Humanism - necessarily atheistic or not?

[Hugbees]

Hey all;

I have a bit of interest in philosophy/theology, and I've been grappling lately with the idea of humanism.

As I understand it, humanism is the belief that human beings can behave and act morally without the need for a guiding religion or "God-figure" to dictate it.  As a result, humanists are more concerned about acting with kindness and compassion towards other people, while altogether removing themselves from the concept of religion and God.

Personally, I understood this to mean that belief in God, in the end, is a non-factor (much like Buddhist philosophy) - it has no consequence on our lives at the present moment, and is a matter of personal choice.  However, several books I have read consider Humanism to be in itself atheistic, and must in the end completely deny the idea of God to work.

I just thought I'd throw this out there for any philosophers to think about.  What are your personal opinions concerning this philosophy?  Do you think God must be denied for it to work?

 

[Stardust]

I believe that any god would have a policy of noninterference and that it is ultimately our choices that affect how our world is shaped.  Acting morally should be encouraged in all cases, so I don't see why anyone would say that you can't believe in a god to do so.  There isn't really a difference between moral behavior with a god and moral behavior without a god.  The reasons vary, but they have the same effect.  I don't think atheism should be connected to Humanism in all cases since they are essentially two different areas of belief.  I may be completely wrong, but this is what I believe from the small amount of research I've done on the subject.

 

[Despain]

Personally, I understood this to mean that belief in God, in the end, is a non-factor (much like Buddhist philosophy) - it has no consequence on our lives at the present moment, and is a matter of personal choice.  However, several books I have read consider Humanism to be in itself atheistic, and must in the end completely deny the idea of God to work.

you are right and the books are wrong -- or at least they're written from an incredibly bias perspective

 

[iceplosion]

I consider humanism to be atheistic, I think believing in this higher power/ultimate being/whatever means you can't completely believe in people.
But then again I'm biased (who isn't?)

 

[Stardust]

I consider humanism to be atheistic, I think believing in this higher power/ultimate being/whatever means you can't completely believe in people.
But then again I'm biased (who isn't?)

So, believing in a god means you think people are crap?  That doesn't make much sense to me.  Religious beliefs are a personal choice, and a private one.  They do not interfere with your life unless you wish them to, while humanism is, essentially, a way of life.

 

[Hugbees]

I consider humanism to be atheistic, I think believing in this higher power/ultimate being/whatever means you can't completely believe in people.
But then again I'm biased (who isn't?)

So, believing in a god means you think people are crap?  That doesn't make much sense to me.  Religious beliefs are a personal choice, and a private one.  They do not interfere with your life unless you wish them to, while humanism is, essentially, a way of life.

exactly.  that was my thought - humanism is more of a lifestyle than a religious choice, and that distinction in the end means that there is no real need for atheism or belief either way.

personally, I do believe in a god of some sort, but I don't believe that people can only act morally to each other unless they have him central in their lives.

 

[DaithioDell]

Saying humanism is a lifestyle over a religious choice is...oversimplifying, if I may say so. Humanism is the idea that there IS no religion (or rather, should not be any), stating that religion is itself a handicap, a way of diverting blame or creating answers to pacify the curious mind against questions to which there ARE no answers. Humanism is the idea that humans can simply go good to do good, and not because it will secure them a better place in the afterlife, or a higher form of reincarnation, or whichever statement applies. So far as I understand it, humanism is an advancement of the ideas of existentialism: our lives are all we have, basically, and there is no higher power or greater meaning than that which we ourselves give.

Atheism isn't a religion, not really. It is more a tag for those who don't believe in god, or gods, or buddha, or an all-encompassing life energy, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[Hugbees]

Humanism is the idea that humans can simply go good to do good, and not because it will secure them a better place in the afterlife, or a higher form of reincarnation, or whichever statement applies.

So far as I understand it, humanism is an advancement of the ideas of existentialism: our lives are all we have, basically, and there is no higher power or greater meaning than that which we ourselves give.

see this argument seems a bit contradictory in nature.  in your first statement (to paraphrase), "simply doing good to do good without need for an afterlife", this implies that belief in an afterlife is besides the point.  I can agree with this - we can never know what's out there, but we can choose to act moral with or without it.

i find your second point is a bit more atheistic, "there is no higher power".  that seems to firmly deny any idea of God. 

I think your definition of atheistic is more agnostic in nature.  Humanism as agnostic?  Absolutely.  It is of no consequence as to whether or not God is present.  Athiestic?  Eh... 

 

[DaithioDell]

An agnostic questions why there is no god, or wonders why. Atheists do not believe in the existence of god.

Keep in mind, also, this is my interpretation of what humanism is. Allow me to clarify, however, if it helps. Atheism is flawed from a religious standpoint, because in denying the existence of a higher power, it MUST exist for it to be denied. Humanism is more of the idea that humans are the ONLY power and should strive to do well by other humans.

