Talk:Secular humanism
|
|
I should have read some of the discussion beforehand. I'm new at the wiki stuff. I found the original page that I found a little off topic. The overall page should have been a description of what Secular Humanism is and not who is ticked off by them. I removed some of the derogatory statements and phrases and reworded. There could be a lot more added under the "secular humanism today" section. There is probably some good data as population who follow sec-hum. I would like to see more details on the workings of the societies that are listed below; although that might me more of a secular humanist and less of humanism.
Instead of talking about political ties, there could be ties to the other organizations such as Pro-choice, proponents of stem cell research, gay/lesbian marriage rights, right-to-die and some educational groups.
Mike B - not a user yet. I have to figure that out! June 11, 2005
Need we mention that some people dislike being labeled 'secular humanists'? They apparently see it as a put-down. --Ed Poor
- Yes, often because the persons being so called don't consider themselves "secular". I am religious, but also a humanist.
- Also, I really question the statement that secular humanism is the largest portion of humanism. --Dmerrill
- I don't. I've seen many many references to Secular Humanism, while all others pale in comparison, or choose to go by different names. TimothyPilgrim 17:50, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Secular Humanism is definitely not the largest portion of humanism. The American Humanist Association is larger than the Coucil for Secular Humanism. Their magazine is found in most public libraries. The CSH's magazine can barely be found anywhere. The term "humanist" by itself has been dilluted to the point of meaninglessness. The term Secular Humanism is used more by religious fundamentalists who hate it than by the Secular humanists themselves. Wikkrockiana 15:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
The most common use of "secular humanist" I've seen is by creationists, applied to people who deny that they are secular humanists. This deserves mention. It's also worth mentioning that people disagree that denying the supernatural denies religion, because there are multiple definitions of "supernatural" and "religion". In short, a big mess that isn't well represented by merely stating the definition of the people who label themselves (or others) "Secular Humanists". GregLindahl
It was mentioned (as I recall) before someone clouded up this page. Wikkrockiana 15:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
- Being a Secular Humanist, the most common use I've seen by the term is by people labelled as such. In fact, I see more people who are labelled as Humanists preferring to add the qualifier "Secular" to distance themselves from any other type. TimothyPilgrim 17:50, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
- I would describe myself as a secular humanist, and I'm very interested in religions and their world views. Just like art and poetry, it doesn't have to be logical or scientific for it to hold value and meaning for many people.
I think you are funny, you say basically secular humanists see religious people as irrational. Fair enough. But then, that religious people can only see secular humanists in completely religious terms, and therefore as the work of Satan. I find this hard to believe.
- That is perfectly true of the Fundamentalists who bother to get involved with the discussion
Wikkrockiana 15:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
The previous editor added a reference to Religious Humanism. I removed it because it appeared to me to be solely a link to that article, instead of providing useful information. The Humanism page already contains a reference to it, not to mention other variants, and an interested reader would be able to find it there. Should one variant be included on a page of a sub-type (Secular Humanism) while others are not? I don't think so. TimothyPilgrim 17:50, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)
Is Humanism supposed to be capitalized? In the article, it isn't capitalized but... ugen64 20:55, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Toning down the sentence re: Paul Kurtz and Gene Roddenberry. Could use more examples of (prefereably self-described) secular humanists. Gwimpey 01:51, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
- This should not be toned down as Paul Kurtz and Gene Roddenberry call(ed) themselves Secular Humanists. [Ooops, sorry. I missed the date stamp]
Wikkrockiana 15:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
| Contents |
"Eupraxophy!" Did you say "eupraxophy"?
Deadingingly pretentious, and right in the opening sentence (without explication too). --Wetman 15:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- That's right, I said eupraxophy. I like the word and wish it were more recognized. Still, its deletion from the intro is justified. As a widely unrecognized neologism (and one unused even by most secular humanists), it does not clarify, but rather obfuscates. It might bear mentioning with explication somewhere later in the article. Oh, and by the way: eupraxophy, Eupraxophy, EUPRAXOPHY! And eupraxsophy too! Rohirok 18:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Surely Eupraxis (http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol10/kurtz.html) is the better formation for "living right", though its connotation still has an air of "I-know-Greek-unlike-you-dolt" --Wetman 19:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No real debate
"Secular humanism often conflicts with religious fundamentalism, especially over the issue of state involvement in religion."
I'm not sure I agree with this statment. I've known religious fundamentalist and secular humanists that agreed completely on the issue of state involvement in religion: They both wanted the state to rigorously enforce their own view.
- Whether any of us agree or not is our personal business. Not a Wikipedia concern. The secular humanist view of religion's involvement in the state is simply that it's exactly like astrology's involvement in the NASA space program. --Wetman 21:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Actually I don't really have a problem with the information in that section; however, I do think it needs to be rewritten to put the focus on what secular humanist believe with regard to church/state issues rather than putting the emphasis on the conflict between secular humanists and Christian fundamentalists with the humanist view barely included as more of a supporting detail. (The section title would probably need to be changed as well.)
Secular humanism may be described as beholden to the following principles:
- Humans matter and can solve human problems.
- Science, free speech, rational thought, democracy and freedom in the arts go together.
