Do Humanists worship Humanity?

[McCulloch]

Do you know what the difference between humanism and theism is, exactly?

Simple. There is only one, and it is found only in who is worshiped. Theists worship a deity outside themselves, and humanists worship themselves. As a group, but still.

Do Humanists worship Humanity?

[McCulloch]

Thank you Dianaiad for your reply.

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

OK, so we have, in Humanism, a denial of any philosophy but theirs.

The similarity is noted. Yes, any philosophy that is accepted as true by its adherents, asserts the falseness of any other philosophy that contradicts it. Humanism shares this with various deist and theist philosophies.

The rules for living are set down by Humanity, for the 'greater good of humanity." Indeed, if I substituted "God" in that first sentence of the manifesto, it would read very much like a standard statement of theist belief.

From where I sit, it looks like this statement is true for all philosophies, not just Humanism. Theist philosophies advocate that theirs is for the greater good of humanity as well. Usually their scope includes an eternal afterlife that they imagine exists, but the underlying goal is the same. And they attribute God as being the ultimate source of what appear to outsiders as being human doctrines.

Theists claim that ethical values are given by God, Humanists claim that they come from humanity.

This is wrong. Theist may claim that ethical values are given by God, but Humanists claim that ethical values come from experience and our environments.

The point of the above isn't to denigrate humanism. Mormons (though the mere WORD 'humanism' scares us off, for the reason I'll give in a moment) share many, if not most, of the ideals and goals of humanism. Indeed, most theists do. They are admiral ideals and goals.

Thank you for that. There has been a lot of slander towards humanism generated by the Evangelical Christians. Although, I think you probably meant admirable; our ideals and goals are not limited to high ranking naval officers.

So my claim wasn't about the thoughts, ideals or goals that Humanists have. The notable thing, at least for me, is the obvious substitution of 'Humanity" (with a capital "H") for Deity.

We might see it the other way around. Religions substitute deity when they often mean tribe, ethnic group, nation or humanity.

As to "Worship?"

Well, theists do have formal worship services where they praise God. Most of their time is spent (if they really attempt to 'walk the walk,' that is) behaving in a way that would please Him.

that is also considered a form of worship.

This is a kind of metaphoric extension of the meaning of worship. Christians are instructed to view their lives as a form of worship. Humanists also live lives. Therefore, Humanists must worship. ???

I submit that any gathering in which humanists have managed to completely exclude any mention of deity, and which promote their agenda, is a form of 'worship service."

Then any gathering of economists, which excludes any mention of deity and promotes their agenda is a form of 'worship service'. Right?

... and humanists do their utmost best to exclude any mention of the competition...God...in any public meeting.

You really have not been to too many public Humanist meetings, have you?

To ME, then, it looks very much as if Humanists have substituted Humanity for God...in more ways than they want to admit.

Yet we have no adoration, veneration or worship of humanity.

[dianaiad]

Thank you Dianaiad for your reply.

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

OK, so we have, in Humanism, a denial of any philosophy but theirs.

The similarity is noted. Yes, any philosophy that is accepted as true by its adherents, asserts the falseness of any other philosophy that contradicts it. Humanism shares this with various deist and theist philosophies.

The rules for living are set down by Humanity, for the 'greater good of humanity." Indeed, if I substituted "God" in that first sentence of the manifesto, it would read very much like a standard statement of theist belief.

From where I sit, it looks like this statement is true for all philosophies, not just Humanism. Theist philosophies advocate that theirs is for the greater good of humanity as well. Usually their scope includes an eternal afterlife that they imagine exists, but the underlying goal is the same. And they attribute God as being the ultimate source of what appear to outsiders as being human doctrines.

Theists claim that ethical values are given by God, Humanists claim that they come from humanity.

This is wrong. Theist may claim that ethical values are given by God, but Humanists claim that ethical values come from experience and our environments.

Same thing. Human experience and human environments.

The point of the above isn't to denigrate humanism. Mormons (though the mere WORD 'humanism' scares us off, for the reason I'll give in a moment) share many, if not most, of the ideals and goals of humanism. Indeed, most theists do. They are admiral ideals and goals.

Thank you for that. There has been a lot of slander towards humanism generated by the Evangelical Christians. Although, I think you probably meant admirable; our ideals and goals are not limited to high ranking naval officers.

