Davidf,

My paranoia most of the discussions tend to be focused on left or right. My constant reference to perspective and objectivity tends to have me tarred (inaccurately) as a leftie, socialist, bleeding heart etc. Most responders don't see the differences between Atheism and SH. That is if they have any idea what SH is and the obvious logical implications in topics. Especially those that focus on self interest and or prejudices. Some adopt the 'I'm alright Jack and Phht to anyone other than those I don't know or understand'.
I have in front of me ATM two state Humanist Society membership blurbs no where do either mention Atheist or(ism). After ph. conversations both VHS and most recently with Zelda of HSQ both emphasised that Humanism isn't A'ism or a subset there of either philosophically or organizationally.

As previously mentioned the differences are nuanced but definite.
There is in my mind, a world of difference between not believing in a supernatural God and A'ism. The latter has philosophical problems with the afore mentioned Shamanistic cultures. I would therefore extrapolate from there.
This was clear in the exchange with AAF on OLO and the Skeptics else where. I also reject the tunnel vision of the green groups. Choosing instead to accommodate/incorporate that which objectively best advance (all of )humanity. The practical implication flow from there to me it isn't some feel good concept but but the motivation to continue albeit imperfectly at times. :-)

Dear David f,

I'm having a problem with the term -
'secular humanism.' Is the word
'secular,' really necessary?

I had always assumed that people
not Gods were the centre of humanistic
studies. As the Latin writer Terence wrote
"I am a man, and nothing human is foreign
to me." Is the term used because the early
humanists were religious - and the later humanists
urged a more robust reocognition of the realities of
human nature?

From my understanding - Humanism teaches that
every person has dignity
and worth and therefore should command the
respect of every other person.

Many educators and philosophers believe that
the greatest challenge to humanism, and a threat
to the safety of society, comes from too great an
emphasis on science and technology. They realize
that scientific achievements have greatly increased
our knowledge and power. But they also believe that
humanism must teach us how to use this knowledge and
power in a moral, human way.

Examinator, I'm sure, will be able to elaborate far
more eloquently on the subject than I can.

I love the humourous Humanistic literature - of
Geoffrey Chaucer's, "Canterbury Tales, and Boccaccio's
"Decameron."

And, where would we be without the Humanistic movement?
Probably still back in the dark ages - viewing
human beings as sinful creatures ...

Let's not forget that
much of modern Western culture comes from Humanistic
achievements

Davidf,

How have you determined/by what measure have you determined, that secular humanism is –better– than all the other isms that have gone before?

Dear Horus,

I hope you and David won't mind if I jump in
here, in response to the question you asked David.

Horus, Humanism flourised as a historical movement
in Europe from the 1300's to the 1500's. Its
approach to the study of humanity formed the
intellectual core of the cultural reawakening called
the 'Rennaissance.' As I wrote in my earlier post -
Humanism teaches that every person has dignity and
worth and therefore should command the respect of
every other person.

Much of modern Western culture comes from humanistic
achievements. The spirit and goals of humanism still
influence the Arts, Education, and Government.

Humanist artists included Michelangelo, Donatello,
just to name a few.

Today, humanistic education centres on the "Humanities,"
ranging from subjects like philosophy, languages,
literature, history,, and the arts. Together, these
subjects have humanistic ideals at their centre.
They try to interpret the meaning of life, rather than
just describing the physical world or society.

Humanism's opposition to political tyranny in the late 1700's
was an important influence in the American and French
revolutions. Both the American Declaration of Independence
and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man declare the
dignity of humanity. They are, therefore, humanistic as well
as political documents. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson
and other American revolutionary leaders, were among the
leading Humanists of their age.

I hope this answers your question.

Take care.

I'm sort of repeating other people's posts here, but I'm interested to know. Is secular humanism necessarily atheist? And in this context, I'm using the term 'atheist' loosely to ask the question: does secular humanism necessarily reject the existence of a god/creator/whatever?

Doing some (undoubtedly unreliable) internet research (and yes, shamefully, Wikipedia was involved), it seems that the primary focus of secular humanism is on the source of moral or ethical behaviour - that moral judgments derive from within humans and, thus, morality is a human construct rather than something imposed from 'above'. The rejection of God is based on a lack of evidence to support the existence of a god-figure, not on the rejection of the possibility of a god-figure.

Does this leave room for the possibility of God due to the lack of concrete evidence either way?

I love statements like - "..morality comes from the conscience and values of the community rather than any divine source".

Why not just say that for sectarians, morality comes from the carrot and stick approach.

No evil because of the threat of Divine Retribution, no good without the promise of a big payoff at some point in the future.
That is not morality, it's bribery and intimidation.

What about the simple notion of good for it's own sake and without the expectation of reward, such as "the conscience and values of the community"?

There are good and moral secular people and atheists all communities, just as there are religious extremists.

There's no justification in any group claiming some sort of moral ascendancy. Do do so would be well, "immoral".