Jump to content

Talk:Humanism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
suggest Capital letter system
Line 516: Line 516:
:"I am a man [i.e. human, not 'male'], I think nothing human alien to me"
:"I am a man [i.e. human, not 'male'], I think nothing human alien to me"
I suggest "I am a human, I think nothing human alien to me". -[[User:Pgan002|Pgan002]] ([[User talk:Pgan002|talk]]) 03:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I suggest "I am a human, I think nothing human alien to me". -[[User:Pgan002|Pgan002]] ([[User talk:Pgan002|talk]]) 03:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

== Capital H Humanism ==

My god the use of capital letters is incredibly confusing. Is there any possible way to devise a system of the usage of non-capital and Capital H humanism.

Revision as of 00:31, 1 February 2010

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

Template:WP1.0

There also exists a archives of past discussions. Before archiving, this page has been refactored – see the archive's bottom section details on 2006-08-21 till 2006-11-10 refactoring Archive 1 contains mainly:
  • comments that had become of little use for the future;
  • all discussions on humanism assumed to be religious/secular/atheist (thus mainly on what the topic is supposed to be about or not);
  • all discussions on which individuals are considered to be humanists, which largely depends on viewpoints regarding the above.
Archive 2 contains much more of the same - to December 2008
Archive 3 December 2008 - March 2009
Archive 4 March - June 2009
Archive 5 July - August 2009

Greatest hits from the Archive

Best-Selling Book Survey Results

Here are the results of my interpreting the use of the word "humanism" in the top 25 best-selling books that contain the word, according to amazon.com:

1. The White Tiger: A Novel, by Aravind Adiga. Human-Centric Philosophy. 2. The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, by Timothy Keller. Human-Centric Philosophy. 3. Anticancer: A New Way of Life, by David Servan-Schreiber. Human-Centric Philosophy. 4. The American Journey of Barack Obama, by The Editors of Life Magazine. Human-Centric Philosophy. 5. Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary (Thumb Index), by Donald Venes. Human-Centric Philosophy. 6. Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, by Barack Obama. Human-Centric Philosophy. 7. First Aid for the USMLE Step 1 2009: A Student to Student Guide (First Aid Series), by Tao Le and Vikas Bhushan. No context. 8. Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception To Keep You Misinformed, by Christopher C. Horner. Human-Centric Philosophy. 9. Couples, by John Updike. Human-Centric Philosophy. 10. Thinking with Type: A Critical Guide for Designers, Writers, Editors, & Students, by Ellen Lupton. Renaissance Study of the Classics. 11. Rick Steves' Italy 2009, by Rick Steves. Renaissance Study of the Classics. 12. The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics, by C. S. Lewis. Human-Centric Philosophy. 13. 1984, by George Orwell and Erich Fromm. Human-Centric Philosophy. 14. Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison, by Michel Foucault. Human-Centric Philosophy. 15. The World's Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions, by Huston Smith. Human-Centric Philosophy. 16. Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy, by Gerald Corey. Human-Centric Philosophy. 17. America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It, by Mark Steyn. Human-Centric Philosophy. 18. Rick Steves' Paris 2009, by Rick Steves. Renaissance Study of the Classics. 19. Unstuck: Your Guide to the Seven-Stage Journey Out of Depression, by JamesS. Gordon M.D. Renaissance Study of the Classics. 20. The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why, by Phillis Tickle. Human-Centric Philosophy. 21. The Botany of Desire: A Plant's-Eye View of the World, by Michael Pollan. Renaissance Study of the Classics. 22. Bridge of Sighs: A Novel, by Richard Russo. Human-Centric Philosophy. 23. The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever, by Christopher Hitchens. Human-Centric Philosophy. 24. A World of Trouble: The White House and the Middle East--from the Cold Warto the War on Terror, by Patrck Tyler. Human-Centric Philosophy. 25. Power vs. Force: The Hidden Determinants of Human Behavior, by David R. Hawkins. Human-Centric Philosophy. 26. The Princeton Companion to Mathematics, by Timothy Gowers, June Barrow-Green, and Imre Leader. Human-Centric Philosophy.

