. I will certainly continue to think about it. Here are some points that occur to me now.

1. My first reaction is that there would be little problem if the article is defined as being about modern philosophical humanism. But if a reader goes to an encyclopedia to look up *Humanism*, he/she may very well have historical concerns and interests, not to mention the desire to know how the historical and the modern term fit together. The larger simpler category "Humanism" should not be co-opted only by the historical version or by the modern philosophical version -- not in an encyclopedia, anyway. Look at what other encyclopedias do with this term.

2. If the human person is judged to be essentially a religious being as in most of the cultures of the world today (i.e., related to a Supreme Being, called into a personal relationship with an Ultimate Person), then modern philosophical humanism as defined seems condemned to work with a kind of truncation of the human. Why could modern philosophical humanism not have a valid religious version?

3. Nietzsche was quite the modern humanist (loved the Greeks, Montaigne, Emerson, Goethe, Burckhardt), but for all his focus on humanity, he ended up using religious terminology (Dionysus, amor fati) to express himself. The atheist humanist slips the religious function back in. The influential Stoics thought reason itself divine. Sometimes it is hard to separate the human and the divine. Wouldn't it be better to leave the level or mode of religious belief out of the core description of Humanism writ large?

4. Christian humanism is a current phrase and so it is confusing if humanism implies a thoroughgoing bracketing of God. One can *focus* on the human world and use only secular argumentation / reason while still deriving insights and large ethical principles from religious traditions. Some say that modern humanist Kant translated his religious piety into an ethical system.

Thanks for your consideration of these points.

--Wilson Delgado 21:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

These are fair points. After reading them, I took the liberty of spying on the competition by looking up humanism and secular humanism on Encarta. To save you the trouble, the links are http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564121/Humanism.html and http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861710850/secular_humanism.html. Please take a look at both of these short pages.

1. The Encarta article immediately defines humanism, rather broadly, then talks about its origins. I think this is a reasonable way of handling the topic, though we can go a bit deeper that that. Consider, by analogy, that an article on democracy might talk about democracy in general, move on to the roots of democracy, then present examples of modern democracy and a bit about the future of this political system.

I think we should change the intro so that, like Encarta, it first defines humanism in terms of an affirmation of the dignity and worth of the individual, based on the notion that people are rational and capable of truth and goodness. This seems to be a more broad and neutral definition, therefore a good starting point. If desired, we can then contrast it with opposing views, such as Calvinism (total depravity).

After that, in the interests of explaining what all this actually means, it's fair to go on to say that humanism stresses the importance of humans while reducing or removing the importance of the supernatural. Humanists depend on rationality, not revelation, in determining facts. They depend on their own moral compass, based on a rational evaluation of the issues, as opposed to counting on divine revelation to settle the matter.

A humanistic Jew, for example, would not be content with following Kosher laws just because "it is written" or "we've always done it that way" or even "God says so" (unless and until it can be demonstrated that God had a good reason that still applies today). Such a person would demand a rationally justifiable basis for ethics so that, even though they would very much qualify as a religious humanist, they would agree with even the most secular of humanists on these ethical matters.

In short, the emphasis on rationality necessarily knocks various forms of traditionalism and religiosity. Also, I think it's key to show that this is an active philosophy to live by, not merely an arm-chair stance. To be a humanist is to act like a humanist, not merely affirm the truth of humanism. In this sense, it is akin to a religion without being one.

I'd like to work some of the above into a more concise form and merge it in with the current text. I think that would address some of the issues with historical scope and the appearance of bias.

2. The religious version of modern philosophical humanism that you speak of is called religious humanism, which has a section devoted to it in the article. In fact, the views you expressed in your point are quite consistent with religious humanism, in that you seek to retain the trappings and terminology of religion while otherwise being a humanist. In fact, differences in language are one of the most obvious distinctions between religious and secular humanists; the former tend to sound like traditional religionists even when they express clearly humanistic arguments, while the latter tend to avoid religious words.

In any case, what you said about a "truncation of the human" matches the part of the article where it talks about the common religious humanist belief that secular humanism "rejects the full emotional experience that makes us human" and "inadequate in fulfilling the general human need for a philosophy of life".

In short, I think that the current text gives adequate expression of the religious humanist view already. If you have any specific suggestions on improving the coverage of religious humanism, I very much welcome them. In case it's not obvious, I would consider myself a secular humanist with substantial exposure to religious humanism.

