Talk:Secular humanism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Some old discussions that should have had headers

While I would define myself as a secular humanism and not religious, I think that the "Is secular humanism a religion?" section could use a little more meat. I think the broader argument than the symantics of "religion", is the contention made by critics of secular humanism that to be secular and have moral values is hypocrisy. I think this is particular represents a certain degree of close-mindedness - it assumes that religion is the only valid moral authority. As near as I know the whole point of Humanism is that humans intrinsically have moral meaning, whether or not that also includes divine/supernatural meaning as it does in nonsecular humanism. The point is, that secular humanism have a "faith", so to speak, in Humanistic values, which they view as the result of skepticism stripping everything else, while critics view as a departure from skepticism - which is really a symantic argument pertaining more to skepticism then religion. --jsePrometheus

• I agree. It could use a major rewrite. The title of the section alone sounds biased instead of merely introducing a controversy. It also makes very broad statements. It should give more concrete examples, and seems to include a lot of personal commentary. 143.166.255.41 00:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If i were to be critical of secular humanism it would be this: is the world really better off now than it was is history? Are we any closer to "the truth"?

I should have read some of the discussion beforehand. I'm new at the wiki stuff. I found the original page that I found a little off topic. The overall page should have been a description of what Secular Humanism is and not who is ticked off by them. I removed some of the derogatory statements and phrases and reworded. There could be a lot more added under the "secular humanism today" section. There is probably some good data as population who follow sec-hum. I would like to see more details on the workings of the societies that are listed below; although that might me more of a secular humanist and less of humanism.

Instead of talking about political ties, there could be ties to the other organizations such as Pro-choice, proponents of stem cell research, gay/lesbian marriage rights, right-to-die and some educational groups.

Mike B - not a user yet. I have to figure that out! June 11, 2005

Need we mention that some people dislike being labeled 'secular humanists'? They apparently see it as a put-down. --Ed Poor

Yes, often because the persons being so called don't consider themselves "secular". I am religious, but also a humanist.

Also, I really question the statement that secular humanism is the largest portion of humanism. --Dmerrill

Some nonbelievers reject secular humanism because they see it as making a cause out of nonbelief. Autarch 17:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't. I've seen many many references to Secular Humanism, while all others pale in comparison, or choose to go by different names. TimothyPilgrim 17:50, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

Secular Humanism is definitely not the largest portion of humanism. The American Humanist Association is larger than the Council for Secular Humanism. Their magazine is found in most public libraries. The CSH's magazine can barely be found anywhere. The term "humanist" by itself has been dilluted to the point of meaninglessness. The term Secular Humanism is used more by religious fundamentalists who hate it than by the Secular humanists themselves. Wikkrockiana 15:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The most common use of "secular humanist" I've seen is by creationists, applied to people who deny that they are secular humanists. This deserves mention. It's also worth mentioning that people disagree that denying the supernatural denies religion, because there are multiple definitions of "supernatural" and "religion". In short, a big mess that isn't well represented by merely stating the definition of the people who label themselves (or others) "Secular Humanists". GregLindahl

It was mentioned (as I recall) before someone clouded up this page. Wikkrockiana 15:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Being a Secular Humanist, the most common use I've seen by the term is by people labelled as such. In fact, I see more people who are labelled as Humanists preferring to add the qualifier "Secular" to distance themselves from any other type. TimothyPilgrim 17:50, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

I would describe myself as a secular humanist, and I'm very interested in religions and their world views. Just like art and poetry, it doesn't have to be logical or scientific for it to hold value and meaning for many people.

I think you are funny, you say basically secular humanists see religious people as irrational. Fair enough. But then, that religious people can only see secular humanists in completely religious terms, and therefore as the work of Satan. I find this hard to believe.

That is perfectly true of the Fundamentalists who bother to get involved with the discussion

Wikkrockiana 15:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

There are two very different meanings of 'secular' which do not always overlap. One is related to lack of religion, with the secularisation of society in the sense of the decline of religion. In this sense secularism is plainly incompatible with religious belief. The other relates to the principle that the state should be neutral as between religious and other lifestances/worldviews. In this sense secularism is compatible with religious belief. 'Secular humanism' uses the word ambiguously, which is a good reason for preferring to use the word Humanism alone but using the context to make one's meaning clear. (The British Humanist Association opposes any qualifying adjective.) David Pollock 21:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

---

The previous editor added a reference to Religious Humanism. I removed it because it appeared to me to be solely a link to that article, instead of providing useful information. The Humanism page already contains a reference to it, not to mention other variants, and an interested reader would be able to find it there. Should one variant be included on a page of a sub-type (Secular Humanism) while others are not? I don't think so. TimothyPilgrim 17:50, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

---

Is Humanism supposed to be capitalized? In the article, it isn't capitalized but... ugen64 20:55, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

---

Toning down the sentence re: Paul Kurtz and Gene Roddenberry. Could use more examples of (prefereably self-described) secular humanists. Gwimpey 01:51, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

This should not be toned down as Paul Kurtz and Gene Roddenberry call(ed) themselves Secular Humanists. [Ooops, sorry. I missed the date stamp]

Wikkrockiana 15:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

"Eupraxophy!" Did you say "eupraxophy"?

Deadingingly pretentious, and right in the opening sentence (without explication too). --Wetman 15:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's right, I said eupraxophy. I like the word and wish it were more recognized. Still, its deletion from the intro is justified. As a widely unrecognized neologism (and one unused even by most secular humanists), it does not clarify, but rather obfuscates. It might bear mentioning with explication somewhere later in the article. Oh, and by the way: eupraxophy, Eupraxophy, EUPRAXOPHY! And eupraxsophy too! Rohirok 18:23, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

       Bless you...er... I mean, Gsundheit.Dveej 01:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely Eupraxis is the better formation for "living right", though its connotation still has an air of "I-know-Greek-unlike-you-dolt" --Wetman 19:38, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No real debate

"Secular humanism often conflicts with religious fundamentalism, especially over the issue of state involvement in religion."