- There is nothing supernatural
- or, religious belief should not impose divisions or constraints upon matters of common principle
The "or" clause should go. An "or" would indication contradistiction or restatement of the first statement. Here it is neither.
Secular humanism is an ideology or life stance that views rationality as paramount to the practical advancement of humanist principles, while viewing religion as irrational, and therefore not suited for the humanist view of an ethical life.
This is recursive. I will have to work on this. How did this article get so badly banged up?
barring to any association with mainstream secular humanism.
"Barring to"? If we must add unnecesary material it should at least be grammatically correct.
Wikkrockiana 15:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Grammar and accuracy
Secular humanism or in defined contexts secularism is a philosophy of ethics that emphasizes a humanist world view based upon naturalism —a belief that the physical world is all that truly exists, and therefore is the arbiter of ethical issues. The term "secular" refers to secularity, or the separation of one element from another.
Parenthetical statement is innacurate and not even set apart by commas. Gone
An arbiter is a person; the uiveerse is ot a person. Gone.
Secular in this context means non-religious.
Secular humanists may also find debate with mainstream humanists over matters of universality and morality. The basic criticism of secular humanists is that it's too exclusive —most people in the world believe in a supernatural or unknown dimension to human existence, for which religions at least attempt to answer. To exclude the views of these people, mainstream humanists argue, is to dismiss universalism itself— something that seems to fly in the face of humanism as based in a global and universal appeal.
Secular Humanists do not believe everything. They are not religious. "humanism as based in a global and universal appeal" is not a point. Secular Humanists do not claim that everyone is a Secular Humanists, just that all humans matter.
Religious traditionalists and mainstream humanists may also agree on a third basic criticism of secularism — that secularism's dismissal of theistic morality is a dismissal of the very human cultural history of morality —as it comes to us through religious and cultural traditions predating by far the scientific methodology and skepticism upon which secularism claims to be based. The implied questions for this criticism are, if secularism is based in science, then is it only as new as science itself? If it is not based in science, then is secularism simply based in a contrarian rejection of belief, rather than in a scientific belief?
So what if it is new? Bad grammar too.
I must add something in the Debate section re: Transhumanists and Secular Humanists
Wikkrockiana 19:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
"secular humanism" as a derogatory term
The origin of the term secular humanism comes from religious fundamentalists meant to disparage humanists (religious, non-religious and anti-religious alike).
The term has since been embraced by many.
I added a bit to "historical references" to address this, but looking to the history of the page I'm not sure if it will stay.
I think it is necessary as the "secular humanism" remains often as a statement by fundamentalists about "those people" rather than a term about oneself.
Would ya'll agree this information is important to the understanding to the term?
Capitalization of "secular humanist"
The article currently uses various capitalization schemes for secular humanism: uncapitalized, "Secular Humanism" and "secular Humanism." I think this should be standardized in the article, with perhaps a note somewhere pointing out that there are different preferences regarding capitalization. My own preference is to write both words uncapitalized, since I believe capitalization tends to reify concepts, and capitalization of "Secular Humanism" gives the impression that it is a religion. I believe other secular humanists tend to have this same preference, as opposed to religious Humanists, who are more prone to capitalizing the word. In any case, the current use of different capitalization schemes is distracting in the article. The most commonly used scheme ought to be determined and adopted throughout the article for the sake of consistency. Rohirok 21:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Consistency within an article is less distracting, we all agree. But which? We don't capitalize an incurable romantic, but we capitalize the Romantic poets, signifying the larger concept they exemplified: "romantic poets" may work for greeting card companies. We capitalist Humanism when we mean the historic movement, as Renaissance Humanism. Uncapitalized, secular humanism means those human-centered concerns that are mundane and rational. Secular Humanism denotes a movement in the history of ideas, taught in college courses as History of Ideas 101. --Wetman 22:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Obviously, the same word can be capitalized or uncapitalized in order to indicate shades of meaning that have more or less been standardized, such as in the case of "God" with a big "G" indicating a supreme being in monotheism, and "god" with a little "g" indicating a lesser spirit or the gods in polytheism. The same is true of of the example "romantic" that you used. Such nuances are not made clear at all in the present article, and even if they are being used sometimes, they are not used consistently. Take this sentence, for example: "'Secular humanism' is distinguished from the broader 'humanism' in that the secular Humanist prefers free inquiry over dogma..." Here we have the terms "secular humanism" and "secular Humanist" being used in the same sense, yet their capitalizations are arbitrarily mismatched. It comes across as sloppy and confused. Elswhere, "Notable secular humanists" (members of a movement in the history of ideas) and "Secular humanism manifestoes" (writings of a movement in the history of ideas) are both uncapitalized, while "Secular Humanism Today" (the current state of a movement in the history of ideas) has capitals (the "Today" should certainly be lowercase, as it does not conform with Wikipedia standards). Even if different capitalizations are justified, the distinctions are not applied with any consistency or clarity in the present article. The standard I would like to see applied in the article would be the same one used by most of those who self-identify as secular humanists, which I believe is to leave both words uncapitalized. To apply any other standard would be like writing an article about Islam that referred to Muslims as "Musselmen" or "Mohamedans." Naturally, quotes that contain "Secular Humanism"--such as the one from Justice Black--ought to be left as is. Rohirok 03:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)