3. Like I said, one of the big differences between religious and secular humanists is language, rather than content. A secular humanist might speak of having "confidence" in the basic goodness of humanity, while a religious humanist would more likely say they had "faith" in it. As for Nietzsche, he was the father of existentialism, a stance that has some things in common with humanism but is not fully humanistic. In any case, he was fond of using religious terminology ("God is dead") as a religious humanist might, not as a traditional Christian would.

The notion of separating the human and divine is an issue only for those who believe in the existence of a divinity, so it has no meaning for a typical secular humanist, who would simply say nothing is divine. (Interestingly, a deistic religious humanist would say everything is divine, which likewise removes the issue.) I realize that you want to play down the conflict between secular and religious humanism, or make room for more religious humanism, but the distinction is very real and cannot be fairly ignored. To pretend that self-avowed humanists are all either religious or all secular would be biased. Both types exist, and the article must reflect this. If anything, it might be clearer if the sections on the two were shortened, with the material about the conflict separated into a third section. I'll think about this.

4. Christian humanism is one form of religious humanism, sure. I avoided the term only because there is a wide variety of religious humanism, some of it associated with various traditional religions, some of it not. I'm not a Christian humanist, so I'm probably not the right person to fully explain that POV. The Christian humanists I've met do fit what I said above, in that they still speak of God, but they don't rely on God when determining what is true and right. My suggestion here is that you wait until I finish integrating the changes noted above, then see if you can flesh out the religious humanism section to better explain the stance.

Are you ok with the changes listed above? Is there anyone else watching this who wants to contribute?

Alienus 17:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

On first reading, I very much like the direction you are taking here (and I agree with the distinctions you make). The best strategy may be, as you suggest in Number 1 above, to give the broad understanding of humanism, then perhaps say that for most (English-speaking?) people, the term suggests the modern philosophical humanism that you define, but that there are variants that make the term ambiguous. The history helps to show how the various usages evolved. (Just an aside -- in my own circles, humanism almost always means the cultural, literary tradition and its vision rather than the philosophical one. In a philosophy department, however, things are probably very different.)

Thanks for your reflections and your work on this great and many-levelled subject. I will take a look at the article again in a week or two.

--Wilson Delgado 20:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Religious Humanism will come to the fore

Humanism is not dead, God forbid ;-) The mistake secular humanists make (if they make any, of course...) is that theism, or deism, and religion are one and the same. In rejecting the first two, they unaccountably toss out religion with the bathwater.

A case can be made that life, love and nature are sacred to humanity. Further, the edifice of a "church" can perform functions on behalf of humanists that they cannot do alone. An example is teaching humanism, promoting world community, and opposing divisive theistic influences from an equal footing.

Humanists need to view Man scientifically, and to have an institution that oversees our interests. For too long, the organized religions have benefitted from the granular, unorganized state of humanism - so much so that we remain close to a medieval world where mankind remains in poverty.

Once humanists understand the value of the "church" edifice, minus the theistic and supernatural aspects assocaited with it to date, then the movement will come into full flower.

Only then will we emerge from being considered as mere atheists, from being viewed in terms of who we are not, rather than as the species seeking to govern ourselves, as we are.

Dwight G. Jones dwight@man.org

Dwight, thanks for providing a fine example of what bias really looks like. Alienus 16:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

rough prose

my god this is confusingly worded. Can someone simplify?

Humanism

The genesis of Humanism lay in the belief among 14/15c scholars that true worth was to be found in the "litterae humaniores" of ancient Rome, and in the study of Latin, NOT Greek, as is stated here. (Interest in Greek was re-awakened later.) The heroes of the early Humanist thinkers were the Roman sages Cicero, Livy, Tacitus and Seneca, among many others.

notable humanists?

if humanism is defined as "man is the measure of all things", it seems that many of the people on the list don't fit- plato, particularly, but others as well. Bertrand Russell, for instance, may have been a humanitarian, but that isn't the same thing as a humanist . . . can some justification be given for their inclusion? --Heah 18:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

if the definition defined the term your point would be well taken, but alas, it is just one of many possible definitions of the term. beyond that definitions rarely function as ways of determining what is and what is not something. many of the people on the notable lists are self-avowed humanists, and thus are humanists inasmuchas they did live a life that was not humanist. --Buridan 11:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Either the list of humanists stays here, or... we create a category Humanist and tag those people's entries, then link to the category page. However, since the content is not currently reproduced elsewhere, and it is neutral in that it is non-exclusive in its intepretation of humanism, i think it should stay until other means of representing the knowledge is found. --Buridan 13:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

announcing policy proposal

This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

This proposal was rejected. Tedernst 17:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

