Well it doesn't make them the 'same' as interchangable (nit pickin here, sorry) but I agree that, like I said above, there is a convergence of the two.
What is the difference between atheism and secular humanism?
- Thread starter Humes fork
- Start date
Well it doesn't make them the 'same' as interchangable (nit pickin here, sorry) but I agree that, like I said above, there is a convergence of the two.
Bikewer
Penultimate Amazing
I subscribed to The Humanist for about a year... (It was a rather boring publication... With occasionally interesting articles.)
In same, it became evident that there existed Humanist organizations within various religious groups.... Primarily Jewish.
Now we can argue whether or not contemporary Reformed Judaism is a theistic religion or not.... But it's pretty obvious that "Humanism" can co-exist with religion.
If you add the qualifier..."Secular"... Then I suppose it's problematic.
In same, it became evident that there existed Humanist organizations within various religious groups.... Primarily Jewish.
Now we can argue whether or not contemporary Reformed Judaism is a theistic religion or not.... But it's pretty obvious that "Humanism" can co-exist with religion.
If you add the qualifier..."Secular"... Then I suppose it's problematic.
Wolfman
Chief Solipsistic, Autosycophant
I'm sorry...but no. Some atheists say that, but it's certainly not "a necessary part of being an atheist". As has been pointed out on numerous previous occasions, there are atheists who are racist, atheists who are misogynists, etc. Atheism, in and of itself, has no moral code whatsoever.
It's only once you add on to that initial conclusion that "there is no god", and then take the next step of developing a moral code (and what you will base that code on) that you start getting something else. Secular Humanists and Communists, for example, are both fundamentally atheist (or non-theist) systems, yet the two have moral codes that are quite radically opposed to each other.
I'd also disagree with this, in that the question of "fair" is itself is determined by one's moral code. Again, both Humanists and Communists would say that they are seeking things like 'fairness', 'equality', etc.; yet they have vastly different ways of achieving those goals.
And for the record, as a Secular Humanist, I think that the golden rule is crap, and should never be the basis for a moral system. For example, someone who says, "If someone had more power than me, I'd expect them to use their power to control me for their own benefit" can, by the principles of the golden rule, therefore conclude that "If I have more power than someone else, I can use my power to control them for my own benefit."
David Mo
Philosopher
If you begin to search for the “authentic” meaning of the words “secular humanism” you will never end.
The meaning of a word is the use of this word in a specific language. Here we are speaking about the everyday language (OL: “ordinary language” in philosophy).
There is almost never an entirely common use of a word in OL. People use variants. There is also scarcely a unique use of a word in the philosophical, sociological, political etc. spheres.
You’ll ever find some philosopher, sociologist, politician, etc. who introduces a personal touch in a common word. This is the cushy deal of specialized lexicons. In the OL the variants are infinite.
I have lost a lot of my (precious) time discussing about the “true” meaning of “atheist” and “agnostic”. So I think that defining how we are using a word is the best way to avoid some endless and useless debates.
I find that the Word Reference definitions are useful by comparison with other dictionaries. (I can justify this assert).
Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Secularism: 1. a doctrine that rejects religion, esp in ethics; 2. the attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs.
Agnostic: a person who believes that no one can know for certain about the existence of God.(Word Reference)
In these senses, and only in these, atheism and secular humanism are very similar. But you can easily find an atheist that thinks that religion is useful although false (for uneducated people specially), and a theist secularist in the sense 2 (religion is a personal affair).
We can multiply the alternatives, but I find those four mainly.
The meaning of a word is the use of this word in a specific language. Here we are speaking about the everyday language (OL: “ordinary language” in philosophy).
There is almost never an entirely common use of a word in OL. People use variants. There is also scarcely a unique use of a word in the philosophical, sociological, political etc. spheres.
You’ll ever find some philosopher, sociologist, politician, etc. who introduces a personal touch in a common word. This is the cushy deal of specialized lexicons. In the OL the variants are infinite.
I have lost a lot of my (precious) time discussing about the “true” meaning of “atheist” and “agnostic”. So I think that defining how we are using a word is the best way to avoid some endless and useless debates.
I find that the Word Reference definitions are useful by comparison with other dictionaries. (I can justify this assert).
Atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Secularism: 1. a doctrine that rejects religion, esp in ethics; 2. the attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs.
Agnostic: a person who believes that no one can know for certain about the existence of God.(Word Reference)
In these senses, and only in these, atheism and secular humanism are very similar. But you can easily find an atheist that thinks that religion is useful although false (for uneducated people specially), and a theist secularist in the sense 2 (religion is a personal affair).
We can multiply the alternatives, but I find those four mainly.