ED. To get back to your original question, it does not seem humanism needs to deny god to work, more like it ignores the idea, or perhaps puts god on a level with Santa Claus or Baba Yaga.

Most certainly...it's all awfully darn complex.

 

[Stardust]

I like your posting style, DaithioDell.  Anyway, I agree with you that they put all gods/forces on the same level as themselves.  This is likely because the feel that they have just as much power to change the world as any god/force would.  However, it gets very confusing when it comes to the beginning of the universe and other, impossible to prove, ideas.  Let's not get into any of that, though.  I'm just saying that everyone must believe something.  It's our nature to be curious, and it's done us a lot of good so far.  Saying you believe nothing sounds...impossible to me.  I can't comprehend not believing in anything that explains things that can't be explained by science.

Atheism is indeed contradictory at times.  :tongue:

 

[Hugbees]

I can't comprehend not believing in anything that explains things that can't be explained by science.

I consider myself a firm scientist, and I believe strongly in the existence of god precisely because of my scientific background.

I just happen to believe that I don't need a "god" to be a good person.

 

[skirtboy]

It is not necessarily "atheistic", but it directly condradicts the tenets of both Christianity, and possibly Judaism/Islam. (It's been a while scince I studied either of the latter, so I'm not sure.) The basic tenet of Christianity is that man cannot act morally enough, due to Original Sin, to enter Heaven, thus needing an intermediary to act as pardoner (Jesus). Not as sure about the other two Judaic religions, but I know that Judaism believes in the Messiah (they just don't believe that Christ was said savior) and Islam preaches much about the weakness of man.

 

[Hugbees]

It is not necessarily "atheistic", but it directly condradicts the tenets of both Christianity, and possibly Judaism/Islam. (It's been a while scince I studied either of the latter, so I'm not sure.) The basic tenet of Christianity is that man cannot act morally enough, due to Original Sin, to enter Heaven, thus needing an intermediary to act as pardoner (Jesus). Not as sure about the other two Judaic religions, but I know that Judaism believes in the Messiah (they just don't believe that Christ was said savior) and Islam preaches much about the weakness of man.

good point.  it seems to me that humanism as a philosophy resonates quite soundly with buddhism more than anything else in that it's a very personal philosophy; we are more concerned about our own actions than we are with following a strict religious dogma/catechism

 

[Mr. Thunderpussy]

If I understand correctly, humanism is the ability to function with well-being without accepting, believing or worshipping god. Humanists are able to relate to god, through the fact that they live by strong, good morales, but do not wish for him or even know of his existence at times. We have to remember that religion is more or less based on myths or legends or even both, as well as historical, astrological and temporal events. We must also remember that belief without justification is dogmatism. Atheism is the direct rejection of a higher being or beings, and science in general aspects is the attempt at justifying existence' creation through NATURAL causes.
Due to the fact that Humanism is capable on some level to acknowledge god or gods as a possible source of existence, it would, in my opinion, not class humanism as atheism.
There, that's my 5 cents, although I'm using high-school knowledge here, not to mention that I'm still an adolescent, so there's all the chance in the world that it could be wrong.

 

[DaithioDell]

Off topic, maybe: system, appreciate your humility, however, your high school seems to be doing quite a good job with you. Or, perhaps, you are doing a good job with your high school.

 

[Zelfouz]

I consider myself a firm scientist, and I believe strongly in the existence of god precisely because of my scientific background.

This is a bit of a diversion, but this statement intrigues me. Science is based upon experimentation and finding evidence to confirm hypotheses. What evidence have you found to confirm the god hypothesis?

Humanism is not necessarily atheistic. There is a variety of beliefs and philosophies encompassed by the term "humanism", including religious ones. The books stating that it was were probably written from a secular humanist perspective, which is atheistic.

My beliefs and opinions probably place me nicely under the label of "secular humanist".

 

[skirtboy]

For one thing, the first chapter in any good general science textbook deals with what questions science can answer, and what questions science CAN NOT answer. Stating that "the God hypothesis" is flawed because it cannot be proved via the scientific method is a slap in the face to the very foundations of science.

 

[Zelfouz]

For one thing, the first chapter in any good general science textbook deals with what questions science can answer, and what questions science CAN NOT answer. Stating that "the God hypothesis" is flawed because it cannot be proved via the scientific method is a slap in the face to the very foundations of science.

Science deals with things that can be tested by experiment. Believers generally insist that their deity interacts with the world on a daily basis. Why isn't this detectable? If the universe was created by god, why can't we find any convincing evidence of design? These things are definitely testable. God in the sense that most people describe it can be tested, and thus is NOT outside of the realm of science.

If you define god as some fuzzy higher power, why the hell is it worth worshipping? And what difference is there whether it exists or does not exist? It makes more sense to assume there is no god and move on with your life.

At any rate, it was Hugbees who stated his scientific background made him strongly believe in god. I'm still waiting on his response, as I'm sure it'll be interesting.