Of particular note is #7. The First Aid book lists humanism in a comma-delimited list of "eclectic interests" of an acknowledgee; it provides no context to tell what kind of humanism it means. I meant to capture the top 25 best-selling books here, but since we must discard this one, I did 26 instead. That gives us the following totals: 20 books refer to human-centric philosophy. 5 books refer to Renaissance study of the classics, 1 has been discarded for lack of context, and 0 refer to modern study of humanities. This gives us 80% human-centric philosophy, 20% Renaissance study of the classics, and 0% modern study of humanities. By being charitable, we can excuse ourselves for leaving perhaps one mention of modern study of humanities in this article, but it is very clearly a minority definition based on usage within best-selling books. OldMan (talk) 02:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These statistics are useless. I took the first item and searched insided the book, but "humanism" did not appear. Furthermore it is a novel, not "philosophy." Thirdly, if "human-centered philosophy" can cover just anything that gives weight to humanity, then it is not specific enough to the particular (philsophic) meaning being proposed as the overriding common use. Also: C.S. Lewis is in this list, a believing Christian who was also a literary humanist. He was God-centered as well as human-centered, I think he would say. He "resorted" to scripture quite a lot for guidance. Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you're not very familiar with C. S. Lewis's actual writings, so I must suggest you at least read the Wikipedia article on the book in question, "The Screwtape Letters". The short summary, though, is that Lewis speaks through the voice of a demon advising another demon how to tempt Christians. Thus, when Lewis writes, "Hence the encouragement we have given to all those schemes of thought such as Creative Evolution, Scientific Humanism, or Communism, which fix men's affections on the Future, on the very core of temporality," Lewis is actually stating that humanism is a BAD thing for Christians to engage in. In fact, he's "demonizing" humanism in a very literal sense, praising it from the voice of a demon! So we have this book for sure as one example of how horrible Lewis thought humanism is for Christians to engage in. But my ears are open: can you please name one place where Lewis referred to himself as a humanist? Thank you! Serpent More Crafty (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Scientific Humanism" please! Whoopee, we need another article. Johnbod (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know if he ever called himself such. But others certainly have. Search on ( C.S. Lewis humanist ) in books.google.com to see how Lewis defines humanism and what he means by humanist. It is not your favored meaning. You might also take a look at http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1650 where you can read: "Far from being private and idiosyncratic, Lewis’ métier was the public, as in universal. He was in the fullest and finest sense a humanist. He was a Christian humanist, to be sure, but he could say with the pre–Christian Terence, "I am a man: nothing human is alien to me." Being a Christian humanist was in no way a limiting factor. Quite the opposite is the case, if Christ is the Logos who informs, sustains, and fulfills all that is. Lewis frequently used "humanism" and "humanitarian" as pejoratives, but only because in common usage those terms reflected smug liberal prejudices that were not nearly humanistic enough. For Lewis, the great fact is that God became a human being, and you cannot get more humanistic than that." Wilson Delgado (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not select C. S. Lewis's "Screwtape Letters" as an example of common usage simply because he agreed with me; in fact I selected him only because he was near the top of a best-seller list. The fact that he agreed with me is merely incidental, however inconvenient it may be to your POV. You, on the other hand, had to go find that eleven-year-old article specifically because of its bias, and even then the author, Richard Neuhaus, writes in contradiction of your thesis that "Lewis frequently used 'humanism' and 'humanitarian' as pejoratives, but only because in common usage those terms reflected smug liberal prejudices that were not nearly humanistic enough." Consequently Lewis's disdain for humanism, and Neuhaus's acknowledgement of it, and calling it "frequent" and "in common usage," does indeed support that the primary meaning "in common usage" is what Lewis considered detrimental to Christian theology and practice. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 21:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And then Neuhaus calls Lewis "in the finest sense a humanist," illustrating another living and recognizable and commonly understandable usage. Wilson Delgado (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

News Article Survey Results

I liked your approach to categorizing the use, so I've redone my own categorization to match. The results were predictable, but please note the following: like you, I found one that basically offered no context, in "Nepali woman writer Parijat." I also found two articles listed in the search results that did not contain the word "humanism," but the reader comments at the end did. None of these oddities affect the outcome at all: aside from the one with no useful context, every single instance referred to human-centered philosophy. Even if you discard the reader comments, the result is 100% unanimous. Read those reader comments, though: they are written by Christians who use the term as perjorative, which also leads us to conclude that it isn't the MEANING of the term that's in question, just whether WE OUGHT TO HOLD that philosophy. Here are examples of my search results, where "GGN" means I found it on google news, "MSN" is msn.com, and "YHN" means I found it on Yahoo's news search:

151.190.254.108 (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google and similar searches should be used mainly if there are no other sources, and then only to:
determine whether a topic is notable or not,
find sources.
what you succeeded to do with these searches is to convince me (I cannot speak for the others) that there is a movement or organisation called "Human-centered philosophy". Maybe you could create an article for that philosophy or politics ("philosophy" is nonbiased and purely intellectual by my terminology)? And why don't you go get yourself a wikipedia account?? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News

My attention has been drawn to Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Identification_of_common_names_using_external_references, which gives additional news sources to check in case there's a conflict over what to call something. This new section on the BBC, and the next section on CNN, covers those two bases to show what the name "humanism" most commonly means.

As before, "HUM" marks human-centric philosophies (as opposed to theocentric philosophies), "REN" marks Renaissance study of classics, and "MOD" marks modern study of humanities and liberal arts.

Results: 0% refer to modern study of humanities. OldMan (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpent More Crafty (talk • contribs) [reply]

Proves what? That old humanist studies shall be removed in order to promote modern "human-ethic movement"? The only thing it proves, is that the "human-ethical movement" uses the term "humanism" and therefore should be mentioned here too. This is an encyclopedia: if there are old uses and academical uses, they are as important as modern politicial/religious movements, but the topic of this discussion is not the one against the other, and if one usage erases the other usage; the article should treat a correct neutral point of view on usages, academical genres, and modern flagwaving idiosyncratic anti-religious people. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CNN News

As before, "HUM" marks human-centric philosophies (as opposed to theocentric philosophies), "REN" marks Renaissance study of the classics, and "MOD" marks modern study of humanities and liberal arts.

Results: 0% refer to modern study of humanities. OldMan (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpent More Crafty (talk • contribs) [reply]

Top Ten Alexa Websites on Humanism

How do the top ten most-visited websites present humanism? Here are results of a web search for content on each of the 13 top-ranked, most-visited websites according to Alexa.com. I was going to do 10, but Wikipedia was one of them and Orkut and Rapidshare do not permit searching of their content. I used context to determine whether the page presents an aggregate of all meanings of the term (AGG), or refers most specifically to "human-centric philosophy" (HUM), "renaissance humanism" (REN), or "modern study of humanities" (MOD).

Totals: 24 HUM (80%), 2 REN (6.7%), 4 AGG (13.3%), 0 MOD (0%). 8 discarded for lack of context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpent More Crafty (talk • contribs) 14:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top Alexa Search Results for "humanism"

I searched Alexa for the term "humanism" and discarded all entries that do not have an Alexa ranking, or a ranking over 1,000,000. The following results probably show the top-visited sites that use the term "humanism," according to Alexa's ranking algorithm, and whether it is an aggregation of all meanings (AGG), or refers most specifically to "human-centric philosophy" (HUM), "renaissance humanism" (REN), or "modern study of humanities" (MOD).

Totals: 18 HUM (60%), 4 REN (13.3%), 8 AGG (26.7%), 0 MOD (0%)

OldMan (talk) 16:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpent More Crafty (talk • contribs) [reply]

Top 25 Google search results

Wilson had once decried Google search results as not being trustworthy, but since he is now citing Google search results himself to back a minority opinion, here are the top 25 Google search results for "humanism." As with all preceding searches, please note that the percentage of pages that use "humanism" to mean "modern study of humanities" remains 0%. 

