I realize that, Yuyutsu.

>>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.<<

But in my view, there are far more "essential differences" than parallels.

Humanists do no meet for the purpose of worship, for a start. Humanists do not divide cities into "humanist" and "non-humanist", in the way that religion has divided, for example, Belfast. Nor, in much the same vein, do they go around shooting the kneecaps of non-humanists, as evidence of the superiority of their beliefs. I doubt very much either, whether a humanist has set himself alight, in protest against the oppression of his beliefs.

I also take issue with this statement of yours:

>>The historical depiction of gods, their powers and limitations varies from one culture to another... 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.<<

Roman gods in everyday life were a form of supernatural domestic servant. They ranged from the generalist Lares, who protected the household, to the specific - Abeona, who protected the kids as they left home, and Adeona, who protected them on the way home.

Others covered war, wisdom and so on, but the principle was the same: you prayed, you paid homage or made sacrifices, you worshipped, and then they came along to help.

Not, from any point of view, "the ultimate and most worthy goal of life".

Which is also why this is also questionable:

>>What an outcry would there be if a Zeus-worshiper attempted the same<<

Since the worship of Zeus has a great deal in common with the conduct of other religions, they would be quite at home.

I can understand why you would be less than happy with a humanist posing the sort of questions to the kids that a humanist would.

But a Zeus-worshipper would be fighting on your side, surely.

Religions invoke belief in "the supernatural",

Humanism doesn't - it just invokes the positive of human interaction and activity.

McReal,

"Religions invoke belief in the supernatural",
Obviously you havent attended an active Church lately, to witness the diversity of activity that are performed.

"Humanism doesn't - it just invokes the positive of human interaction and activity."

That is exactly what Churches do. Havent you heard of the commandment, "Love your neighbour as yourself." That is why Church based Charities exist, and overseas education etc programmes are run in developing countries.

Conclusion from your statements: Humanism is a form of religion.

Yes, Josephus. Christian Humanism is[a form of religion].

But, non-Supernatural Humanism is not.

See "Recommendation 14" here http://www.cdi.gov.au/report/cdi_chap20.htm#P19_1825

>> "That the definition of religion be based on the principles established in the Scientology case, namely:

> - belief in a supernatural Being, Thing or Principle; and

> - acceptance and observance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief." <<

Church of New Faith v Commissioner of Pay-Roll Tax (1983) 154 CLR 120.

Squeers,

The term “scientism” is a caricature strawman invented and used (predominantly) by theists to stop people in their tracks when a discussion becomes uncomfortable for them. Whenever someone feels that science is sticking its nose in where they don’t want it to, they get to cry “scientism” to halt the conversation and get a gasp from the audience. Half the audience may not even know what scientism is but that doesn’t matter - it’s an “ism” and it sounds scary and dogmatic.

I don’t know of anyone who fits the description, though (not even Dawkins, Hitchins, Dennett or Harris) and so I therefore reject the term as invalid and won't acknowledge it - as many others don't.

<<Scientism, or logical positivism/scientific materialism, insists science derives the only valid knowledge of the world and humanity's place in it...>>

What you’ve described here is scientism; not necessarily positivism, materialism or naturalism for that matter. Many atheists are materialists and naturalists, but that doesn’t necessitate that they reject, absolutely, the possibility of anything supernatural as a “scientismist” would. If someone wants to invoke the supernatural, however, then the burden of proof lies with them.

There is a very big difference between acknowledging that scientific explanations - given what we currently know - are the only valid ones, and insisting that they are the only explanations that can ever be valid. Beyond an off-the-cuff remark, who could honestly, dogmatically and so stubbornly say they were the latter?

Yuyutsu,

I don’t think I’m just being sensitive. Some of the words you’re using have specific religious meanings that completely clash with the accepted definitions of humanism and only serve to imply sinister/hidden/unbeknown motives that simply aren’t there and parallels that fade into insignificance in light of the differences.

<<…I consider existence an illusion…>>

Well, I’m only interested in that which is useful and this way of thinking has no practical use.

Anyway, I think I’ve now well and truly made my point. So unless you can show me how your paranoia about humanism is in any way grounded in reality…

Yuyutsu,

When you write

" .... humanism believes that existence is real .... whereas from my religious point-of-view, I consider existence an illusion .... "

* in the first place, that's a bit of a tautology: existence = reality, as you say, and what is not real does not exist except perhaps in our minds (where, of course they appear to be real);

* in the second place, we can't just ordain existence to be just what we would like it to be, like Chauncey Gardener in "Being There', using the remote to try to change channels in the real world while he is being mugged;

* most importantly, reality 'bites': fall down the stairs, and see if your broken bones are mere illusions. Or if the stairs are, or whatever you hit at the bottom. Or the haste with which your kids would shove you in an old people's home as a consequence.

Reality (i.e. existence) is sometimes hard to understand, inconvenient, or even very unpleasant. But it still happens, nothing illusory about it. Illusions are for spectators on real life.

Humanism doesn't worship humans, but takes them as one of the primary concerns and drivers of reality, one of the main agents of both disaster and improvement, endlessly innovative and idiotically destructive - humans as the focus, but humans warts and all, full of potential but also of illusions.

One of the greatest of which is this thing which we create in our own image, that we call god. Yes, the existence of god is an illusion.

Cheers,

joe