Dear AJ Philips,

According to wikipedia:

Humanism is an approach in study, philosophy, world view or practice that focuses on human values and concerns, attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters.

According to dictionary.com, 'humanism' is:

1. any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate.
2. devotion to or study of the humanities.
3. the studies, principles, or culture of the humanists.
4. Philosophy, a variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God.

Take the case of North Korea where they worship the Great Leader, Kim Jong-XX. North Koreans cannot admit that they consider Jong as god, but in fact they do, valuing him above all else. They must therefore consider religion an enemy as it would compete with their own pseudo-religion.

Similarly, Humanism is the movement, idea or way of life, which considers human life, human society and human scientific progress to be of such value as North-Koreans attribute to their Jong. Unlike atheism, which in itself is neutral, humanists must consider religion an enemy as it would compete with their own pseudo-religion.

The tool of science can at best tell the facts of existence (including the facts about Noah's ark being such or otherwise), but can tell nothing about values and what's of prime importance, what's worthy of predominance. The belief that humans, their society, their progress and their science are of utmost importance isn't rational any more than the belief that Mr. Jong is.

Josephus,

You need to look up the definition of “religion”. I know of no Humanists who think that humans are the highest intelligence in the universe - the world maybe. You ought to look up the definition of “Humanist” too.

Yuyutsu,

I suspected that would be your response and none of it supports your assertions.

There is nothing about attaching prime importance to human matters rather than supernatural matters that says that Humanists hold themselves to be Gods or God-like in any way. You have merely invented this non-existent link to attach a sinister, cult-like stigma to a mode of thought that simply puts reality-based concerns ahead of myth-based assertions.

As for your definitions, none of them support your purported link either and neither do any of the definitions in a Google define search… http://tinyurl.com/bn9e3th

[I wouldn’t pay too much attention to dictionary.com. Look how they define abiogenesis despite scientists having contacted them about it many times… http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abiogenesis?s=t]

Do you have any evidence for your North Korea claims? From what I’ve heard, many North Koreans hate the Jong’s but are not allowed to show it. Can you show me how I’m wrong there too?

<<Similarly, Humanism is the movement, idea or way of life, which considers human life, human society and human scientific progress to be of such value as North-Koreans attribute to their Jong.>>

And this after failing to demonstrate anything of the sort with your Wikipedia reference and definitions.

<<The tool of science can at best tell the facts of existence (including the facts about Noah's ark being such or otherwise), but can tell nothing about values and what's of prime importance, what's worthy of predominance.>>

Neither can religion. It merely asserts it in the dangerously arbitrary manner that it does and yet here you are, railing against a mode of thought that is at least grounded in real world concerns.

Dear AJ Philips,

Indeed many North Koreans hate the Jong's, but most do not because they were brought up with his worship from the cradle (if indeed they had a cradle, most slept on bare concrete floor) and know nothing else. All we know is from reports of those who escaped, probably of above-average intelligence, and their stories usually tell us of a turning point in their life when they discovered something about the outside-world (for example that we have comfortable beds to sleep on) which did not fit their indoctrination.

The historical depiction of gods, their powers and limitations varies from one culture to another - not all were omniscient and omnipotent (BTW a logical contradiction: could god create a stone-so-heavy-that s/he-couldn't-lift-it?). There were some who couldn't even feed themselves and others who were lusty and capricious, but what is common which made them all 'gods' is the fact that they were worshiped and considered by people to be of prime importance, the ultimate and most worthy goal of life. It is in this sense that humanists consider man as god, while many of them also go a step further, aspiring (neurotically) to enhance the human body and/or the human society, trying to make it omniscient, omnipotent and immortal.

Describing humanism as "a mode of thought that is at least grounded in real world concerns" is like shooting the arrow first then marking the target around it: naturally if you are a humanist, then your concerns will be along humanistic goals - how to preserve and glorify the human race. You would take such concerns for granted just as North-Koreans would take for granted their concerns for the health and happiness of their Jong. Naturally also, since humans live and develop within the world of existence, humanists consider that world as the "real world", simply because it's the only place that is real enough for them, the only place they care about. In other words, any mode of thought, including religious, pseudo-religious, nationalistic, etc. would consider itself "grounded in real world concerns".

Suit yourself, but don't indoctrinate my children.

Yuyutsu,

You exaggerate, distort and twist the facts to paint a caricature of Humanism that doesn’t exist. It’s this type of dishonestly that gave rise to another caricature that doesn’t really describe anyone: “Scientism”.

<<...but what is common which made them all 'gods' is the fact that they were worshiped and considered by people to be of prime importance, the ultimate and most worthy goal of life. It is in this sense that humanists consider man as god...>>

Yeah, only no humanists worship mankind and any “prime importance” or worthiness needs to be put in a humanitarian/survivalist context (one that particularly prioritises measureable, demonstrable and verifiable reality over superstition) to be understood. Not with the warped slant you’re putting on it by choosing your words, and those you omit, emotively.