âPreceding unsigned comment added by 151.190.254.108 (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpent More Crafty (talk • contribs) [reply]

These statistics are also useless. I chose one item at random (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-r002.html) and found this: "Accurate definitions are difficult to come by. When one hears the word “humanism,” several different ideas may come to mind. For example, Mr. Webster would define humanism something like this: "any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, or dignity predominate."[1] Others may think of a liberal arts education. Both of these are well and good, but what we are seeking is a definition of the worldview known as Secular Humanism." This website therefore encourages the idea that the main page for Humanism should be the dab page itself. Wilson Delgado (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they useless? Wikipedia's article naming policy is based on the weight of usage of a given term, and this editor (or editors) has made a good attempt to show that, statistically speaking, and in a non-biased manner, the current meaning is the most common one used by English speakers. I think they make a fairly compelling case. A single definition from christiananswer.net, which I would question as a reliable source, does nothing to counter such claims. You should try doing your own unbiased survey or reliable sources and show that the statistics favor your preferred meaning (or that there is no preferred meaning, which would lend itself to a disambiguation page). ← George [talk] 18:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are useless because the particular implications and understandings of people are not adequately probed by raw statistics. The case I brought up shows that Serpent was using in favor of his own argument an item that cuts against his argument. The person who wrote that article said that one may think of liberal arts education (i.e., a humanistic one or a humanities-oriented one) when one thinks of the term humanism. Well that means that that person is testifying to what Serpent says does not occur at all, namely, the association of humanism with humanities. Yes, the word humanities was not used, I agree, but the content of the idea is still there as a meaning-designation associated with humanism. Furthermore, many literary, cultural, and educational uses of humanism, humanist, humanities, humanistic in books may not turn up in Alexa searches, but they occur in abundance in texts and reference works. The weighting is not adequately respected if one sticks to such "hard" data. Also, human-centric philosophy as a category as used here is not exactly the same as the way the opening of the Humanism article now describes it. There are Vatican documents that talk about authentic humanism, for example. Serpent and OldMan might say, "See! Human-centric philosophy!" But it is one that is integrated with a deeply religious and scripture-friendly world-view that their favored meaning does not permit. These Church documents may be taken as being relevant to the billion or so Christians, so this meaning would have to be given full weight too in the lead of the article. It is not a tiny minority usage. Using webpage statistics alone prima facie skews towards what tends to appear on webpages, does it not? Secular humanist groups have adopted the noun humanism and webpage advertisement, so of course their usage is going to come up disproportionately on webpage statistics. Humanist groups might adopt some synonym like liberal arts or humanistic or literary studies or cultural instead, but one of the major meaning of humanism is still at issue and may well be quite relevant in the members' conceptual universe. I do not think it is fair to ignore the living semantic linkage. Have we seen the results for occurrences of a phrase like humanistic studies? What about humanists as paralleled with scientists? No, these have been excluded, unfairly. But they all hook into the history and meaning of humanism. Wilson Delgado (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What, to your reading comprehension, IS the meaning of the term "humanism" as presented in that article, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-r002.html ? Serpent More Crafty (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to the author, something that can have several meanings, as indicated at the start of the piece. A particular meaning is chosen as a focus for the article. Wilson Delgado (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what is that meaning? Serpent More Crafty (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question was not unanswered. "The" meaning of the term can go in several directions. As for your further question, you can look up the answer. Wilson Delgado (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me be sure I understand this correctly. Serpent More Crafty attempts to make the case that one particular definition of the term "humanism" is more common than others by doing some rough statistical analysis across a wide variety of reliable sources, that include both printed and electronic formats, and your counter argument is citing an excerpt from the Summit Ministries website, whose founder is a noted critic of "secular humanism", and which hardly constitutes a reliable source? Do you have any reliable sources that discuss the Vatican documents you mention, or that make the claim that they are "relevant to the billion or so Christians" worldwide? Can you provide us with your own statistical analysis and methodology for how common the different usages are? The fact that humanism has multiple meanings isn't disputed; the commonality of those meanings is. In order to make your case, you should be attempting to provide statistics that demonstrate that the current usage in the article is not the common usage, or that it represents a plurality, but not a majority of usage. ← George [talk] 18:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


1. For a reliable source, see http://www.zenit.org/article-14574?l=english:
VATICAN CITY, NOV. 17, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Amid the prevailing individualism and relativism, Christians have the mission to present Christ as model for a new humanism, says Benedict XVI. The Pope presented this proposal in a message sent to the annual public session of the Pontifical Academies, held Tuesday, in the Vatican's new Synod Hall. In this session, the 10th since Pope John Paul II established the Coordinating Council for the Pontifical Academies in 1995, the central theme -- "Christ, Son of God, Perfect Man: 'The Measure of True Humanism' '" -- was prepared by the Pontifical Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Pontifical Academy of Theology.
This is discussing Pope Benedict XVI urging his followers to view Christ, whom he describes as "the perfect man", as a role model to follow in a "new humanism". I'm not sure what he's talking about by "new" or "authentic" humanism, and it's unclear if he's talking about the same humanism that this article discusses, or a different meaning. ← George [talk] 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite clear that the pope's idea of humanism doesn't cohere with the secularistic rationalistic philosophical version given in the lead of the article. The pope's humanism is necessarily religious. If he were talking about the other kind, it would be obvious. Wilson Delgado (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Pope Benedict XVI's new encyclical Caritas in Veritate, addressed to a rather large readership (including all Christians and all people of good will) is out today. He makes repeated mention of humanism: "Only if we are aware of our calling, as individuals and as a community, to be part of God's family as his sons and daughters, will we be able to generate a new vision and muster new energy in the service of a truly integral humanism. The greatest service to development, then, is a Christian humanism that enkindles charity and takes its lead from truth, accepting both as a lasting gift from God. Openness to God makes us open towards our brothers and sisters and towards an understanding of life as a joyful task to be accomplished in a spirit of solidarity. On the other hand, ideological rejection of God and an atheism of indifference, oblivious to the Creator and at risk of becoming equally oblivious to human values, constitute some of the chief obstacles to development today. A humanism which excludes God is an inhuman humanism. Only a humanism open to the Absolute can guide us in the promotion and building of forms of social and civic life — structures, institutions, culture and ethos — without exposing us to the risk of becoming ensnared by the fashions of the moment." Wilson Delgado (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, religious humanists argue that humanism advocates a realization of the whole person and a definition of humanity that omits the spiritual dimension is an incomplete definition of man. They have also argued that secular humanism leads to permissiveness. They stress that unless truth is based on "the absolute", man is in danger of arrogantly deifying himself. Not only religious humanists caution about this, Bertrand Russell, a secular humanist, also said something similar in his criticism of American pragmatism (in his article on Dewey in A History of Western Philosophy). Bertrand Russell appears to have believed that truth had an absolute quality and cannot be determined on solely on the basis of "what works" as he accused Dewey of doing. He too thought pragmatism could lead to a dangerous lack of humility about human limitations. (I am neither philosopher nor theologian and so am probably simplifying horribly, but do I respect Bertrand Russell). However, Bertrand Russell also would have agreed with Serpent More Crafty that revelation (i.e., arguments from authority) is not a superior guide to truth. Dewey was a signatory of the Humanist declaration and was one of several prominent American pragmatist philosophers who identified as humanists. I think Russell may have as well.Mballen (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, according to the Wikipedia article, Gandhi criticized rationalism, on which secular humanists say they exclusively rely, as a kind of idolatry:

