Talk:Humanism

Template:Vital article

You don't mention everything

you write: "prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism)"

Critical thinking is very generic without a framing method because it includes philosophical reasoning based on common sense; and we know form facts than neuroscience, astrophysics and in general science, isn't usually explainable with common sense. As a matter of fact common sense leads to mistakes if the question is about an intricate issue.

The two important methods of safe reasoning are:

1. scientific empiricism: observational data, because lay-empiricism includes hallucination and intoxication not recorded from the side of the scientist
2. rigorous mathematical proofs; if possible metalogically causal (the mere collage of formulas is gerrymandering; the formulas should be causally linked and not a biased fabrication)

Humanism evolves, and is linked to the evolution of humanity and philosophy. Be fair. Write "old" and "new" values. It's a lie to claim that old humanists have the same non-evolving values with the modern ones. Write that the main idea is the same, but refined, because the philosophical evolution and the notional/conceptual evolution of humanity are components of humanism. Humanism isn't statistic (humanity isn't statistic; thus by definition humanism isn't also).

"The meaning of the term has changed according to the movements that have identified with it."

Humanism is a modern term that in English only came into use in the nineteenth century, when it was adopted from Germany, where it was used to describe an educational movement, German new humanism, which began about 1750 and was not overtly anti-clerical (since some of its proponents were Lutheran clergymen I believe), and which advocated a return to the humane studies of antiquity, and in particular classical languages and literature, as a means of human improvement. What the article should say is that the term, which is modern, has been applied retroactively to various movements throughout history, beginning with Cicero (106 BC to 46 BC). IMO, the present article concentrates excessively on modern anti-clerical movements that call themselves humanist. It is also distinctly un-encyclopedic in tone.Mballen (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The article should present "Humanism" as it is presented in contemporary Reliable Sources such as the

• "Oxford Handbook of Humanism" (2019)[1]
• On Humanism (Routledge) by Richard Norman
• Humanism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press) by Stephen Law
• Humanism: Beliefs and Practices (Sussex) by Jeaneane Fowler
• The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Humanism (Wiley Blackwell) edited by Andrew Copson and AC Grayling

It would be pointless to argue what is the correct meaning of humanism (an educational movement, an atheistic current etc etc). We should follow and summarize RS. Cinadon36 07:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Of course you are correct. I don't know if they are still around, but for years the article suffered from the tireless COI attentions of an editor connected with some obscure American organization with global pretentions, aspiring to be the Vatican of "humanism". Not sure how many editors are active here (not me), so you'd better give it a go yourself. Johnbod (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, and I would add Tony Davies, Humanism (London & New York: The New Critical Idiom, 1997). Mballen (talk) 21:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The section on Italian humanism is a travesty that someone made up whole cloth out of their imagination. It is painful to read. Mballen (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Like perhaps much of this article, it was better (if longer) in the past - here's a version from 2015. Feel free to return to that. Johnbod (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect @Johnbod:, I disagree. The specific version has some significant problems. Fist, too many unnecessary and long quotations without adequate summarizing the era and secondly, an most important, it is not based on Reliable Resources focused on Humanism, but on RS examining Renaissance. If current version lacks depth, I think it would be better to do it using RS on humanism. It is in my to-do list actually, there is a chapter at Oxford Handbook of Humanism that is on R.Humanism. Give me some time and I will deliver! Cinadon36 05:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The current version is a complete pile of rubbish, and POV into the bargain; the 2015 one is probably too long, but that is relatively easily fixed. I don't actually see why, when dealing with Renaissance humanism, general sources on humanism are preferable to those on the Renaissance. On the whole, the latter are more likely to understand the context. I may not be able to resist a substitution for long, so please don't delay. Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually I have considerable doubts about one of the books above (to which much of the rubbish is referenced). According to her (very small) publisher: Jeaneane D. Fowler "Jeaneane Fowler was formerly Head of Philosophy and Religious Studies at the University of Wales, Newport, and later an Honorary Research fellow. Her publications include Hinduism: Beliefs and Practices (Choice Outstanding Title, 1997; revised and enlarged to two volumes in 2019), and in the same series, Humanism, Chinese Religions, T'ai Chi Ch'üan, Nichiren Daishonin Buddhism in Wales; and books on the Philosophy of Hinduism, the Philosophy of Taoism, The Bhagavad Gita, and Causality." She spreads herself pretty thin, and can hardly be called a specialist on Renaissance humanism. We can do an awful lot better than this very easily, and have done in the past! Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I do think she is RS but if there are doubts there are plenty of other sources available. Certainly she is not super necessary for the subsection. I ll need a day or two. Cinadon36 19:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: how does it look now? [2] Philosophers Howler Fowler and Stephen Law are out. John Monfasani from The Oxford Handbook of Humanism (2020) Edited by Anthony B. Pinn is the main author, also Mann, Nicholas (1996). The origins of humanism". In Jill Kraye (ed.). "'The Cambridge Companion to Renaissance Humanism by Cambridge University Press. I think they are both great sources. Cinadon36 07:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2021