David Usher

David Usher's most recent CD 'If god has curves' has many humanistic themes. In fact, in "Love will save the day" he has a quote of Gloria steinem saying 'We are talking about a society in which there will be no roles, other then those chosen, or those earned. We are really talking about HUMANISM" [emphasis my own, of course]. Throughout the CD, humanism as an idea seems constant. It's even called 'if god had curves' which can be interpreted in many ways, including religion softened, less rigid and formal. It's all, of course, open to interpretation, but for the time I believe he can be classified as a humanist, and so I wish to restore him, but will not, until some form of agreement is reached. Curufinwe 05:30, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was the jackass who removed him, I was unaware of his most recent album, which I am glad has been brought to my attention. He should be restored if this is the case. It would be useful for there to be some information about his humanistic ideas on his page. Benw

This article is very contradictory

This article is very confused as a whole. Perhaps this is not surprising if it reflects different viewpoints, but nevertheless something should really be done about it. In the first line: Humanism aproaches life... focusing on human solutions without recourse to "a god" or sacred texts or religious creeds. (Humanism defined as secularism?) Then in the same paragraph: "The first humanists were orators or poets of biblical or philosophical ideas." Medaeval European scholars who spoke of biblical ideas, but not as sacred? Then the next section discusses renaissance humanism, which may be ultimately secular, but saying so would hardly be uncontraversial. And then comes religious and secular humanism, or religious and secular secularism if the first section's definition is to be taken!

Humanism has many meanings; could the authors make clear that it is several things being discussed and not one? (I am sadly not competent to rewrite any section well.)

This is a really important point. Humanism does not equal secular humanism or atheism. Of course some people use the word that way and it's definitely appropriate for this article to note that and talk more about these views. The article also should discuss the other meanings of humanism and give all fair treatment. Tedernst 17:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

(The first section made the ridiculous assertion: "traditional ethical systems... apply only to particular ethnic groups". I have deleted this because it is blatantly false as a generalization. It would be arguable whether it was even applicable to any particular traditional ethical system.) CSMR 03:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

New Humanism and Neo-humanism

New Humanism (disambiguation) and Neo-humanism probably both need to be represented on this page. Tedernst 05:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Too many "quotations."

Seriously. Qualifying so many nouns by surounding them in quotation marks gives the impression that the article is either poorly cited or written by someone who's dying to use weasel words (e.g. _Some_ People Say...). Both of these are -- explicitly -- spelled out in the style guide as things to avoid. I get the impression (whether correct or not) that it was written or edited at some point by a user who disagrees with humanism itself and wants to undercut the article in a sneaky and underhanded way to avoid NPOV accusations. Philisophical debates do not belong embedded in the articles themselves; if there's an intelligent, coherent, and cited refutation of some points, I'm in favor of adding a section to the article. Having the article deviate radically from encyclopedic style this way gives rise to poor readability as well as a slew of other issues.

"Humanists are either atheists or agnostics"

User:Upfront's statement (above dated April 2005) is not correct. Articles about general topics need to first reflect their general meaning - not a specific or 'originalist' version of it. -St|eve 01:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC) PS: removed trivial dablink: "Humanistic" redirects here. For the 2001 album by Abandoned Pools, see Humanistic (album).

rmvd Philo box

Per comments on my talk, I may agree. -St|eve 19:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Steve, you made a round of changes after I started my last edit, so I had an edit conflict. I did my best to merge our changes together, but some of your work might have gotten lost in the shuffle, so please give it another look. In the future, it might be helpful if you left some indication that you were working on the next version, as I did in my conversation with Wilson Delgado. Alienus 23:46, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Galileo affair

The Galileo topos is a misleading cliché. See, for example,

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4015/is_200301/ai_n9199980 .