Rationalists are admirable beings, but rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of a stick and stone believing it to be God. (Fisher 1997)Mballen (talk) 18:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

2. How many Christians? http://www.spiritualworld.org/christianity/how_many.htm
There are eighty-five main Christian denominations. These denominations make a distinction between Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians. There are 1,026,501,000 Roman Catholics and 316,445,000 ** Protestants in the world. Most Catholics are Roman Catholics; there are 60,018,436 ** in the United States. Protestants in the U.S. number 42,513,059 as of 1997.
I didn't need a source of how many Christians there are in the world; I need a source that says that this message from Benedict XVI was relevant to them. There are many Americans who don't agree with the President of the United States; there are many Christians who don't agree with every stance held by the Pope. We need something specific to this topic, that discusses how his message was received by Christians worldwide. It's an enormous leap of faith to make, going from the words of one man to the views of a billion, and needs to be heavily sourced. ← George [talk] 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If such a figure talks to / about Christians, they are all in play in the meaning / potential relevant subject or audience, just as all Americans are in play if the U.S. president says something about all American citizens, whether or not they agree. Wilson Delgado (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. The important point is not that Summit Ministries is a reliable and sufficient authority, but that the methodology used is vitiated because the contents and understanding of the individual webpages are not examined. Serpent was using Summit Ministries to support his argument when it doesn't really work. Summit Ministries actually cites another authority (Webster's) in such a way as to disprove one of Serpent's long-standing contentions (i.e., that humanism is never used to refer to humanities).
I can't imagine that any Wikipedia administrator would agree with you regarding the alleged reliability of that website, but that's besides the point.I think we can all agree that humanism has had different meanings today and throughout history, but we need some way to establish if one definition holds a majority of usage or not. ← George [talk] 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again: Serpent USED this website in his analysis to support his case. Doesn't compute. It also makes his analysis highly suspect. Wilson Delgado (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