Dontcha just LOVE spell checkers? Yes, I did mean 'admirable,' but I'm rather enjoying the idea of our ideals and goals being laid down by high ranking naval officers...Hornblower, anybody? (grin)

So my claim wasn't about the thoughts, ideals or goals that Humanists have. The notable thing, at least for me, is the obvious substitution of 'Humanity" (with a capital "H") for Deity.

We might see it the other way around. Religions substitute deity when they often mean tribe, ethnic group, nation or humanity. [/quote}

Yes, I can see that...especially when speaking of ethnicity and nationality. Anybody ELSE, for instance, get the creeping weebles when someone came up with "Homeland Security?"

As to "Worship?"

Well, theists do have formal worship services where they praise God. Most of their time is spent (if they really attempt to 'walk the walk,' that is) behaving in a way that would please Him.

that is also considered a form of worship.

This is a kind of metaphoric extension of the meaning of worship. Christians are instructed to view their lives as a form of worship. Humanists also live lives. Therefore, Humanists must worship. ???

Well, yes...but the whole thing is a metaphor. That's what struck me so intensely.

I submit that any gathering in which humanists have managed to completely exclude any mention of deity, and which promote their agenda, is a form of 'worship service."

Then any gathering of economists, which excludes any mention of deity and promotes their agenda is a form of 'worship service'. Right?

Depends upon what the meeting is FOR. Remember the 'promote their agenda' part?

... and humanists do their utmost best to exclude any mention of the competition...God...in any public meeting.

You really have not been to too many public Humanist meetings, have you?

More than you'd think. True there is a group of 'religious humanists' out there, but remember, they signed onto the "Humanist Manifesto III" too.

To ME, then, it looks very much as if Humanists have substituted Humanity for God...in more ways than they want to admit.

Yet we have no adoration, veneration or worship of humanity.

Sorry, but....well....

If there is anything at all that shines through that manifesto, it is 'adoration and veneration' of 'Humanity." Not as formally as is found in churches, but still...very much there!

[SailingCyclops]

In a sense we do "worship" humanity, in that we hold humanity in higher regard than anything else in the universe. ...

Really? I for one do not. I hold much higher regard for the planet, the biosphere as a whole, than I do for any one species, including humans, the most destructive species.

I see the web of life on earth as far more important than humans. Life on Earth can go on quite nicely (perhaps better) without humans, while humans can't go on without the living web we are but a part of. Perhaps I am not a humanist after all?

Bob

[SailingCyclops]

To ME, then, it looks very much as if Humanists have substituted Humanity for God...in more ways than they want to admit.

One big difference however. The existence of humans is a provable fact, while the existence of a god is not. Substituting something which, and I will be kind, MAY NOT exist, for something which DOES EXIST would be irrational. All religions do the irrational thing; substituting that which may or may not be, for that which is.

I think this fundamental difference between religionists and humanists is at the core of why our species is so terribly destructive. We are the only species on earth with this awful affliction. One could say it is one symptom of our corporate insanity.

Bob

[dianaiad]

In a sense we do "worship" humanity, in that we hold humanity in higher regard than anything else in the universe. ...

Really? I for one do not. I hold much higher regard for the planet, the biosphere as a whole, than I do for any one species, including humans, the most destructive species.

I see the web of life on earth as far more important than humans. Life on Earth can go on quite nicely (perhaps better) without humans, while humans can't go on without the living web we are but a part of. Perhaps I am not a humanist after all?

Bob

Hmn.

So the biosphere/earth can do without humans (the most destructive species) better than humans can do without the bisophere/earth?


I think...you are quite possibly right. The earth (or Gaia or the biosphere or whatever) WOULD be better off without humans.

You go first.

[dianaiad]

To ME, then, it looks very much as if Humanists have substituted Humanity for God...in more ways than they want to admit.

One big difference however. The existence of humans is a provable fact, while the existence of a god is not. Substituting something which, and I will be kind, MAY NOT exist, for something which DOES EXIST would be irrational. All religions do the irrational thing; substituting that which may or may not be, for that which is.

I don't think that quite flies. In order to substitute 'deity' for "humanity,' there must be some sense of the superiority of 'humanity' as a concept in the first place. I don't think we've ever actually DONE that.

Could be wrong, but....

Oh, you do realize that most religions actually worship very solid idols. It took some time before the concept of 'idol as symbol' hit the human consciousness. Many of us still do confuse the symbol with the concept.

I think this fundamental difference between religionists and humanists is at the core of why our species is so terribly destructive. We are the only species on earth with this awful affliction. One could say it is one symptom of our corporate insanity.

