How Many Believe in Humanism and What Kind Are You?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Beren
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of humanism, with participants sharing their beliefs and perspectives. One member identifies as a humanist, influenced by an Asimov essay, and prompts others to share their views on humanism, including types such as secular and religious humanism. Curry's perspective is highlighted, contrasting traditional religious views with humanism, emphasizing love as a basis for virtue and advocating that the world should be shaped to fit humanity rather than the other way around. Another participant challenges the notion of humanism, arguing it is prejudicial to non-human sentient beings and expressing a preference for a broader view that includes all sentient life. This individual reflects on their past identification with humanism but notes a divergence in views on issues like crime and punishment, suggesting that humanism may impose a more liberal stance than they are comfortable with. The conversation also touches on the adaptability of evolutionary ancestors to environmental changes, reinforcing the idea that adaptation often occurs without prior warning.
Beren
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Was simply wondering how many members of the forum were humanist, believed in humanism, or at least considered it. I'm a humanist, myself, and have been since reading about it in an Asimov essay about 4 years ago. What are your thoughts on humanism? What kind of humanist are you (Secular, Religious, etc.)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
To fit world to man, or man to the world

Beren said:
What are your thoughts on humanism?
  • Curry, an explicit propagandist for Humanism, contrasts traditional and Humanistic religion by saying that the basis of virtue is not trust in God but "Love -- an instinct you see in every child or animal." And the contrast of the two positions is quite consistently rounded off by his dictum: "The world must be made to fit man, not man the world," (1937). Here, and in some other features, a scientifically based religion is actually closer in values to inspired religion than to modern eclectic humanism; for it considers that the universe has a lot to teach man, and that he would be absurd trying to shape it to his pygmy mind, instead of stretching his mental stature to its demands.
Raymond Cattell. A New Religion from Science: Beyondism. Section 7.3.
 
I am not a humanist. The very name humanism is prejudicial.
 
A dictum of Sentiencism

Perhaps a sentiencism could be rounded off by the dictum: "The world must be made to fit the sentient, not the sentient the world."
 
I am not a humanist. The very name humanism is prejudicial.

How so? Prejudical to whom?
 
Is Humanism prejudicial

Beren said:
How so? Prejudical to whom?
...Prejudical to the sentient non-humans.
 
No, I'm not a humanist. I tend to identify with any being that can suffer.
 
In my early 20s I went through a brief period of thinking of myself as a humanist. But as I read more essays on humanism, written by humanists, I came to realize that my views on crime and punishment are at odds with the prevailing views of humanists. I am liberal on some issues and conservative on others. To be a humanist, you are obliged (or so it seems to me, based on my reading) to be far more liberal on matters of criminality than I will ever be. For example, if there is a humanist out there somewhere who believes in capital punishment, I have not come across his/her viewpoint yet in my reading.

EDIT: fixed cruddy spelling
 
Last edited:
hitssquad said:
Perhaps a sentiencism could be rounded off by the dictum: "The world must be made to fit the sentient, not the sentient the world."


Well, the environment changed without warning any of our evolutionary ancestors who had to then adapt to the world (not vice versa), if I understand correctly.
 
Back
Top