4. No reputable encyclopedia seems to use the methodology used by Serpent and OldMan to determine the most common meanings.
5. I don't claim to have definitive accurate and comprehensive statistics. I do claim that no one has presented here accurate meaningful ones. I claim that reason and some case-studies lead us in a direction different from the one that the OldMan and Serpent have taken. They ignore the evidence that point to significant usage of the term humanism to mean something other than their favored meaning. Wilson Delgado (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What then would you propose as a specific way to take a sample and garner accurate, comprehensive statistics as to whether the current definition of humanism is the most common one or not? Serpents lists – if not all of them, at least some of them – seems like as fair a way as I can see to figure out an accurate measure. I've seen the same technique used repeated in discussions on other, more contentious issues, so what is your proposed alternative? ← George [talk] 00:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a way to get accurate specific statistics. I do have a norm that should be the default: respect for leading reference works. A negative norm is don't follow statistics that you know are going to be bogus (see my fuller critique above for why this is this case with these statistics). Another principle is to admit the wide range of actual usage. Another negative norm is not to assume that the standing use in one limited circle is the general use, even if that circle generates reams of written material (and websites) and even if some outside that circle use the circle's own self-chosen title. The point is to look to other streams of meaning with a very long history embedded in scholarly and other discourse. Raw numbers don't tell the whole story, especially numbers drawn from a narrowly selected range of materials, or numbers based on something as vague as "human-centric philosophy." That phrase can be used of religious humanisms too. Wilson Delgado (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you're still sowing confusion with your terms "secularistic" (in your comment about the pope above) and "that phrase can be used of religious humanisms too." It looks like, after all these years, you're still vague on the point that both secular and religious forms of humanism exist that fit the description in the first paragraph of the article. As long as you remain unaware of this simple fact, and how to tell what the difference is, you're not going to be able to make a compelling argument for change. That aside, though, the "way to get accurate specific statistics" is suggested by Wikipedia policy pages. If you don't agree with Wikipedia policy pages, may I ask what your intention is in visiting the Wikipedia website at all, let alone this one article? Serpent More Crafty (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The opening of the first paragraph of the article on Humanism now reads: "Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appealing to universal human qualities, particularly rationality, without resorting to the supernatural or alleged divine authority from religious texts." Now does the pope and the religious view in which he (and most Christians) are invested "resort" to divine authority from religious texts or not? You are trading speciously on an ambiguity in the word religious: it can refer to organized religion OR to the transcendental dimensions of human existence. One can therefore be religious in one sense without being religious in the other. The opening paragraph remains a misleading affront. Secondly, Wikipedia policy suggests consulting major reference works. This I have done and used in my argumentation. Thirdly, you have not answered the full range of my critique (e.g., the use of the pair "humanists" and "scientists" to make humanist a synonym for "teacher of the humanities," or the use of the phrase "humanistic studies" to refer to liberal arts studies.) What is clear, whatever Wikipedia policy recommends, is that your statistics are not really helpful. If one small sector shouts and repeats the word humanism in their own sense a million million times, and even if in addition some outside that circle engage that sector with its own vocabulary, it does not erase the other streams of usage in the broader population. That million million could be a higher number, but it is far from determinative of the whole picture. If Yale University press can publish a book like Literacy and the Survival of Humanism, using the word humanism in a different sense than the lead paragraph suggests, then that is a good clue that other usages must be attended to. Wilson Delgado (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note, all passers-by who might be trying to catch up with this debate: he uses the phrase "whatever Wikipedia policy recommends" and then directly contradicts the policies quoted above. Then he carefully avoids answering my question. You will find that this is in character for this editor; if you ever feel the need to engage him, please try to pin him down on this point because it is important to the continued quality of Wikipedia.
Everything else he writes in this comment is also incorrect; the archives are full of discussion about how dictionaries don't give frequency of use (Wilson is actually the one who wrote that!) and how the Encyclopedia Britannica disagrees with Wilson on which is the "most correct" use of the term, and how the "Institute for Humanist Studies" is specifically devoted to non-theistic human-centered philosophy rather than study of the humanities. That's all in the archives for anyone who is interested in reading it; he is merely trying to restate his argument here in the hopes that you'll find it too inconvenient to read back and find that all such arguments have already been refuted. However, none of that is as important as the fact that Wilson DOES NOT want to follow Wikipedia policies, and WILL NOT answer for his persistence in ignoring them. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such charges are baseless, off-point, deceptive, and time-wasting. Let the argument be decided by wise, informed, indifferent arbiters who are interested in the quality and helpful accuracy of the article. Wilson Delgado (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can find hundreds of modern textbooks that define the Renaissance according to Burckhardt's mistaken nineteenth-century interpretation of humanism as pagan and irreligious. They are all wrong, and have always been wrong. No historian today (except maybe Norman Davies) accepts Burckhardt's theses. You can find hundreds of mistaken interpretations of Darwin as well, but that does not make them right. Looking for corroboration for the theories in modern best-sellers is foolish and unworthy of people pretending to advocate for "humanism" -- if "humanism" is to have anything at all with the ideal of reason. The fact is that it takes many decades (even a century in this case) for the scholarly research to filter to the popular level. I believe that Wikipedia ought to accelerate the diffusion of knowledge, not spread more obscurity.18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.105.152.153 (talk)

June 2009 news results

  • June 15 top search results for humanism in the news

http://www.punjabnewsline.com/content/view/17258/38/ - "the fifth Guru of the Sikhs who made a supreme sacrifice for preserving the rich values of humanism,secularism and unity of mankind."

  • June 16 top search results for humanism in the news

http://www.examiner.com/x-4435-Milwaukee-Progressive-Examiner~y2009m6d16-Evolution-not-a-religion-of-humanists - "Some believe evolution is a "religion" of nonbelievers. That it is a "religion" of humanism."

  • June 17 top search result for humanism in the news

http://www.fergusfallsjournal.com/news/2009/jun/17/human-rights-unborn/ - "Therefore, so many today in our public schools and universities are taught the religion of Humanism and Evolution which teaches that there are no moral absolutes. This is the foundation for man to rationalize the murder of 50 million innocent unborn children in our country today." From a position OPPOSING humanism, a Christian both identifies it as a religion and points out its lack of theistic faith.

  • June 18 top search result for humanism in the news

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/jun/17/religion-ethics - Secular humanism given as a way a state can be called secular Serpent More Crafty (talk) 13:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • June 19 Top Search Result for Humanism in the News

http://www.daily-times.com/ci_12626719 - "Secularism AND HUMANISM has become the RELIGION in our society and schools." This writer, lamenting that humanism is NOT compatible with Christianity, still recognizes it as a religion! Serpent More Crafty (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • June 20 top search result for humanism in the news

http://www.examiner.com/x-13669-Boise-Secular-Humanist-Examiner~y2009m6d20-World-Humanism-Day - Presents the IHEU statement on World Humanism Day. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • June 21 top search result for humanism in the news

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705311658,00.html - This intense focus on the emancipation of the individual led to a humanism which "is accordingly charged with inverting the relation between man and God, with atheism and the secularizing of society." Serpent More Crafty (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • June 22 top search result for humanism in the news

http://www.examiner.com/x-8947-LA-Atheism-Examiner~y2009m6d22-Atheist-vs-Christian-debate-Final-smackdown - "If I want the greatest degree of freedom and happiness for myself, my family and my community, goals which I share with many others, then I will always prefer the ideals of Western humanism preserved in documents like the American Constitution over an absolutist system such as Islam where the goal is serving the will of God." Serpent More Crafty (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anythng these quotes show that there are many different kinds of humanism and that there is njo agreement about whether they are compatible with religion or not. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether "they are compatible with religion or not" is indeed a very contentious issue among humanists; some call themselves "secular humanists" to differentiate themselves from those who hold humanism as a "life stance" (like a religion). However, neither of these classes of humanists seem to have any problem with the definition of humanism as defined in notes 1, 2, and 3 of the article; that debate arises only from those who think that American Heritage Dictionary definition 4 is the most commonly used definition. In fact it's not, and no one who thinks so has ever offered any verifiable evidence that it's even close to contention. I think this article is pretty balanced from the perspective of "life stance" vs. "secular" humanists, so don't get too caught up on such an argument: the terms "religion" and "secular" are thrown about often, but only by people who seem not to have read the articles on Humanism (life stance) and Secular humanism. Read those first so you can understand what is meant by "religious humanism" and "secular humanism." The articles in the "Humanism" template under the heading of "Religious humanism" are useful, too. Serpent More Crafty (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • June 23 top search result for humanism in the news

