ZAROVE wrote:No, Im not mistaken, Antimatter, sicne I am addrsing both the individuals and ome of the ideology. ...
But looking at "both the individuals and ome of the ideology" isn't very useful.
Actually it is, and depending on what exaclty you are discussing it is vital.
I was attempting to discusss the Evangelical Athirsys, who aren't even nessisairly Humanists even though the bulk of them do ientify as such.
On an individual level, one can evaluate hteir responces, and even as a group, and see what unites them and ht ebaiss for theoru thinking.
Evangelical Ahtiesm seems ot exist soley to dicredit Christinity and by so doign promote Atiesm but has nothign independant to support it.
We can find adherents of any philosophy that do not use reason and logic to arrive at their conclusions.
That is correct, hence why it is valuable to look at individuals.
It's a much better use of our time to compare two philosophies using the best arguments from their respective best minds.
Which is why we look at the IDelogies. So we ar ein agreement.
Ideologiclaly, the underpinnings of Humanism arne't even fully raitonal, as it starts wiht basic, untestbale and nprovable assertiosn about Human progress and further human development, as well as making ideological claims about how humnity is.
At the foundation of any philosophy are untestable and unprovable assertions that we trust only by inference or convention. These do not render humanism "irrational."
But it does undermine the lciam that it is fully raitonal[/io] and only base dupon Sicnece and logic and what we have observed, which is hte Mantra use dby many Humanists.
Much in Humanism is not, nor can it be, backed up by anythgin other than their perosnal view f how the world works.
Ideology of coruse need not indicate a lack of raitonal foundation, but the Ideological underpinnigns of Humanism are often abse dupon romantic notiosn of humanity and human nature, which in turn are base dupon the desires and wishful thinkign of the authors, which may or may not actulaly reflect a reality as much as they reflect the general thinking of the adherants of that Faith.
After you wrote a short thesis on my misuse of the terms "atheist" and "religion," I'm surprised to find you calling humanism a "Faith."
It is a faith. It is also a religion, which is oen reaosn Atheism is not a rejection of a religion as numeorus Ahtiests joint he religion of Humaism.
Faith is a term that can mean a set of ideas and principles, a religion. That is how I am using the term here.
Surely you don't need me to remind you that humanistic tenets are shared among many faiths and philosophies.
But those faiths and philosophjies ar enot themselves refered to as Humanism, in the senc eof the humanist movement.
I doubt that a Christian woudl be overly welcomed ontot he COusnil for Seuclar Humanism, for example, if his beleifs whre that of a typical Christian.
Humanism as a Religion has its own tenets it expects it as adherants ot hold to, and obviously we arent usign the term broadlhy to refer to gentleness, but a mvoement that identifies itself under that name and that has certain basic beelifs that it holds to.
Further, I don't think it's "romanticism" to affirm the dignity and worth of every human individual.
Yet their is no direlcty raitonal, and obviously sicnetific argument you can make to defend this. It is enturley based upon value, which in turn is asusmed.
That siad, many other asusmptions inheran tin humanism, such as progrssivism, and the idea of an innate pull toeard a greate rperfection, which are cmmon themses even in Humanist writers such as Carl Sagan, are not, at base, anythign other than Romantisism, the same can be said of thier view of mankind beign good to oen another and helpful base dupon their desire that this is true.
Humanism is optimistic about our future, but it does not assert that human nature is purely good or that every human is capable of meeting the ideals of humanism.
But its core philosophical asepcts do not, in tirn find basis in actual sicnece and purely observed phoenomenon, nd ar enot rooted osley in raitonalism since they make vlaue statements that are assinged base dupon an asusmed acceptance of them.