So you see, describing Humanism as "a mode of thought that is at least grounded in real world concerns" is not “shooting the arrow first then marking the target around it” at all.

<<...while many of them also go a step further, aspiring (neurotically) to enhance the human body and/or the human society, trying to make it omniscient, omnipotent and immortal.>>

Sounds like you’re talking about Transhumanists here but it’s hard to tell because you use words with an omni pre-fix and throw the word “immortal” in when Transhumanists only seek to greatly enhance Mankind physically, mentally and ethically and push back and reduce our limitations. There may be some cuckoo brains out there who dream of eliminating all limitations completely but they still don’t seek to turn humans into any sort of contemporary or common understanding of what a God is.

<<...naturally if you are a humanist, then your concerns will be along humanistic goals - how to preserve and glorify the human race.>>

Here you go again. You just can’t help yourself!

Glorify
Worship
Ultimate
Most worthy
Omniscient
Omnipotent
Immortal

All words/concepts/phrases you’ve used to describe Humanists and how they allegedly think and none of them are accurate or used in context - as the definitions and the Wikipedia article show.

What’s your real problem here?

<...It’s this type of dishonestly that gave rise to another caricature that doesn’t really describe anyone: “Scientism”.>

AJ Philips,
much as I respect your position, as I understand it, I have to respond to the above statement. Scientism is not a caricature and does describe a mindset that's been around more or less since the Enlightenment and is common today in popular and professional form. Scientism, or logical positivism/scientific materialism, insists science derives the only valid knowledge of the world and humanity's place in it, notwithstanding that empirical research is socially-selected and, conscious or unconscious, invariably guided by particular interests that at least implicitly involve value-laden conceptions. And while scientism dismisses subjectivity and its productions wholesale, insisting science provides the only genuine knowledge of existence, there's a blind faith (or self-interest) in the "rational optimism" that technology holds the solutions to humanity's problems. Just as religious fundamentalists see detractors as victims of their own sin, typically pride, champions of scientism dismiss dissenters as having abandoned reason. Indeed, your statement describing scientism as a "dishonest caricature", when there have been any number of logical positivists (and hidebound liberal rationalists), looks like hypersensitivity to, and intolerance of, criticism.
While “militant” atheism is, imo, generally exaggerated, there is a common tendency among so-called “secularists”, and swathes of the scientific community, not only to ridicule subjective/philosophical/theological experience and forays into the nature of reality out of hand (a denialism Chesterton considered a combination of undemocratic elitist scepticism and intellectual snobbery), but to ingenuously or disingenuously support a leaden liberal rationalist orthodoxy http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/god-talk/
Ironically, there is a certain anthropocentrism to humanism (that Yuyutsu grossly exaggerates—what about “Christian Humanism”, Yuyutsu?) that doesn’t fit easily with the scientistic mindset, just as there’s inevitably a degree of rationalism in the secular humanist preoccupation with ethics. Indeed secular humanism sometimes exhibits mild cases of scientism, imo, in its exclusionary dedication to reason, empirical evidence and scientific method, none of which can be declared disinterested or uncontaminated—though I acknowledge that this scepticism can be abused in a species of petty equivocation. Conviction, of all sorts, tends to intolerance.

Dear AJ Philips,

Surely one wouldn't expect humanism to describe itself in religious terminology, for even different religions use different terminologies.

As a religious person (so I hope), I think in religious terms, but given your sensitivity I'll try to say the same in secular language:

Humanism is designed for a purpose: to preserve and advance the human race within the realm of existence.
Religion is designed for a purpose: to come closer to God.

Those goals are often incompatible.

Re: "reality over superstition", we both agree that science (measurable, demonstrable and verifiable) is the best way to tell facts within the world of existence, but here is the point of contention: humanism believes that existence is real (as in 'reality', in fact that existent=real) as well as important, whereas from my religious point-of-view, I consider existence an illusion, or using your word, 'superstition' - and superstitions aren't of great importance. Science is great at answering "what", "how" and other factual questions, but with due respect, it is outside the scope of science to answer questions about reality or value, so science cannot refute my view.

Some humanists (transhumanists) are not satisfied with only preserving and advancing the human race within the realm of existence, but also strive to master that realm. Others do not, but then not every Muslim is a Jihadist either.

What I try to demonstrate here, is that although humanists don't name themselves a 'religion', there are at least as many essential parallels between humanism and most given religions as there are among the different established religions.

<<What’s your real problem here?>>

In the context of this article, my problem is that the author, pretending to be neutral (or atheist), suggests giving one specific pseudo-religion free reign to brainwash state-school children in matters of spirit in order to direct them away from God and towards His human substitute. What an outcry would there be if a Zeus-worshiper attempted the same...

Dear Squeers,

Thank-you for bringing Fish's excellent article, which I thoroughly enjoyed and essentially agree with!

I view "Christian Humanism" as a sad loss of direction.