http://www.truthabouttrade.org/content/view/14170/54/lang,en/ - "It's very much part of the Borlaug style, his marriage of science and humanism. And it's a message that continues to inspire those around him." This is a perfect example of how "science and humanism" are used in conjunction with each other as complementary, but definitely NOT in reference to the study of humanities, nor of Renaissance humanism. If you see anyone trying to point out how the phrase "science and humanism" refers to modern study of the humanities, point them to this article as a great counterexample. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Serpent More Crafty (talk • contribs) 14:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again Serpent twists phrases to make things come out his way. Search for scientists and humanists (without quotes) in google, and you will see that humanists tends to mean "teachers or students of the humanities." The first item from my search has this:
"UCSB Scientists and Humanists Discuss the Origins of the Universe October 27, 2008 (Santa Barbara, Calif.) –– The debate on the role of religion and science in public life –– and on the boundaries between them –– has become distinctly relevant in political as well as intellectual discourse. Richard Hecht, Tommaso Treu, and Stefania Tutino, three UCSB scholars with differing areas of expertise, will examine the question of "origins" from scientific, religious, philosophical, and historical perspectives in a talk titled "Origins of the Cosmos: A Dialog Between Scientists and Humanists"
The second item is entitled "e-Infrastructure adoption in the social sciences and humanities: cross-national evidence."
And as for the page Serpent proposes as some kind of counter-example, "humanism" there means something like "helping humanity" or "humanitarianism" ("Another journalist said to me, "I have never met anyone so 'on message'." It's very much part of the Borlaug style, his marriage of science and humanism. And it's a message that continues to inspire those around him. "A lot of us who go into agriculture want to do something to help humanity.) This is clearly NOT the systematic philosophical meaning Serpent wants to focus on in the lead of the article. Furthermore, I have never argued that he word ALWAYS means the study of humanities. It is a question of a decisive frequency.
Arguments such as Serpent's are truly shoddy impositions on the editorship of Wikipedia. Wilson Delgado (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those who insist that the first definition in the dictionary is the primary or only meaning that ought to be considered in a Wikipedia article, [Merriam Webster online http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanism] lists secular humanism last and Cultural humanism and Renaissance humanism first. I guess these days more people go to college and take a course in European civilization than belong to the American Humanist Society:

hu·man·ism

:::

Function: noun Date: 1832

1a: devotion to the humanities : literary culture

1b: the revival of classical letters, individualistic and critical spirit, and emphasis on secular concerns characteristic of the Renaissance

:::

2: humanitarianism

:::

3: a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially: a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason

173.56.197.14 (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "the first definition in the dictionary is the primary meaning" was ever anyone's intention. I know I, for example, have always agreed that there are many definitions listed in the dictionary, and that dictionaries don't show frequency of use. Can you find somebody who said this, or are you just ranting because you don't understand the nature of the dispute? See, Wikipedia even TELLS us a few useful ways to tell what are the primary uses of a given word, and "which one comes first in the dictionary" isn't among them. Do you know what those ways are? Do you intend to actually do any of the searches Wikipedia suggests, and offer your results here, or again... could you just be ranting because you don't understand the nature of the dispute? Serpent More Crafty (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, what is all this SPAM about? I had to add some compressible tables in order to get away all the space occupied by all these meaningless lists. We don't do wikipedia with some kind of statistics, we use specific reliable sources. You may use your surveys to find some reliable, academical sources, pick these out and drop the ones you have selected here, so that we may use these for citations. This is not a war between the evil religious wikipedians and the good human-ethical crusaders with sharp blades to decapitate for the one and only true faith, this is an irritated debate between encyclophiles and some external people that haven't understood the wikipedia culture yet.
We encyclophiles are desperately trying to cling to absolute neutrality, according to the WP:FACT, but sometimes it is hard... ... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I notice 151 is virtually identical in method and tone to Serpent More Crafty. My sense here is that the aim is not to honestly describe the development of various types of humanism but to discredit and undermine secularism while appearing to uphold it, by presenting it as a mirror image of the weird fundamentalism of Tim LaHaye and his ilk.Mballen (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, uh! 151 might be a real human-ethician. I've seen the same kind of behavior in real Swedish human-ethicians – age and experience use to file of the crudest corners, and experience tend to convert the uncontrolled impulses to sane dynamicism, but who can say? ... said: Rursus (bork²) 07:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bible

An offhand remark in history for the 19th century suggests that a humanist was one of the first to determine that the bible was not historically accurate. I do not know whether this is true. Certainly humanists today do not appear to consider the bible important.

But my Catholic concordance with an Imprimatur says (among many other things) that Moses may not have had the ten commandments (in that form). My point being that a number of religions today do not take the bible as inerrant on history. Should the point be made that it was humanists who led the way? I would think the offhand remark should either be enlarged on or discarded.Student7 (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't exactly say that. Taking everything in the Bible as literally & simply true could almost be said to be an invention of American fundamentalism; most earlier religious traditions had not done this, at least in pointy-head circles, though certainly they would not have agreed with Strauss's approach - which mainly directly concerned the New Testament. Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Catholicism never took the Bible literally -- or at least, as I understand from studying Dante, in the Medieval period it was felt that the Bible had many layers of meaning and that is why it should be read first and interpreted by trained priests, and supplemented by Church teachings. As Johnbod said, taking the Bible literally was a Protestant (fundamentalist) innovation. However, in Catholic as well as Protestant countries there was a reluctance by theologians until the 19th century to approach the Bible as though it were a historical document to be studied objectively and critically like any other. Actually, however, there was at least one precursor in the seventeenth century (in the reign of Louis XIV), a French Catholic Oratorian priest, Richard Simon, author of a Histoire Critique of the Old Testament (my information comes from Paul Hazard's The European Mind). But Richard Simon did not call himself, nor was he called by others, a humanist. He was a polemicist who felt that by attacking the coherence of the Bible he was striking a blow at Protestantism. His book was initially approved for publication by the Censor, but what happened afterward was that he was anathematized by many Protestants and Catholics. The wikipedia entry says:

The powerful influence of Bishop Bossuet, at that time tutor to the dauphin, was invoked; the chancellor, Michael le Tellier, lent his assistance; a decree of the council of state was obtained, and after a series of paltry intrigues the whole impression, consisting of 1300 copies, was seized by the police and destroyed, and the animosity of his colleagues in the Oratory rose to so great a height against Simon that he was declared to be no longer a member of their body. Full of bitterness and disgust, Simon retired in 1679 to the curacy of Bolleville, to which he had been lately appointed by the vicar-general of the abbey of Fécamp.