<quote> Galileo's condemnation: The real and complex story Georgia Journal of Science, 2003 by McMullen, Emerson Thomas

ABSTRACT

Often the Catholic Church's condemnation of Galileo Galilei is viewed as the prime example of an ongoing "war" between science and religion. Just as often the reason for this condemnation is thought to be Galileo's advocacy of Copernicanism. The true story is much more complex than these assumptions. Firstly, modern historians of science do not accept the "warfare" thesis of science versus religion. Secondly, Galileo's claim that each planet orbits an imaginary point that, in turn, orbits another imaginary point near the sun, may not have been the root cause of his troubles with the Church. The reasons behind Galileo's sentence are complex. There are several factors besides Copernicanism. One is angering his friend, Pope Urban VIII. Recent documentary discoveries indicate that another factor was Galileo's advocacy of atomism, which undermined the Church's scientific understanding of the Eucharist. </quote> Wilson Delgado 21:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

second. [said an anonymous poster -- must mention this to keep my text from being commingled with that]

It's not misleading at all. All it says is that the trial "forced the choice between basing the authority of one's beliefs on one's observations, or upon religious teaching." If you trouble to read the actual accusation and condemnation of Galileo, you'll find that the Inquisition ruled that he had held beliefs contrary to religious truth (naming heliocentrism and nothing else) and that he had continued to argue for this even when told it was wrong (like, not basing his beliefs on their religious authority). Nothing about atomism. The Humanism article takes the Inquisition's opinion at face value. I don't see why an article on Humanism needs to psychoanalyze the Inquisition like the old "Good morning" -- "Gee, I wonder what he meant by that" joke.

More relevant would be to inquire into what other people at that time thought it was about. That would have to do with the history of humanism; inquiries into the intrigues at the Vatican and the cover stories it decided to use (if in fact the Inquisition was not speaking the truth about the matter) belong in other articles.

Oh, BTW http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.html . If Fordham University is engaging in anti-Catholic distortions of the record, we really are in trouble. Dandrake 02:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I just happened in here and am not really involved with this article, but after posting the thing just above, I begen to think -- dangerous! -- and now it seems that the little suggestion could be a good one. I mean, about finding and documenting what people thought at the time about things like the Galileo case. It would contribute to the history of humanism. Never mind what the apologists for the Inquisition thought; what about people who were considering doing some free thought and discourse? Surely somebody out there knows something about it and might find it worth writing up.

Meanwhile, I'd like to share this contemporary reaction (1644): "... I could recount what I have seen and heard in other countries, where this kind of inquisition tyrannizes; when I have sat among their learned men, for that honour I had, and been counted happy to be born in such a place of philosophic freedom, as they supposed England was, while themselves did nothing but bemoan the servile condition into which learning amongst them was brought; that this was it which had damped the glory of Italian wits; that nothing had been there written now these many years but flattery and fustian. There it was that I found and visited the famous Galileo, grown old, a prisoner to the Inquisition, for thinking in astronomy otherwise than the Franciscan and Dominican licensers thought..." (Areopagitica (1644))

The question, of course, is not whether he was right or wrong in his incurious, essentially anti-intellectual treatment of this subtle, subtle matter; what matters in the history of Humanism is whether the viewpoint he encountered among Continental scholars was widely shared. Dandrake 06:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

RESPONSE: But did it really "force the choice" -- especially when there continued to be religiously believing scientists, who must have also been giving some authority to their observations rather than to religious belief, which could not possibly comment officially on everything that could be observed? Perhaps helpful here will be the page at http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_003_Galileo.html , which says

<quote>The condemnation of the Holy Inquisition, therefore, should not be seen as a prohibition of the Church regarding science, but rather, philosophy. If the condemnatory decree did not mention philosophy explicitly, this was because at that time the distinction between both matters was not entirely defined. The intention of the condemnation, however, seems quite clear.</quote> Wilson Delgado 19:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As to the second point, I will continue (because it so often gets glossed over or direclty denied) to harp on the fact that the Inquisition really did condemn heliocentrism (at that time) as being against the faith and not allowable for a Catholic to hold or defend. One could reasonably say that the lack of a clear distinction between philosophy and science was the problem. But as long as that problem existed, scientists (as we know call them) needed to keep looking over their shoulders.

As to "force the choice" I see you have a point. It seems the wording could be made more precise. I'd better leave the tuning of the nuances to the Humanists, who know their own issues better than I do. Note, though, that there there was a price to pay for not letting the choice be forced on one: restricting one's scientific work to things the Church didn't worry about. In practice, as you will pint out, it wasn't a terribly narrow restriction. In principle?? "The difference between theory and practice is always greater in practice than it is in theory" as someone remarked. But maybe this is aconter-example. Dandrake 01:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Antihumanism

I'd like to suggest removing the recently added link to antihumanism. It doesn't appear to be a genuine page.

