Talk:Humanism

humanism v "militant atheism"

Setting aside the question of the reliability and verifiability of the sources, the sources that are cited to say that militant atheism is incompatible with humanism, if you actually read the quoted sections of those texts at the bottom of the page, say nothing of the sort. They are very clearly talking about communism, not militant atheism. The changes I am making make the Wikipedia article more consistent with the cited sources.

Further, the assertion that militant atheism is incompatible with humanism is pure prejudice; no different than saying that jews drink the blood of Christian infants or that homosexuals are pedophiles. Humanism isn't much more than the idea that a person can be moral without belief in a supernatural diety, and is often defined as no more than that, so saying that militant atheisn is incompatible with humanism is just a fancy way of calling militant atheists immoral. Militant atheists can be good people just like anyone else. If some of the editors of Wikipedia think otherwise, that is their opinion, but it has no place on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.48.236.226 (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Humanism (ideology) (may 2011)

The descriptiom "A secular ideology which espouses reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making." Seems POV to me. "Reason" "ethics" and "justice" are terms which believers of any belief system would likely wish to associate with their belief, as they are positive terms. By listing these terms specifically, the lede reads as being promotional of humanism. As far as I am concerned, cutting those terms while leaving "specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making." perfectly describes humanism without promoting it. 46.7.29.75 (talk) 01:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Per my edit comment, these points are already discussed and sourced in the article text that the lede is summarizing. Feel free to continue this discussion, but your dispute appears to be with the general article text rather than this particular instance of it. (Also, please avoid edit warring and note the three-revert rule, thanks.) Rostz (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rostz and oppose the IP's deletion. See WP:LEDE. This is a fair summary of the article's content. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps better wording would be:

A secular ideology which places reason, ethics, and justice in the forefront, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making. Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I checked the source in the article, and it makes no mention of humanism espousing reason ethics and justice. Hence why I removed it from the article body, and consequently from the lede. 46.7.29.75 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not happy with this introductory paragraph as it now stands at all. Someone has taken out the phrase "reason, ethics, and justice, whilst specifically rejecting supernatural and religious dogma as a basis of morality and decision-making." on the grounds that it "Seems POV" in that it allegedly "promotes" humanism. The introduction now seems impoverished to me. I admit it is not clear, but what the now missing information really meant to say is that humanism believes that "reason, ethics, and justice" can be arrived at by humans independently without the need for supernatural revelation. Some religious people may think that this smacks of Pelagianism -- Pelagianism, being the notion that men and women can improve themselves and their condition without divine intervention. This was or is considered by some theists to be a terrible heresy. Other theists accept a degree of Pelagianism and are called semi-Pelagianist and others have yet other rationalizations for this emphasis on worldly concerns. But all that is neither here nor there. To describe what Humanism is, or aspires, rightly or wrongly, to be, is not POV. Even Christian and Jewish or other religious versions of humanism -- give weight to humanity improving itself on this earth through their own efforts, through education, etc. -- though they may make room for the assistance of God in the process to a greater or lesser extent. Theologians have argued about this for two millennia, and we are not going to solve this problem, but we can at least describe it accurately, hopefully in a way that will satisfy most factions. Secular, means having to do with this world, the world of time rather than the next (eternity) and does not really clarify anything. Likewise "religious humanism", as used by Humanist organizations means taking on the social function of a church but not the metaphysical. This is also less than clear. Finally, I think the introduction needs to connect all the different humanisms by mentioning their origin in the ancient Roman concept of Humanitas, which roughly meant "not beastly", in other words "civilized." There is a reason all these humanisms share the same name, they did not spring up independently but contain a common strain, namely the use of reason and knowledge rather than violence, tradition, or dogma.Mballen (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Humanistic vs. Christian Worldview

It appeared that a citation was wanted to contrast Humanism too. So I have provided one.

On the other hand I realized after the fact that the citation requested was for an article on "anti-humanism"

The contrast I provided is a valid and central contrast - Man-centered vs. God-cenetered.

I will leave it to others to decide the value added to the overall article.

However, if you remove it could you please explain your justification. CCeducator 19:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCeducator (talk • contribs)

So apparently Steven J. Anderson decided it was too "soapboxy" and removed it. Interesting term. Did not replace it with a citation.

For any one interested here it is

Basically humanism puts man at the center versus a Christian Worldview which puts God at the center. Thus, a Humanistic Worldview is often contrasted to a Christian Worldview. The heart of a Christian Worldview is the ultimacy of God in reality, knowledge and ethics. "Repairing the Ruins: The Classical & Christian Challenge to Modern Education, Chapter 4: Scriptual Worldview Thinking, editor=Wilson, Douglas, author=Chris Schlect, publisher=Cannon Press, 1996 |isbn=1885767145 CCeducator 19:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCeducator (talk • contribs)

CCeducator, did you actually read the article and citations? Your source is not a scholarly, but rather a polemical (POV) work, and therefore is inadmissible. (Furthermore, your citation is incorrect, the author of the book under question is Douglas Wilson and you do not give page numbers.) The opening paragraph is supposed to define humanism and is not concerned with a "Christian worldview". Over the years, hundreds of pages of discussion have been devoted, right here on this discussion page (and now archived), to the question of whether humanism is opposed to Christianity. The first paragraph was submitted to arbitration and a definition was arrived at based on various philosophical and scholarly reference works.. This all now seems to have gone by the board. The consensus was that, historically, humanism is not opposed by definition to "a Christian world view" (or if it is, that it irrelevant, especially for non-Christians) but rather that humanism concerned with life in this world and is based on human reason rather than divine revelation, tradition and/ or priestly or Biblical authority. Christianity, at least the Roman Catholic variety, which was dominant in Europe for two thousand years, is not opposed to human reason (considered a gift of God). This is and always has been the official position of the Catholic Church and most mainstream Protestant denominations, as well (It is also the position of most other major, non-Christian religions, as it just so happens). Humanism (the concept if not the word) antedates Christianity and is rooted in aspects of Greek and Roman (classical) thought that were incorporated into Christianity by the Fathers of the Church, who looked with favor on the writings of Cicero, Plato, and Aristotle. The article and its introductory paragraph should reflect, or at least not contradict, that historical reality.173.77.111.82 (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

CCeducator, here is a source you probably won't object to: http://books.google.com/books?id=WtnR-6_PlJAC&pg=PA667&dq=niethammer+neohumanism&hl=en&ei=s37ETsmfEeXx0gHr8PGFDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBTgU#v=onepage&q&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.111.82 (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Humanism - Lifestance section

This section begins:

Humanism (capital 'H', no adjective such as "secular")[56] is a comprehensive life stance that ...Italic text

The citation is an article by a Mr Doerr. Is the opinion of one man enough to base a section on? Speaking as a long-time adherent of Humanism, I'd say that spelling Humanism with or without a capital is a matter of personal taste and/or organisational policy, and should be stated as such unless the citation is a dictionary or encyclopaedia.

Furthermore, I tend to equate what we in Britain refer to as (the lifestance of) "Humanism" with what is generally referred to in the USA as "secular humanism", so this section is - to my mind - to a large extent tautological and unnecessary. Dadge (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of sources

This article has been edited by a user who is known to have misused sources to unduly promote certain views (see WP:Jagged 85 cleanup). Examination of the sources used by this editor often reveals that the sources have been selectively interpreted or blatantly misrepresented, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent.

Please help by viewing the entry for this article shown at the page, and check the edits to ensure that any claims are valid, and that any references do in fact verify what is claimed.

I searched the page history, and found 8 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)