Richard Simon fled to Holland and spent the rest of his life embroiled in controversies, which you can read about in Paul Hazard and wikipedia. To make a long story short, there was plenty of doubt about the historical truth of the Bible before humanism came along. They can't take credit for that.173.77.104.128 (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Toland (1670-1722), the originator of eighteenth century Deism and author of Christianity Not Mysterious, (1696) was a significant precursor of modern "secular" humanism and a link to the older humanism, based on a revival of classical thinking. Originally a lapsed Irish Catholic, Toland's writings tended to be polemically anticlerical (this was the heyday of absolutism in politics and the time of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV). He was the first person to be called a "freethinker." Toland started a Philosophic Socratic Society, whose ethical credo was based on the writings of Cicero and Seneca. Members were supposed to come together to eat and drink and discuss philosophic questions in the manner of Plato's Symposium. It's not known how many of these societies actually existed, but Toland's writings were very popular among all classes. In his 1714 Reasons for Naturalising the Jews, Toland was the first to advocate full citizenship and equal rights for Jewish people.173.77.104.128 (talk) 17:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)173.77.104.128 (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to everyone. I've removed what now seemed to be a blurb supporting George Eliot's credentials as a philosopher. The remark about bible not inerrant on history was a throwaway remark to support these credentials. (So I threw it away!  :) (Since it simply caused confusion in context). I'm not really sure about her credentials but I suppose her statement is okay as history. Student7 (talk) 21:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I understand how this "a blurb supporting Eliot's credentials"? It was the writings of the liberal German theologians Strauss and Feuerbach that cast doubt on the historical accuracy of the Bible, not Eliot (casting doubt is not the same as flatly saying that the Bible is "not inerrant"). Eliot is recognized as one of the greatest of English novelists -- she doesn't need any blurb! She and Lewes were very influential in bringing German scholarship and thought to England and hence in the formation of humanist societies. Could you please explain at greater length the rationale for your deletion?173.77.104.128 (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree about novelist. The statement originally read "Victorian novelist Mary Ann Evans, known to the world as George Eliot, translated Strauss's Das Leben Jesu (The Life of Jesus, 1846) and Ludwig Ludwig Feuerbach's Das Wesen Christianismus (The Essence of Christianity), which called into question the historical accuracy of the Bible, in 1854. She wrote to a friend:". I deleted "which called into question the historical accuracy of the Bible" since it didn't seem to have anything to do with the point the editor was trying to make; his point having nothing to do with the historical accuracy of the bible per se. It was confusing in that context. The editor appeared to try to enhance, for his purposes, Eliot's non-novelist credentials in order for her to be quoted here, in a philosopher's (?) theologian (?) milieu. Hope this helps. Student7 (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was correct to remove it. Right or wrong, it was not sufficiently relevant to this subject. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A modest question

Sands credentials seem a little thin to me. Kind or like quoting Linus Pauling on Vitamin C! Potentially this can cut two ways. If Sands credentials are thin, then critics of her pov can be used with similarly thin credentials. The flip side is that opposing editors may want to use such critics and therefore should defend Sands'! Just a thought. Student7 (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, are you talking about George Sand, by any chance? If you are, you should know that she is not the person referenced in the article. George Eliot is the one who became famous as a translator of German and then as a great English philosophical novelist.
Secondly, I think you were asked this before, just what exactly do you mean by "credentials" and "thin" especially when applied to historical and literary figures? Could you favor us with an explanation? Are you saying that she was unimportant? Because if you are, many people with genuine depth of knowledge of the period would strongly disagree with you.
Finally, when you say that you find George Eliot's "credentials" "thin", the fact that you appear unable to distinguish between George Eliot the English thinker and novelist and the prolific and brilliant French novelist George Sand, throws into some doubt the solidity and depth of your own knowledge and ability as a judge of these matters.Mballen (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before she became a novelist, Mary Anne Evans served for two years as the editor of the influential publication, The Westminster Review (although she did this anonymously, as her employer, the publisher George Chapman wanted to take all the credit). Under her editorship the review "again became the important intellectual journal it had once been under former editor John Stuart Mill.. ." The translation of Strauss had also been issued anonymously -- this was one of the most influential religious publications of the century in the English speaking world. When people realized she had been the translator, Evans gained great respect. Later she translated Feuerbach as well. She wrote essays and knew socially and corresponded with all the leading intellectual figures of her day. To say she had no "credentials" is not accurate. She had been privately educated at great length and depth, which meant knowing and reading extensively Ancient Greek and Latin as well as the modern European languages, including German, with whose thinkers the general public in England was not yet conversant. Even before she began to write the great novels that brought her fame, she was definitely considered an intellectual heavyweight by her contemporaries.Mballen (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Victorian Overview
As David J. DeLaura and a number of other historians of Victorian intellectual life have pointed out, many Victorian atheists and agnostics abandoned Christianity for a particularly Victorian reason: They found it immoral!

The loss of religious faith in such representative early Victorian agnostics as F. W. Newman (John Henry Newman's brother), J. A. Froude (brother of Newman's close friend, Hurrell Froude), and George Eliot was not due, in the first place, to the usually suggested reasons -- the rise of evolutionary theory in geology and biology and the Higher Criticism of the Bible. Indeed, in each life the dominant factor was a growing repugnance toward the ethical implications of what each had been taught to believe as essential Christianity -- especially the set of interrelated doctrines: Original Sin, Reprobation, Baptismal Regeneration, Vicarious Atonement, Eternal Punishment.