The humanist bandwagon.

Uhm, since when is Mother Teresa a humanist? Ditto for JP2.

I tend to agree there are a number of persons whose beliefs in revealed prior knowledge are in opposition to humanist philosophy. I would suggest that these two members of the list should be removed. They may well be humanitarians, but they are not humanists. Benw 18:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you are assuming that these two had "faith", for them as in many educated catholics, God may be little more than "pure act", the first force which set the universe in motion, and the bible is merely wisdom literature, and the church itself a means to do what they consider good, and institutionalized humanism. Their faith can be quite different from that of the layity.

But on rethinking my additions in response to you query, I think Lidell may not belong on the list, he's a little too fundy. --Silverback 19:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything about the two that makes them humanistic. Where did you get the idea that they are? Also, how familiar are you with their social policies? I ask this pointed question because there are some rather anti-humanistic elements to them. Alienus 21:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I think people are missing the point. I don't believe that humanism is neccesarily opposed to theistic belief. However both did believe in recieved wisdom from god. Doubt is an extremely important aspect of humanist philosophy. Neither Mother Teresa nor John Paul II were open to doubt (for the most part) when it came to Catholic doctrine. Look at the way JPII framed his stance towards homosexuality, and look at the way in which Mother Teresa's hospitals operated. Neither of them seemed very interested in questioning Catholic dogma. Benw 03:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

not all forms of humanism require religious scepticism. Humanism requires one thing, basic faith in the capacity of your fellow man to do good. Once that is established, then you move into the varieties of humanism, such as secular humanism, which tends to have the hard-line anti-religion stance, but this is not an article about secular humanism, is it?--Buridan 13:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it's not their theism that rules out the claim that they're humanists. Rather, their ethical stance is incompatible. I read an interesting little book called The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice, by Christopher Hitchens, and it pretty much punctures any case for her as a humanist. I'm calling for her removal from the list unless someone can come up with citations to support her continued inclusion. Alienus 03:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

religious faith does not exclude one from being a humanist, it just excludes one from being some radical forms of humanist. since this article represents all of humanism, and not whatever any single one of us believes to be humanism, religious people should stay. there is a longstanding tradition of various religious humanism, it follows most of the same principles as other humanisms and generally bases the need for humanism on an idea of god that is non-interventionist or external to our world. --Buridan 13:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Humanism rejects the supernatural, even religious humanists. John Paul II's belief in miracles is a clear belief in the supernatural. Although he tended to be more inclined then other popes towards a humanist point of view, (his fairly strong acceptance of science for example) he still had a strong belief in revealed prior knowledge. (The contents of the bible as the "word" given by God) In my view Mother Teresa's views were fairly similar and that's why I included her as someone who is not a humanist. Benw 13:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

aye, but the problem there is that you have not provided evidence of either for us to consider, you have just asserted your view is x, and that it is correct. Humanism does not reject the supernatural either, that is your view. humanism says that humanity is the core/center/main concern. there is religious humanism, several million people probably exist in that realm. while i realize that you prefer to think in terms of secular humanism, or something similar, it is important to be neutral to your opinion unless it can be well supported with facts. --Buridan 13:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Guys, my complaint here is not that these two people believe in the supernatural, but that their ethical stance is not humanistic. Teresa, for example, was more concerned with baptizing people so that they'd die Catholic than medicating them to block the pain. A humanist, even one who believes in an afterlife or whatever, would not put their supernatural beliefs above human suffering. As I see it, the burden of proof is on whoever claims JP and MT are humanists. I've seen no evidence, no citations, no support. If none is forthcoming, I will go ahead and remove them myself. 17:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

before you delete them, ask whether they fit with the definition provided by the Catholic religion:http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07538b.htm or perhaps Christian Humanism http://www.christianhumanism.org/ perhaps it is only your perspective that says they aren't, and there are more possible perspectives to investigate, even more than the two i've provided--Buridan 22:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9912/articles/weigel.html John Paul II's radical humanism.... --Buridan 22:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently St. Theresa's autobiography explains her humanism as the new humanism of the Catholic church--Buridan 22:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Buridan's changes

I have some direct questions about your changes. In general, you watered down claims to the point where they're mostly water. I don't want humanism to be reduced to something bland and inoffensive through an excess of weasel words. I'd like you to document your claims that:

1) Some versions of humanism do not base our dignity and worth on the special attributes that distinguish humans; our ability to determine what's right all by ourselves, without help from above.