I'm not sure I agree with this statment. I've known religious fundamentalist and secular humanists that agreed completely on the issue of state involvement in religion: They both wanted the state to rigorously enforce their own view.

Whether any of us agree or not is our personal business. Not a Wikipedia concern. The secular humanist view of religion's involvement in the state is simply that it's exactly like astrology's involvement in the NASA space program. --Wetman 21:57, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually I don't really have a problem with the information in that section; however, I do think it needs to be rewritten to put the focus on what secular humanist believe with regard to church/state issues rather than putting the emphasis on the conflict between secular humanists and Christian fundamentalists with the humanist view barely included as more of a supporting detail. (The section title would probably need to be changed as well.)

---

Secular humanism may be described as beholden to the following principles:

• Humans matter and can solve human problems.
• Science, free speech, rational thought, democracy and freedom in the arts go together.
• There is nothing supernatural
  • or, religious belief should not impose divisions or constraints upon matters of common principle

The "or" clause should go. An "or" would indicate contradistiction or restatement of the first statement. Here it is neither.

Secular humanism is an ideology or life stance that views rationality as paramount to the practical advancement of humanist principles, while viewing religion as irrational, and therefore not suited for the humanist view of an ethical life.

This is recursive. I will have to work on this. How did this article get so badly banged up?

barring to any association with mainstream secular humanism.

"Barring to"? If we must add unnecesary material it should at least be grammatically correct.

Wikkrockiana 15:00, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

For what it is worth, given the inadequacy of this article, and as a member of the executive committee of the British Humanist Associaton, I offer my own description of Humanism:

"Humanism is an approach to life based on humanity and reason. For humanists it fulfils much the same function as a religion does for its believers.

"Humanists recognise that it is simply human nature to have moral values but that when we make moral particular judgements we need to interpret those widely shared values by the use of knowledge, reason and experience. Faced with a difficult decision, we consider and assess the available evidence and the likely outcomes of alternative actions. We do not refer to any dogma, sacred text or fashionable but unsubstantiated theory.

"Humanists find the best available explanations of life and the universe in the naturalistic and provisional answers provided by scientific enquiry and the use of reason. We think it folly to turn to other sources - such as religion or superstition - for answers to unanswered questions. Humanists are therefore atheists or agnostics - but Humanism is a philosophy in its own right, not just a negative response to religion.

"Humanists believe that this is the only life we have and we see it as our responsibility to make life as good as possible not only for ourselves but for everyone - including future generations. We strongly support individual human rights and freedoms - but believe equally in the importance of individual responsibility, social co-operation and mutual respect. We endorse the idea of an ‘open society’ in which, despite fundamentally different beliefs and lifestyles people of good will live co-operatively together, with shared institutions, laws and government that are deliberately kept neutral as between different belief groups.

"As Humanists we create meaning and purpose for ourselves by adopting worthwhile goals and endeavouring to live our lives to the full. We feel awe at the immensity of the universe and the intricate nature of its workings, we find inspiration in the richness of the natural world, in music, the arts, the achievements of the past and the possibilities of the future, we find fulfilment in worthwhile activity, in physical recreation and endeavour and in the pleasures of human interaction, affection and love."

Maybe the editors will be able to pick bits out of this. It is worth noting that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees freedom of religion or belief and that the UN Human Rights Committee has made clear that humanism, atheism etc are beliefs covered by the UDHR. Similarly with the European Convention of Human Rights - and court cases in the European Court of Human Rights have firmly established the equivalence of religious and non-religious beliefs. NB that the word 'belief' has a strong meaning - the German version of the UDHR and ECHR use the word Weltanshauung - world-view.

David Pollock 21:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Grammar and accuracy

Secular humanism or in defined contexts secularism is a philosophy of ethics that emphasizes a humanist world view based upon naturalism —a belief that the physical world is all that truly exists, and therefore is the arbiter of ethical issues. The term "secular" refers to secularity, or the separation of one element from another.

Parenthetical statement is innacurate and not even set apart by commas. Gone

An arbiter is a person; the universe is not a person. Gone.

Secular in this context means non-religious.

Secular humanists may also find debate with mainstream humanists over matters of universality and morality. The basic criticism of secular humanists is that it's too exclusive —most people in the world believe in a supernatural or unknown dimension to human existence, for which religions at least attempt to answer. To exclude the views of these people, mainstream humanists argue, is to dismiss universalism itself— something that seems to fly in the face of humanism as based in a global and universal appeal.

Secular Humanists do not believe everything. They are not religious. "humanism as based in a global and universal appeal" is not a point. Secular Humanists do not claim that everyone is a Secular Humanists, just that all humans matter.

Religious traditionalists and mainstream humanists may also agree on a third basic criticism of secularism — that secularism's dismissal of theistic morality is a dismissal of the very human cultural history of morality —as it comes to us through religious and cultural traditions predating by far the scientific methodology and skepticism upon which secularism claims to be based. The implied questions for this criticism are, if secularism is based in science, then is it only as new as science itself? If it is not based in science, then is secularism simply based in a contrarian rejection of belief, rather than in a scientific belief?

So what if it is new? Bad grammar too.

I must add something in the Debate section re: Transhumanists and Secular Humanists

Wikkrockiana 19:56, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

"secular humanism" as a derogatory term

The origin of the term secular humanism comes from religious fundamentalists meant to disparage humanists (religious, non-religious and anti-religious alike).

The term has since been embraced by many.

I added a bit to "historical references" to address this, but looking to the history of the page I'm not sure if it will stay.

I think it is necessary as the "secular humanism" remains often as a statement by fundamentalists about "those people" rather than a term about oneself.

