Someone mentioned humanism in an unrelated thread, and I'm really wondering what the consensus is, here on EC. Here are my views if you like: Spoiler The way I see it is that, if you drew a diagram, you'd probably use two overlapping circles, where the non-overlapping parts are labeled "atheist" and "humanist" and the overlapping parts are labeled "secular humanist." That is to say, I see humanism as a philosophy that is not religious but is not incompatible with a person being religious. A carpenter is still a carpenter, whether that carpenter is a Jew, Muslim, atheist or anyone else. The cause of humanism is, to me, that which was promoted by the original Stoic and Epicurean philosophers, who held variations on the belief that all people, from all cultures, regardless of gender, were essentially the same and deserved to be treated as having equal worth. Some people still may never have heard of "Epicureanism," by the way, as anything other than a belief that all life is about pleasurable pursuits and having only the finest of things. It's not like that. Critics of the Epicureans really did the same thing to Epicurus that I personally think was probably done to Ajita Kesakembali, which was to take a few quotes out of context and try to portray him as if he were morally insane. That interpretation is really an injustice because Epicurus, himself, believed that living a moral life was necessary for a person to live happily. Epicurus had the belief that it was important to have non-sexual relationships and friendships outside of political alliances, simply because it is good for you and makes you happier. Furthermore, the really important products of Epicurean philosophy have been the impact of Epicurean philosophy on modern science. Believe it or not, but the writings of Lucretius (a contemporary of Caesar, I think), in De Rerum Natura, one of the greatest writings in history on Epicurean philosophy, may have been a large part of the inspiration for the scientific revolution and might have even helped inspire democracy. Finally, one important contribution of Epicurus was that he reputedly did not exclude female students, which actually brought a lot of suspicion upon him at the time. Now, not all humanists really know very much about this sort of thing, but I contend that they are still influenced by the beliefs and ideas of these ancients. In fact, I would almost argue that it is the closest there is to being an "atheist religion," although it would only be a "religion" in the same sense as Confucianism and Taoism, which are both considered religions only because their cultures sometimes assign them that status. Anyway, I clearly have a gracious plenty of ideas on the topic, but what is the consensus, here? Do you see humanism as merely synonymous with atheism, or do you see humanism as something unique? Do you see it as a vast, roughly defined system of ideas with uncertain boundaries, or do you think that it is a single specific thing? What does it mean to you?
Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god or gods. Atheism doesn't really mean anything other than that. Humanism however doesn't necessarily deny the existence of a god or gods. A "humanist" can still believe in a god but does not rely on a deity to lead an ethical life, rather puts the emphasis on the human. "I do good to other humans because I want the same treatment back" kinda thing. If I am to understand it correctly. Surely a lot, if not most atheists could also be considered "humanists". Though the definition of the two words are different. Humanism being more of a philosophy rather than a religion, or lack thereof.
Yes, actually. The Stoics and Epicureans are the groups that I see as among the chief progenitors of modern humanist thought, and they often had very strong feelings about gender equality. The ancient Stoics actually sometimes expressed the belief that men and women ought to dress similarly, for instance. They caused a lot of scandal, with that, at the time, and they are still forward-looking today. And really, those feminists who favor things like pantsuits and other vaguely masculine-looking attire that just happen to be cut to fit a woman's body are just following that program, and perhaps some of the better aspects of feminism might be influenced by these ancient schools of thought.
I think that if you're atheist then you're definitely a humanist. However, if you're a humanist - it doesn't quite mean that you're atheist. If you're atheist, you have absolutely no belief in God and therefore, you believe humans are responsible for the world in terms of what happens to it and figuring it out. You don't believe that there's some mythical man looking down on you and watching over your safety. On top of that, majority of atheists believe that religion is responsible for a lot of evil in this world (they have a point) and not that the evil in this world is a message and/or delivering from God. I mean really, atheists believe that everything that happens as far as diseases, natural disasters, etc. is natural selection. That makes you a humanist by default. Humanists on the other hand don't necessarily have to be atheists, although most are. They could identify as agnostic and/or believe in a higher power of sorts, but recognizing that the higher power has no control over what happens to humans and our planet.
Just looking at the definition of the word "humanism," I think the two go hand in hand. Humanism is valuing the capacity of human nature, as well as the preference of rational thought and critical thinking over blind faith, which is what most atheists, myself included, will tell you if asked why we don't believe in a god.
Well, at risk of someone being accused of a "no true scotsman" argument, what would make someone a non-humanist atheist? For instance, what if you were an American, believed that Americans and only Americans had a right to global supremacy, believed that poor people were morally inferior and didn't deserve a voice, and didn't believe that the idea of "human rights" had any value? I could go on, but basically, I'd just end up standing too much on a political soapbox. I tend to see humanism as being very much centered around human rights activism and equality, and I know that not all self-identified humanists necessarily think of it exactly in such terms. It's really a tough thing to think about. What DOES a non-humanistic atheist actually look like?