2) Some versions of humanism do not entail a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means and methods.

3) Some versions of humanism are compatible with ethical traditionalism.

If no support is forthcoming, I will go ahead and revert these myself. Alienus 17:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

1) what special attributes do you refer to? reason? there is TAZ, which is humanist and anti-rational

2) Radical Humanism denies the centrality of truth because truth is determined by those in power. Morality is fine, but we have to realize critiques of power found in radical humanism there too. 3) Erasmus of Rotterdam, Antiphon, likely others all hold a version of humanism is compatible with ethical tradionalism and in fact certain ethical traditions are precisely the result of humanism.

The reason that I watered it down is because it started reading like secular humanism, instead of humanism. There are more forms of humanism in the world than secular. Depending on what you hold to be the central tenet of humanism, will cause you to hold different set of things to be or not be humanism. However, while many groups are happy with defining their particular tenet to be central at this point in time, if we look both at the history of humanism, and the diversity represented in that history, I don't think we are able to make the strong claims that I edited down. My position is to support the npov here, and that is what I put forth. If you want to put forth a secular humanist definition then we need to do that on [Secular Humanism], likewise [Christian Humanism] goes in its appropriate place. --Buridan 22:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Saints and Popes

I took a look at both of the links, but I don't see how they fit. The Catholic Encyclopedia speaks of a long-dead historical movement, while the Christian humanism definition describes something I'm quite familiar with but which doesn't match either JP or MT. I'm sorry, but I just don't see how, by even these broad definitions, either of these famous dead Catholics can be called humanists. The key issue, once again, isn't secularism but, to quote the Christian humanism page, "advancement of the common good, morality grounded in human experience, equality for all classes of people, and focus on this natural world". Check out JP's record on liberation theology and MT's views on suffering, if you want further confirmation. As it stands, I'm still leaning heavily towards deletion. Got anything else? Alienus 22:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As a side note, perhaps both of these URL's could be added as references, to flesh out the verifiable sources of the page. Want to do that? Alienus 23:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Just google it, you'll find plenty of references toward the humanism of both. careful with the threads ;) i suppose we can add these shortly. maybe not right now as i'm being querolous--Buridan 23:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I followed the link to the firstthings essay and was deeply revolted. The article kept referring to humanism as "false humanism" while calling JP2's anti-humanistic policies an example of "radical humanism" and "true humanism". Radical doesn't even begin to cover it. Calling JP2 a radical humanism is like calling Richard Dawkins a radical theist.

This looks like a desperate and dishonest effort to steal the H word away from those evil atheists. If you want to claim that JP2 is a humanist, you're going to have to specify that this is a form of humanism that is radically different from what everyone else means when they speak of humanism. It's not even compatible with generic religious humanism, because it's so conservative on social issues. I know and have known quite a few religious humanists, and not a single one was half as homophobic as JP2.

I'm going to delete the links. If you want to put them back, you'll need to come up with a sufficiently strong disclaimer to prevent anyone from confusing these two people with actual humanists. Alienus 23:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

look up 'catholic new humanism' and you'll see that JPII is clearly that. Now, you might argue that it doesn't fit with your understanding of humanism, but it is a understanding of humanism. I'm going to revert until you find clear evidence that they are not humanists, also most humanists aren't atheists, only the most vocally opinionated humanist usually are.... --Buridan 23:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Time and Consensus

It is best when faced with edits which haven't reached resolution to either 'be bold' but accept reversion or continue the discussion until consensus is found. In the case above, I reverted because I do not think that the issue is settled (and believe me, i am not a fan of the people in question.) But there has to be a 'standard' for inclusion and it can't be 'i think it is humanism' it has to be 'there is no legitimate claim that they are humanists'. In the case of both of these individuals, they are humanists in the context of the New Humanism of the Catholic Church, which might be something different than what other people mean when using the word. So my point here is to either discuss in order to find a new standard of inclusion ... or be patient enough until others find one.--Buridan 23:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)