Would ya'll agree this information is important to the understanding to the term?

It's incorrect. Secular Humanism is not something that Christian Fundamentalists just dreamed up. It's older than that. It is true that their definition of Secular Humanism is simply a fantasy and that the Fundamentalists do most of the defining in print.

Wikkrockiana 20:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the term "secular humanism" is being discussed as disparaging when the article consistantly refers to Christian "fundamentalists"? TheMrFrog 01:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. And is "secular humanism" even a real thing? Isn't it just people who think they're too cool for religion? :-) Dubc0724 19:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Secular humanism is very real my friend. I myself am a secular humanist - I believe in the humanist values that many religious and non-religious people believe in, but I do not accept the existence of any deity and neither do I adhere to any religion. Secular humanism is no less real than christianity - it is organised and is [although hard to judge the members of any world-spanning organisation or religion] the largest component of humanism by most measures. TheMrFrog, it refers to fundamentalists in the context that Christian fundamentalists are one group who attack and disparage secular humanism, it is not attacking fundamentalists. --JavaJawaUK 19:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The first time I heard the term Born again Christian I thought it was derogatory too (because the very idea sounded ridiculous to me - after all it is not born again Buddhist) before I found out that this was not the case but a misconception on my part and that that's what they call themselves. So I don't think Secular Humanist is derogatory. --Soylentyellow 23:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to picture the cultural horizons where secular humanism is a derogatory term, like "liberal", but I can't tell if it's a landscape of endless agribusiness with a public library in the next county, or of endless strip-development and social encounters in vast parking lots... Unimaginably grim, really... Not something this article need address at all. --Wetman 23:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Because we have no other suitable term , I think that the term « Secular Humanism » is necessary for describing the ideology . It is not merely secularism , nor is it atheìsm or non-traditional theìsm . It is a distinct ideology and deserves such a term . When I want to disparage my political enemies , I prefer having an ability to refer to them by name rather than beìng forced to say « those people » whilst gesturing towards a Unitarian Universalist church . -- Frank Trampe

Capitalization of "secular humanist"

The article currently uses various capitalization schemes for secular humanism: uncapitalized, "Secular Humanism" and "secular Humanism." I think this should be standardized in the article, with perhaps a note somewhere pointing out that there are different preferences regarding capitalization. My own preference is to write both words uncapitalized, since I believe capitalization tends to reify concepts, and capitalization of "Secular Humanism" gives the impression that it is a religion. I believe other secular humanists tend to have this same preference, as opposed to religious Humanists, who are more prone to capitalizing the word. In any case, the current use of different capitalization schemes is distracting in the article. The most commonly used scheme ought to be determined and adopted throughout the article for the sake of consistency. Rohirok 21:08, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Consistency within an article is less distracting, we all agree. But which? We don't capitalize an incurable romantic, but we capitalize the Romantic poets, signifying the larger concept they exemplified: "romantic poets" may work for greeting card companies. We capitalist Humanism when we mean the historic movement, as Renaissance Humanism. Uncapitalized, secular humanism means those human-centered concerns that are mundane and rational. Secular Humanism denotes a movement in the history of ideas, taught in college courses as History of Ideas 101. --Wetman 22:30, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Obviously, the same word can be capitalized or uncapitalized in order to indicate shades of meaning that have more or less been standardized, such as in the case of "God" with a big "G" indicating a supreme being in monotheism, and "god" with a little "g" indicating a lesser spirit or the gods in polytheism. The same is true of of the example "romantic" that you used. Such nuances are not made clear at all in the present article, and even if they are being used sometimes, they are not used consistently. Take this sentence, for example: "'Secular humanism' is distinguished from the broader 'humanism' in that the secular Humanist prefers free inquiry over dogma..." Here we have the terms "secular humanism" and "secular Humanist" being used in the same sense, yet their capitalizations are arbitrarily mismatched. It comes across as sloppy and confused. Elswhere, "Notable secular humanists" (members of a movement in the history of ideas) and "Secular humanism manifestoes" (writings of a movement in the history of ideas) are both uncapitalized, while "Secular Humanism Today" (the current state of a movement in the history of ideas) has capitals (the "Today" should certainly be lowercase, as it does not conform with Wikipedia standards). Even if different capitalizations are justified, the distinctions are not applied with any consistency or clarity in the present article. The standard I would like to see applied in the article would be the same one used by most of those who self-identify as secular humanists, which I believe is to leave both words uncapitalized. To apply any other standard would be like writing an article about Islam that referred to Muslims as "Musselmen" or "Mohamedans." Naturally, quotes that contain "Secular Humanism"--such as the one from Justice Black--ought to be left as is. Rohirok 03:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wetman is correct . Referring to the movement requires the term « Secular Humanism » ( not « secular humanism » ) just as an ideology that advocates ( regardless of practice ) small government , low taxes , heavy criminal punishment , and heavy defense spending requires the term « Republican » ( not « republican » ) . -- Frank Trampe

secular humanism today

This section makes several unsupported assertions about the spread of secular humanism. I was tempted to remove those assertions, but thought I'd give people a chance to find the evidence. --Dannyno 11:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverting is easier than editing. --Wetman 19:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean, but I decided to have a go at redrafting that bit myself from a different direction.--Dannyno 21:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The Secular Humanists are everywhere . They are conquering our schools and our churches . The article about Unitarian Universalism links to a story that features some very frightening statistics . Further , the Secular Humanists ( Emerson's people ) have visibly dominated the Harvard Divinity School , its faculty , and its curriculum . -- Frank Trampe