George MacDonald, for example, left his Congregationalist pulpit because he could not accept that God would damn for all eternity babies who had not been baptised before their death, and similar repugnance proved the straw that broke the camel's back for Ruskin. In St. Paul and Protestantism, Arnold "contemptuously rejects the 'monstrous' vision of a capricious God who deals in election andf predestination and cruelly emphasizes the crass commercial quality of the Puritan catchwords, "covenant," "ransom," "redeem," "purchase," bargain" [DeLaura, 13].
Suggested Readings
Altholz, Josef L. "The Warfare of Conscience with Theology." The Mind and Art of Victorian England. Ed. Josef L. Altholz. Minneapolis: U. of Minnesota P, 1976. 58-77.
DeLaura, David J. Hebrew and Hellene in Victorian England: Newman, Arnold, and Pater. Austin: U of Texas P, 1969.
Murphy, Howard R. "The Ethical Revolt against Christian Orthodoxy in Early Victorian England." American Historical Review 60 (July 1955): 800-17.Mballen (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also a major problem for others including Gerard Manley Hopkins who stayed, although in his case converting to Catholicism, where of course most of the doctines you list above are not held, though Original Sin (not really the issue?) and eternal damnation (much more so?) are. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Johnbod. Once again, I want to stress that in my post I didn't make myself entirely clear, my post above, starting at Victorian Overview, was taken in its entirety (except for the bolding of George Eliot's name) from the linked Victorian Web site, so it was not me who listed these points. In any case, it's an odd thing that George McDonald is listed here as a critic of Christianity -- he is now a big favorite of the Christian right, ironically enough. (I think he is great, so I am glad that at least someone is keeping his work in print. I had always heard, incidentally, that he was a minister who became disillusioned with Calvinism when a dear friend committed suicide, and McDonald realized he couldn't stomach the doctrine of eternal damnation for suicides). I am not an expert in these matters but I have the impression that Strauss and Feuerbach have pretty much now been absorbed into mainstream Christian theology as well, even though they were perceived as dangerously revolutionary in their day. However, my point in all this is to reaffirm that George Eliot definitely belongs in this history although perhaps some re-writing to emphasize the reasoning behind this is called for. I hope not: Perhaps adding some of the bibliography cited here will suffice. Incidentally, I am now working my way through a long article entitled "John Stuart Mill, Humanist" (that Matthew Arnold was a humanist is not in question). It is not surprising incidentally, given the intellectual prominence of Eliot/Evan and Martineau, that "women were admitted as full members of the British Religious Society," as the subsequent paragraph states. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mballen (talk • contribs) 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

There doesn't seem to be any clear indication on this page of what if anything is currently being disputed within the article. Could someone please briefly summarise the specific issues or is it time the tag was removed? Mighty Antar (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opening currently reads:
Humanism is a perspective common to a wide range of ethical stances that attaches importance to human dignity, concerns, and capabilities, particularly rationality. Although the word has many senses, its meaning comes into focus when contrasted to the supernatural or to appeals to authority.[1][2] Since the nineteenth century, humanism has been associated with an anti-clericalism inherited from the eighteenth-century Enlightenment philosophes. Twenty-first century Humanism tends to strongly endorse human rights, including reproductive rights, gender equality, social justice, and the separation of church and state. The term covers organized non-theistic religions, secular humanism, and a humanistic life stance.[3]
This gives a particular spin and delimitation, associating the concept above all with secular, anti-traditional-religious, enlightenment, rationalist, philosophical humanism. But it has been demonstrated that humanism and the closely related humanist and humanistic have many prominent uses that do not fall into this category. In the present exposition, one submeaning unfairly usurps the center of the field. The article's introduction misleads readers, therefore, though it also points to other meanings. The article should be labelled correctly and the primary result for searches on humanism and humanistic should be the DAB page. Wilson Delgado (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In what way could the article be "labelled correctly?" Please give an example. The introduction seems quite broad and open to interpretation - almost catholic, one could say. Also, which particular submeaning usurps the rest? And what page do you mean by the DAB page?Peter (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could be labeled Humanism (Philosophy). This would distinguish it from the cultural and educational uses of humanism, and from the broader, more general meaning of humanism as "a way of thinking or acting that gives some kind of priority to the human sphere. If you read the Talk archives, it is all said there. Wilson Delgado (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current definition is correct and very broad. i can not see how it dicriminates any form of humanism. In the contrarry I could be argued, that it is to broad. Because of that I think it is time to remove the tag.
Unless of course someone explaines why this would not be acceptable.Reafdaw (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment just above, from Dec 16, 2009, for the explanation of why this is not acceptable. Wilson Delgado (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also see the current definition as broad but correct. There are some rather strange redirects Guided experience, What should I do?, Humanistic, Progressive humanist, Liberal humanism and Humanistic studies. Perhaps the issue is that these should require a disambiguation page WP:DAB where they can be linked to articles more specific to these themes rather than trying to address all the aspects in the current Humanism page and introduction? My view is that the neutrality tag is based on a tendentious argument rather than the accepted neutral point of view and as such I propose removing the tag. Mighty Antar (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious argument? The Wikipedia page is out of sync with the Encyclopedia Britannica and other major reference works. Are they all just tendentious? How do you engage the substance of the argument that is supported by many prominent uses of the word that do not refer to the rationalistic systematic philosophical movement that is strongly associated with anti-Church sentiments? Wilson Delgado (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward translation from Terence

"I am a man [i.e. human, not 'male'], I think nothing human alien to me"

I suggest "I am a human, I think nothing human alien to me". -Pgan002 (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capital H Humanism

My god the use of capital letters is incredibly confusing. Is there any possible way to devise a system of the usage of non-capital and Capital H humanism.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Humanism&oldid=341184457"