Bob

OK, that was a non-sequitur. I probably need a few more of the dots connected.

[SailingCyclops]

So the biosphere/earth can do without humans (the most destructive species) better than humans can do without the bisophere/earth?


I think...you are quite possibly right. The earth (or Gaia or the biosphere or whatever) WOULD be better off without humans.

You go first.

I agree wholeheartedly with both statements. I would disconnect the biosphere from earth in your first sentence however. The biosphere requires earth

Bob

[dianaiad]

So the biosphere/earth can do without humans (the most destructive species) better than humans can do without the bisophere/earth?


I think...you are quite possibly right. The earth (or Gaia or the biosphere or whatever) WOULD be better off without humans.

You go first.

I agree wholeheartedly with both statements. I would disconnect the biosphere from earth in your first sentence however. The biosphere requires earth

Bob

Like I said, great....

you go first.

[McCulloch]

The existence of humans is a provable fact, while the existence of a god is not.

So then, if Humanists venerate humanity, it is a far more rational thing we do. At least humanity can be demonstrated to exist.

[dianaiad]

The existence of humans is a provable fact, while the existence of a god is not.

So then, if Humanists venerate humanity, it is a far more rational thing we do. At least humanity can be demonstrated to exist.

So can Moai, the sun, the moon, and Pele.

(Now guys, I'm just thinking out loud here--throwing out ideas that might or might not 'jell' into anything, as if I were exploring a concept with friends, not defending a position. don't get all swivity..)

I don't think it's about whether the object one worships is apparent to one's senses. It's about whether it has the qualities claimed for it.

I'm going to step back from my theist position for a minute. For the sake of THIS conversation, forget that I really do believe that there is a God, and that my particular description of Him is the most accurate one.

The thing about worshiping/venerating/assigning 'larger than life' and sometimes impossible qualities to things that can be 'demonstrated to exist,' is that one is always, and I mean, ALWAYS, disappointed; because you expect too much, and whatever it is you expect it of isn't going to be able to deliver.

I'm not saying that Humanists all do that...but I have met many who do; they are Romantics at heart, assigning a pure goodness to the base of "Humanity" that is more often assigned to a deity. They don't look at those aspects of the "Humanist Manifesto III" as goals to strive for so much as qualities that Humanity already HAS, in toto, but that individuals may have to struggle for.

It is somewhat similar to the 'we are all the mind of God' idea, in a way. In a way, also, it reminds me of Plato's notion of the ideal; that somewhere, somehow, in the mind of...something...there exists the absolute ideal chair. All other chairs, the ones we actually use, are merely shadows, or representations, of that ideal. A chairmaker must strive to bring his chairs ever closer to that ideal, but they can't ever get there, because, well.....the ideal is also perfect.

So I get that sort of feeling when I deal with Humanists.

Perhaps, though, it's just those who use a capital "H."



If this is what Humanists are doing, putting more faith in Humanity than in individual humans, I think they may have it backwards. Humans do very bad things in a group. They support each other in doing horrific things...there is a reason 'mob' has such a bad connotation, after all.

History has shown us that there are things done by 'Humanity" that individual humans seldom, if ever, do---and if they do they are labeled monstrous indeed. But if humans get together in a group? We are capable of pretty much any atrocity conceivable.

Ah, well. I"m just throwing the above notions out as thoughts. I have NO idea how much I buy into them. (shrug) things to talk about.

Addendum....I'm including a video here that y'all have probably already seen. I'm including it to ask a couple of questions about it.

Is this an example of "Humanity" or individual humans? What was done here is extraordinary, but almost every single one of them is highly religious. At least three had been missionaries...perhaps more than three, including the woman. It happened on a college campus that is about 90% Mormon. The reaction from those of us who know the area, the university, the town (and yeah, I 'come from' there and two of my daughters live there, which is how I know about all this) is 'of course,' and 'you expected something else?' and 'it would have been more surprising if this had NOT happened.

...................................and I can double dog guarantee you that there isn't a Humanist in the group.

Though I do submit that they certainly exhibited all the traits Humanists admire.

Logan Motorcycle Rescue (short version)

(grin)....notice that the strongest thing ANYBODY said was 'Oh, my gosh" and "Holy crap." .


And that the woman took charge. I liked that part.


OK, here's the (semi-trick) question: was this an example of the goodness of humanity....or the goodness of humans?



I submit that if you think there is a difference between the two, that you are not only a Humanist, but that there is a little bit of 'worship' going on there.

Thoughts?