Fundamentalism vs secular humanism

I've rewritten the bit which said the Bible and Qu'ran regarded secular humanists as unbelievers, since neither mention secular humanism at all, in fact (obviously they are seen as unbelievers, but, you know). --Dannyno 21:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The Bible and the Qu'ran may not specifically mention Secular Humanism , but the article ought to indicate for unscholarly visitors that Secular Humanism is strongly opposed to the sacred theìsm that the Bible and the Qu'ran tend to suggest . -- Frank Trampe

Worse Than Ever

This article is worse than ever. Wikkrockiana 23:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

How kind. "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." --Blainster 03:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I have been part of the solution, but most of the contributions I have made have been effaced by others. I will return when the retrograde motion slows a bit more. Wikkrockiana 04:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Earliest use

Earliest use is dated here to 1961. I have an earlier use: Collins, J (1953). Marxist and secular humanism in Social Order Vo 3, p 207-32. --Dannyno 11:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I've found an even earlier use, in a Guardian newspaper article entitled "Unemployed at service: Church and the world" (25 May 1935, p.18). It contains a reference, by the rector of a church in Manchester, to "the modern age of secular humanism". --Dannyno (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

---

I am confused about the statement "Humans have value". This is seems decidedly vague and in scientific terms would be not be considered "well defined". For this statement to be well defined, or infact to have any meaning at all it needs to have an associated context, in what circumstances or in what framework to humans have value? Not that it is strictly required but it would also help my understanding of the concept if i knew why secular humanism considers humans to have value, for instance "Why is a human being more valuable than a pig? or a rock for that matter?". Also of interest would be how secular humanism views comparative value in general .. are all humans equal in all contexts? is a human more valuable than a discrete number of pigs in all contexts?". The definition provided is incredibly dry and could do with a few examples of how secular humanism approaches some of the moral issues we face today. User:Idioms 28-10-2005

OK, But "value" is not a scientific term anyway... --Blainster 07:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Frank Zappa and his Church

If I remember correctly, Zappa's church (mentioned in the article) is the "Church of American Secular Humanism". One of the things he mentions in his book is that checks to the organization should be made out to "CASH". -- ?

   Do you not understand the pun? (SeanMike77 (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

It is Humanism and not secular humanism or scientific humanism

Rohirok's edit comments for last revision are: (Reverted to my last revision. Daccouts' rapid edits introduced many errors (misrepresenting sec hmnsts' use of H, indiscriminate bolding, loss of context for sec hum's coinage, etc.). Slow down!)

However, if you look at my revision you'll see that I backed up everything with impeccable references to the IHEU - the world umbrella organisation for all Humanist (aka secular humanist) organisations. Given typing "Humanist" or 'humanist" takes to the general term humanist, so that is taken, plus the IHEU insistence that it is Humanist with a captial H and no adjective (eg. secular)...

Thus, if you call yourself a Humanist (or secular humanist) and belong to a Humanist (or secular humanist) organisation that is affiliated with the IHEU - as I do - then the only correct term to use is Humanism for the belief and Humanist for one with such beliefs. This view is officially endorsed by the IHEU and thus by all member organisations.

If you don't belong to a Humanist organisation then you are perhaps a humanist (or liberal humanist, but not a Humanist (or secular humanist)...

--Couttsie 01:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello Dacoutts. Your edits of the secular humanism article were quite numerous, and done in rapid succession. I see now that you have done a similar thing with the Humanism article. The problem with these rapid edits is that they drastically change an article without giving other editors a chance to work with you on the edits, make corrections when mistakes are found, or deliberate and come to consensus if there are significant disagreements. Many editors have put a lot of effort into developing these articles, and to single-handedly make big changes in a short amount of time disregards their previous efforts, even though those efforts may have been well-researched or hard-won through a process of deliberation.

Many of the edits you made were either inaccurate or contentious, or else against Wikipedia formatting standards. It is standard to bold only the title word of the article once in the introductory paragraph. But you have bolded more than just the title word, and throughout both the Secular humanism and Humanism articles. The errors, controversial assertions and disregard for Wikipedia formatting standards prompted me to restore the earlier version of the Secular humanism article. I could have picked through all of the article and reverted only those parts that had problems, but they were so numerous that I chose to do a whole-sale revert. Some of the stuff is good, and I hope you will make more contributions, but please slow down so that I and other editors have a chance to respond to your changes before the articles are transformed beyond recognition!

As for the "H" issue: The article is about secular humanism, which is just one subcategory of Humanism. The terms are not equivalent, since there are many Humanists who consider themselves religious. Yet you deleted many instances in the article where it said "secular humanism" and replaced it with "Humanism." Humanism has its own article, and information about the life-stance of Humanism in general ought to be added there. Most secular humanists I know are quite adamant about their use of the adjective "secular," and indeed, the Council for Secular Humanism almost always refers to the life-stance it promotes on its website and in its publication Free Inquiry as secular humanism, not Humanism. The authors you cited who were in favor of the capital H, sans adjective, were expressing a preference, and inviting other Humanists to adopt this preference, for a number of strategic reasons. As a Humanist, I agree with their suggestions, but they are not the final authorities on how Humanists and secular humanists ought to refer to themselves, and many humanists disregard their preferences. An encyclopedia article, like a dictionary, ought to describe how terms are actually used, not prescribe the so-called "correct" way to use them. If you were to edit the secular humanism article to indicate that some secular humanists prefer to call themselves Humanists, that would be fine. But not all of them prefer that, and it's not the only correct way. Rohirok 01:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong

Many editors have put a lot of effort into developing these articles, and to single-handedly make big changes in a short amount of time disregards their previous efforts, even though those efforts may have been well-researched or hard-won through a process of deliberation.

The problem is that they are wrong, and the world body responsible for secular humanism has officially endorsed the view that secular humanism is correctly known as Humanism with a capital H, and no adjective.

As for the "H" issue: The article is about secular humanism, which is just one subcategory of Humanism. The terms are not equivalent, since there are many Humanists who consider themselves religious.