A few typos; change "...theism is and obstacle to morality..." to "...theism is an obstacle to morality...", "...but relativism in invited if if God creates goodness." to "...but relativism is invited in if God creates goodness. 130.245.192.7 (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Eevee01^(talk) 17:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Humanism As Religion

I made a very Mil Revision. Instead of Humanism is Non-Religious, I said it Claims to be Non-Religious. I did so because, while I Recognise Most Humanists today prefer to View their Beleifs as Non-Religious, and as an Alternative to Religion, there is No Clear Reason to make a Distinction between The philosophy we call Humanism an Religion. Especially since The First Humanist Manifesto calls Humanism a Religion, and since Humanism, the Philosophy, came out of Auguste Compte's Religion Of Humanity.

I get that its Popular to Think a Religion needs a go or gods and the Supernatural, but Even Wikipedia's other Articles Contradict the idea that this is the case, and The Article on Religion use to until it apparently Angered people. Still, there is an Article on Secular Religion, which I Quote here.

"A secular religion is a communal belief system that often rejects or neglects the metaphysical aspects of the supernatural, commonly associated with traditional religion, instead placing typical religious qualities in earthly entities. Among systems that have been characterized as secular religions are capitalism, nationalism, internationalism, Nazism, fascism, feminism, communism, Maoism, Juche, progressivism, transhumanism, Religion of Humanity, Jacobinism, and the Cult of Reason and Cult of the Supreme Being that developed after the French Revolution."

Humanism Qualifies as a Religion under Many Definitions, which should be Mentioned.

SKWills (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for bringing this at Talk page. WP is based on what Reliable Sources are saying (See Wikipedia:Reliable sources). What do modern scholars say about humanism, that is the question. I see that you are making a point based on your reasoning, but this is not how we edit WP. Cinadon36 18:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2022

In the section Geographies of humanism, the paragraph under the subheading United States contains some minor spelling and grammar errors (e.g., see bold tagging below).

In the United States, constitution was shaped by humanistic ideas endorsed as part of the Enlightenment of the first presidents of the United States, but did not go far enough to tackle gender and race inequality issues.[131] Black community (change to communities) experiencing injustice leaned towards atheism in the 20th Century. Lately, many black organisations (change to organizations) rejecting theism or having a humanistic related agenda are loosely connected within the Black Lives Matter movement.[132] Humanism is (change to in) Latin America is hard to detect mainly because of the dominance of Catholicism and Protestantism.[133] European positivism had influenced the thought of scholars and political leaders in Latin America during the 19th century but its influences waved at the next century.[134] Black literature reveal the quest for freedom and justice in a community often subordinated to white dominance.[135] In the (omit the) recent years, humanist organizations have multiplied in Latin America.[133] Nomdeinterweb (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both @Pyrrho the Skipper and Nomdeinterweb:, these were my mistakes.Cinadon36 08:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

That's why we're all here. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2022

move this part "Starting in the 20th century, humanist movements have typically been non-religious and aligned with secularism. Most frequently, humanism refers to a nontheistic view centered on human agency, and a reliance on science and reason rather than revelation from a supernatural source to understand the world. Humanists tend to advocate for human rights, free speech, progressive policies, and democracy. Those with a humanist worldview maintain religion is not a precondition of morality, and object to excessive religious entanglement with education and the state. Humans, according to humanists, can shape their own values, and live good and meaningful lives" to a lower paragraph. CrocoDIilios (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)