Yes, secular humanism (correctly known as Humanism) is one subcategory of "humanism" but NOT Humanism. However, how do we then distinguish between the general term humanism (which can also be typed in Wikipedia as Humanism, and still get to the general term only), and the correct term for secular humanism, which is Humanism? Maybe what we need is a disambiguation page. However, the secular humanism page should be the correct home for all content pertaining to Humanism (as in secular humanism). If you are humanist (little h) and have secular views, that means you're just a liberal humanist (same as humanist) with secular views. However, I repeat, Humanism is the official correct term for my beliefs...

The authors you cited who were in favor of the capital H, sans adjective, were expressing a preference, and inviting other Humanists to adopt this preference, for a number of strategic reasons.

The IHEU is the world organisation for Humanism (secular humnanism), not just some authors with opinions. They are not suggestions, but endorsed official statements.

Many of the edits you made were either inaccurate or contentious, or else against Wikipedia formatting standards. It is standard to bold only the title word of the article once in the introductory paragraph.

I accept that my bolding was excessive, and would agree to change that aspect of my edits.--Couttsie 02:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The link here to "liberal humanist" does not land on that label. There have been other efforts within the text of wikipedia to tie the modifier liberal to all manner of negative things, such as Eugenics. I applaud the writers steadfast determination to persuade thosse modifiers to disappear. A Christian is a Christian, and does not need the modifier "Conservative", which is irrelevant to faith. Any deliberate attempt to marry religion or religious views or modifiers to politics, in any forum, should always be met with forceful opposition until the ideas are dissociated from one another. 70.106.60.44

No citations, no secular humanists

As far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no credible citation anywhere in this article (or, indeed, in Wikipedia) to indicate how many secular humanists there actually are. Note that the Council for Secular Humanism numbers are included as a subset of the IHEU numbers (more than 3 millions worldwide). See major world religions article.

The only (probably biased) view is that of adherants.com (quoted in world religions:

"The "Secular/Nonreligious/etc." category is probably the most speculative estimate in this list, as this segment of society is difficult to count. The vast majority in this grouping are not aligned with any kind of membership organization. Most figures come from census and survey data, which most countries conduct only infrequently"

This seems to completely ignore the Humanism (belief system) numbers of between 3 and 4 million, and clearly indicates the unreliable nature of statistics for the "The "Secular/Nonreligious/etc." category in general. I am interested in getting real numbers, not the numbers of an organisation (adherants.com) who are clearly biased against people in this category (as, indeed, most national censuses are).

I recommend that we give the secular humanists a week to provide a reliable citation, otherwise secular humanism should be merged with the more significant Humanism (belief system) article. --Couttsie 11:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the guidelines for moving pages suggest more like two weeks for votes to accummulate.

OK --Couttsie 23:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The figures for secular humanists are surely next to impossible to ever compile, given that organisations for them seem to have only a small fraction of potential members joining. Autarch 16:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

While in principle it would be nice to have accurate figures on number of adherents, this question seems largely irrelevant to the organisation of pages related to humanism. The basic issue is that there is far more material related to various aspects of humanism than one article can or should contain, and this raises the question of how to most rationally organize the material. (Reflecting the total volume of material, see, for example, Category:Humanism and pages on Humanism, Secular Humanism, Humanism (belief system), Humanist Movement, Religious humanism, Humanist International, Council for Secular Humanism, New Humanism, and many more, related to varying degrees.)

Good point --Couttsie 23:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The criteria for having an article on a topic shouldn't be "How many adherents does the group have?" but "Does this topic represent a distinct idea with sufficient material to justify an article?" Based on this perspective, I don't see any argument for merging the Secular Humanism article with another Humanism article. To the contrary, the Secular Humanism article pairs with the Religious humanism page to create an article structure that at least tries to be logical. I do suspect the organisation of material could be improved, but I'd like to see a more fully thought out proposal before I'd be inclined to support any such change. Rhwentworth 20:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

That's reasonable --Couttsie 23:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote Tally

The vote is as follows:

All in favour of merging secular humanism as a section (only) of the main Humanism (belief system), vote Yes. Otherwise, vote No. Don't forget to sign.

• Yes --Couttsie 11:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• No The information here is too extensive to merge with another article. A brief section on secular humanism ought to be added to Humanism (belief system) instead. Rohirok 18:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• No Information too extensive to merge, and article parallels the existence of Religious humanism article. Rhwentworth 20:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• No The single term Humanism is imprecise. Clarity requires the modifier "Secular". I am not a member of the IHEU or other similiar organization, and I do not recognize their authority to decide for me whether I get to be known as a "Secular Humanist" or have to refer to myself as a Humanist. To argue otherwise is an logical fallacy. If your arguments are valid, then the US Libertarian Party is the sole authority for defining and establishing standards of libertarianism. Silly, isn't it? Marktaff 09:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• No Information too extensive. --Vagodin ^Talk 10:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Marktaff: "I am not a member of the IHEU or other similiar organization, and I do not recognize their authority to decide for me whether I get to be known as a "Secular Humanist" or have to refer to myself as a Humanist."

From Humanist identity section, IHEU article: "Capitalization of Humanist is the normal usage within IHEU, and is recommended usage for member organisations, though some member organisations do not follow the IHEU recommendation. [8]) [9] For example, the Council for Secular Humanism continues to use a lowercase h, and the adjective secular."

Nobody has said that the IHEU get to decide - they recommend its usage, and it is normal usage for them (the world body for Humanism (belief system)). See talk page on IHEU article. There is no logical fallacy involved here. --Couttsie 22:37, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Numbers

Please note that secular humanism is, according to Rohirok (see my talk page), a sub-set of the main Humanist (belief system) numbers:

You asked me to provide a citation for how many secular humanists there are. I never made any claims about how many secular humanists there are, so it is peculiar that you ask me to provide a citation for that claim. I will point out that those secular humanists who are members of CSH (including me) are counted in the 3 million Humanists figure that IHEU puts forward. Rohirok 15:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This is funny, as I already pointed that out above: "Note that the Council for Secular Humanism numbers are included as a subset of the IHEU numbers (more than 3 millions worldwide)." ... --Couttsie 23:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

...Secular humanism is a minority view of Humanism (belief system), and the only real difference seems to be the extruciatingly painful distinction of whether one or the other is a religion. In fact, Article 18 protects both equally (as religion and/or belief), so international law does not care one whit.

Please also note that, in addition to writing "A brief section on secular humanism ought to be added to Humanism (belief system) instead." Rohirok then proposed that Humanism (belief system) (see talk page on that article) be moved (back) to Humanism (lifestance)... If we add a section on secular humanism into the main Humanism (belief system) article, then I'd have to see the secular humanism article properly reflect the greater significance of the main Humanist (belief system) view. --Couttsie 23:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

International Law

(Which Article 18? In the US Constitution there is no Article 18 and Amendment 18 relates to Prohibition of liquor.)

The issue may be moot with regard to international law, but the issue is at the heart of political controversy in the U.S., as fundamentalists attempt to use the religious status of humanist organizations as a legal wedge to discredit secularism in government. --Rhwentworth 04:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

See IHEU#International_Law and references at bottom of IHEU page --Couttsie 00:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Though, I note that the U.S. signed one relevant International Law, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, only with provisions that made it essentially non-binding as far as domestic law is concerned, and it hasn't signed the other law at all. (Even if those provisions weren't there, I doubt that International Law would provide any significant protections within the U.S. in the current political climate.) --Rhwentworth 07:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

More citations needed

There are a great many points of view, and a considerable lack of facts with citations in this article. If we're not going to merge it (and it looks like we won't) then I recommend that somebody go through it and remove points of view and/or add facts with citations. --Couttsie 01:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

This part is particularly bad:

"Despite the details of these particular cases, there is a perception among some Christians in the U.S. that secular humanism—and by association secularism—has been granted religious status for tax purposes, that secularism in government and in the schools constitutes state favoritism towards a particular religion, and that denials of the latter by the courts constitute a double standard.

(A typical site with this perspective is http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm)

This interpretation is disputed by secularists, who argue that the non-religious nature of secularism is not contradicted by the fact that some groups adopt tenets of humanism as part of their religion. ("Just because people count something in what they say is their religion does not make it inherently religious. If some people start worshipping chairs chairs shouldn't be kept out of school.")"

The fact is that the American Humanist Association has been granted "religious status", whereas the Council for Secular Humanism does not seek it. This appears to be the source of much bitter and unnecessary dispute here on Wikipedia. However, freedom of religion and belief applies to both sets of humanists (in the broad sense), both of whom are secular and nontheistic.

I hope this helps clarify the nature of the quoted passages - they are POV, trying to imply that because the American Humanist Association has religious status that they are not secular. Humanists (belief system) do not worship anything - they are nontheistic and secular. --Couttsie 01:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the passage is fair game for discussion, but I don't know that you are right about the nature of the quoted passages. I added the passage about the perspective of some Christians, not because I agree with the sentiment it expresses, but because I found it to be pervasive when I browsed the net for references to secular humanism and the law. Its addition wasn't in any way motivated by the status of the AHA vs. that of the CSH--I wasn't familiar with that difference in status. The pages expressing this sentiment that I noted related to the case law described in the "legal mentions" section of the article.

Personally, I think fundamentalist claims that secularism is a religion are off-base and are the result of somewhat understandable resentment at the exclusion of religion from public institutions coupled with some less than clear thinking. (That muddled thinking is aided and abetted by some humanists who aren't precise in their use of language.) However, the sentiment is sufficiently widespread that it made sense to me to (1) report it and (2) look very carefully to ensure that the logic in the Wikipedia article is clean and supports clear thinking on the issue.

Frankly, the text

"...trying to imply that because the American Humanist Association has religious status that they are not secular. Humanists (belief system) do not worship anything - they are nontheistic and secular"

is to me an example of phrasing that actually increases the level of confusion. Much of the problem comes from the fact that secular has a number of different usages. If one interprets secular to mean not religious, then claims that something can have religious status but be secular seem nonsensical (and to religious opponents, disingenuous). The statement makes more sense if one interprets secular to mean not related to the supernatural or advocating keeping religion and government separate. But whether or not such statements read as sense or nonsense depends on which meaning of secular one has in mind. Consequently, in contexts like this I think it is unwise to ever simply say something is secular without clarification and qualification.

I find it curious that you cite both paragraphs as POV as if they represented the same POV, insofar as the second paragraph refutes the first, in a way that goes to the heart of the legal issue raised.

The issue raised by all this is quite a serious one, in that court cases have been filed around this issue, and I expect will be again. I think the truth is best served not by ignoring the issue, but by addressing the issue with great clarity so that unbiased readers will develop a clear understanding that allows them to respond appropriately to the issue when it arises.

Your mileage may vary... --Rhwentworth 04:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"The statement makes more sense if one interprets secular to mean not related to the supernatural or advocating keeping religion and government separate" - yes, agreed.

"The issue raised by all this is quite a serious one..." - yes, agreed.

The passage of my Talk:text that you objected ("actually increases the level of confusion") to: "trying to imply that because the American Humanist Association has religious status that they are not secular. Humanists (belief system) do not worship anything - they are nontheistic and secular" Humanists believe in separation of church and state, and have secular views. Humanists are non-thesitic.

To me, "have secular views" is, in this context, another somewhat ambiguous statement, given the different things that secular can mean. To a friendly ear, it may not much matter. But to those highly critical of Humanism, the lack of clarity will be latched onto and the meaning least sympathetic to Humanism will no doubt be assumed and used as the basis for argument. --Rhwentworth

To me, the situation is confusing worldwide. Part of the problem is the failure of governments to properly collect statistics (through their censuses) for people who are secular and/or non-theistic.

Read the Religion in Australia article, particularly the No Religion and Legal Issues sections. In Australia, at least, all beliefs and religions have equal protection (in theory, anyway). Thus, the ABS "No Religions" of atheists, agnostics, rationalists and Humanist (belief system) are all (according to the High Court of Australia) legally "religions". Daft, isn't it?

Personally, even though I'm a Humanist (belief system), I would not normally prefer to call myself religious. However, I do expect the same protections as religious (theistic) people, and also believe it is right that organisations that are nontheistic and secular can claim "religious" status (at least, until someone petitions their government for some form of equivalent "belief" tax exemption).

See American Humanist Association for initiative by Rohirok to get some clarification on this matter from that organisations' point of view. That's all for now. --Couttsie 05:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I added citations for theistically based criticisms. However, the Islamic critic hasn't yet measured up to the philosophical weightiness of Rabbi Buber, Pope Benedict or Francis Schaeffer. So I've sent an inquiry to IslamOnline.net to see if they can provide a stronger criticism from the Islamic POV.. --Jjoplin

As a new reader to the topic, I am confused by the statement that secular humanists specifically reject ritual and ceremony. Is there a way to word this to explain what is menat by those two words in this context: in other words do they reject ceremonies such as civil marriage and presidential inauguration? I followed up the two citations given, but I can't see reference to ritual in either (except in a sub-title) http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=price_22_3 http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=what . Are there better references that I should have looked at (and that could go in the article)? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: I read more of the Richard M. Price article. He refers to rites, which put me in even more difficulty:

"But some secular humanists, too, are open to celebrating rites of passage. It is not this that separates them from religious humanists. Some rites of passage have no connection to the ancient myths: birthday parties, bachelor parties, college graduations, and retirement dinners are true rites of passage yet bear no mythological cargo.

"Religious humanists such as Don Cupitt's Sea of Faith movement in the United Kingdom continue to perform religious rites although they don't believe in the supernatural or in any metaphysically real deity."

So, is the distinction (between self-described secular humanists and religious humanists) more related to theology and to the purpose of the ritual (to connect with the non-supernatural divine), rather than use of a ritual to affirm a life stance? Citations either way would be interesting. As a light aside, I am helping with the Anglican doctrine article, and Don Cupitt gives me trouble because I can't figure out if he is Anglo-Catholic, a Liberal Christian, both or neither. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My favorite reference

There was a late 1980's single-panel cartoon showing a burly flannel-clad guy in a bar, saying to another guy at the bar "Yes, I'm a secular humanist. You wanna make something out of it?"  ;-) AnonMoos 01:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice one --Couttsie 01:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Robert Anton Wilson and Timothy Leary ...

... are both fine people, but I don't think these dudes are secular humanists. Maybe some other sort of humanists. Maybe. I'm removing them until someone comes up with a trustworthy cite of their secularity (until heat death, that is). — coelacan talk — 09:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Karl Marx, original research?

I'm pretty skeptical about the inclusion of Karl Marx in the list. I'm not going to say that he couldn't have been a secular humanist, or that it's mutually exclusive with marxism. Anyway Marx said he wasn't a marxist, or something to that effect, IIRC. Nevertheless, what's the argument for his secular humanism? And if we don't have some kind of cite, isn't it WP:OR? — coelacan talk — 09:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly anachronistic. --Dannyno 10:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless it could be argued that SH was derived from Marx's work, yeah. Or unless one could make the case that something worth calling SH existed at the time of Marx and that he fit the criteria. But I'm reaching here. Without a cite, it's pretty clearly OR. And if whoever put it here wants it back, they can bring it up on this talk page. — coelacan talk — 10:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Most advocates aren't religious"

From the section Legal mentions (United States), subsection Controversy, I removed the following sentence:

Most advocates aren't religious — Ideas such as the scientific method and evolution are advocated primarily by people who do not regard these ideas as being part of their religions, lending credibility to the claim that these ideas are not inherently religious.

The statement, in context, as I can read it, says: Most advocates of the opinion that the scientific method and evolution are not a religion, aren't religious. Then of course these ideas are no part of their religion, as they do not have one! Thus the sentence does not say anything at all, except: "Most advocates of the opinion that the scientific method and evolution are not a religion, are not religious". It is likely that these people are not Christian fundamentalists but not quite evident that they are entirely unreligious: that statement definitely mustnot appear in the article unless it would be properly referenced. Even if such were true, how would such fact lend credibility to the claim that the scientific method and the evolution are not religious? This is like saying, "People of the opinion A lend credibility to A because they are of opinion A". Which is nonsense. In the context of the article, this removed statement should not only need to be revised to express what might have been intended, but also it should become demonstrated that such (hopefully more logical) meaning is relevant for the U.S. courts' consistent rejection of the controversial interpretation that the scientific method and (the concept of) evolution would be a religion. — SomeHuman 9 Dec2006 13:01 (UTC)

User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Secular_humanism

For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of a new article, Religious views on masturbation, at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft, esecially the section User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation#Secular_humanism! After it looks good on user space, it can be posted on to article space. CyberAnth 06:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Religious?

There are two obvious objections to what you have written about the "Secular Humanist" view of masturbation:

1. You cite no source, which is a problem on Wikipedia, even though what you have written is obviously accurate.

2. The placement of this section in the article seems to imply that "Secular Humanism" is a religion. While many spokesmen of the Religious Right in the United States aver that "Secular Humanism" is a religion, as do a small number of eccentric Humanists, the prevailing common-sense understanding is that "Secular Humanism," to the extent that it is a valid concept at all, is essentially the absence of religious advocacy rather than being, itself, a religion. That's the meaning of the word "secular."

I believe that to cite "Secular Humanism" as a religion is essentially a (possibly unwitting) furtherance of right-wing religious propaganda. The right-wingers who propound this view in the United States are using this categorization in order to lay the groundwork for a claim of religious discrimination any time their particular religious dogma is excluded from, say, a public school science classroom. Similarly (though not identically), some spokesmen of the Religious Right say that Atheism is a religion, that categorization being similarly flawed.

Perhaps you could call this "Religious and ethical views" instead of "Religious views."

Paul 22:13, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

"Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making" seems to have a "strong atheist"[[1]] slant. Secular humanism encompasses agnostics, as well, who may seriously doubt the existence of higher power, but do not summarily reject it, either. To many agnostics, the question of whether God exists or does not exist does not matter.

I believe a more neutral phrase would be:
"Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and does not consider the supernatural and spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making".

167.154.151.41 19:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC) goatghost

{{editprotected}} This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance.. CMummert · talk 02:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

       The phrasing "...does not consider the supernatural and spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and 
       decision-making" could be viewed as counter to the goal of agnostics which is to discover truths
       through moral reflection, critical thinking, and other such decision-making processes. (SeanMike77 (talk) 04:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

The phrase "does not consider the supernatural and spiritual" does not run counter to the goal of agnostics. Agnostics are still able to "discover truths through moral reflection, critical thinking, and other such decision-making processes". They just don't consider the "supernatural and spiritual" to arrive at those truths. Goatghost (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations Needed

disappointed with the amount of information provided without proper citation. fellow wiki authors/editors, please provide necessary citations at the end of every idea and/or paragraph. if there is a problem with my interpretation, then please discuss on my homepage. παράδοξος (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you. Proper citation is needed. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I think the article Secular humanism and Humanism (life stance) should be merged. There is no point in having two different article. The only different between secular humanist and Humanist is secular humanist emphasizes a non-religious focus, whereas Humanist deemphasizes this and may even encompass some nontheistic varieties of religious humanism. Both are non-theistic and agree with the Minimum Statement on Humanism required by the IHEU. I would like to know what other users think. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

In my view, and this is my view alone as I know it, secular humanism and the Humanism life-stance are indeed the same. The notaion is only necessary where those attempt to contrast secular humanism with religious humanism, which I further view as a logical fallacy. (SeanMike77 (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC))

NO. As masterpiece2000 said, The only different between secular humanist and Humanist is secular humanist emphasizes a non-religious focus, whereas Humanist deemphasizes this and may even encompass some nontheistic varieties of religious humanism. "Some" I think it would be better to keep them apart and emphasize instead. Zisimos (talk) 00:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am closing this discussion. It is better to keep them apart. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange paragraph on Nietzsche

"In God is Dead, Friedrich Nietzsche considers the chaos and hypocrisy of a world in which morality continues to exist without the underlying religious beliefs within which the morality developed. In Nietzschean terms, Secular Humanism can be viewed as an institutionalised manifestation of society losing its way."

This has no citations and I doubt that any could be provided. 'God is dead' is a quote, not a work by Nietzsche! The claim that anything in Nietzsche amounts to a critique of -Secular Humanism- is something requiring some serious justification... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.216.1.16 (talk) 08:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Nietzsche describes the loss of God/Christianity as the path to nihilism, but feels that other philosophies (most prominently his own) could avert that. Therefore it is Christianity that is ultimately nihilistic, not secular humanism. Even if it were a valid interpretation of Nietzschean thought, I cannot find any reference or citation so it would fall under original research in my opinion. I will take it out and we can come back here to debate if need be. Nowimnthing (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Scientific humanism

The lede mentions a "scientific humanism" but never explains what it is. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 00:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

John Lennon?????

Is it true that John Lennon was a secular humanist? Why not a New Ager?

Criticism... is this correct?

Some criticize the philosophy of secular humanism because it offers no eternal truths nor a relationship with the divine, as well as other beliefs such as the afterlife that can only be found within Religion, depriving Man from a comfort they cannot provide.

This sentence is already addressed in the headline of the article and I'm not sure it's entirely NPOV. The last bit "depriving Man from a comfort they cannot provide." sounds like a double-negative too; and I suspect is the work of a religious person trying hard, but unable to remain neutral.--Smidoid (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Rituals and ceremonies

I'm not sure about the following claim:

Religious humanists may value rituals and ceremonies as means of affirming their life stance. However, secular humanists are typically 
not interested in using rituals and ceremonies.

It's not well supported by the footnote, and I'm not sure it's very well supported by reality. Granted, most secular humanists in my experience aren't very interested in religious-style rituals, but most of the ones I know are very much in favour of humanist weddings and funerals, both of which I think qualify as being ceremonies. Baby naming ceremonies are less popular, but I suspect that most humanists are happy enough with the idea. Indeed, I would argue that one of the things secular humanism can offer is a community within which one can mark the important stages in one's life without getting religion involved. It's only really an accident of history that birthdays are not religious (in some countries, name-days are more important anyway).

Now, of course, I realise that my own views and those of my humanist friends and acquaintances do not constitute good support for changing anything in this article, but I'd be interested to know what other people here think, and whether anyone knows of a good source that points either way on this matter. garik (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

No one's defended the claim, so I've removed it. Please put it back if a reliable source that actually supports the claim. garik (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Logo

This is the worst logo. It's not anywhere near universally accepted, like the cross is for Christianity of the moon is for Islam. It should be removed.76.18.123.148 30 Mar 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC).

Criticism Section

If the Christianity article or any other belief system article don't have criticism sections, I don't think this belief system should have a criticism section as well. I have put a problem template on the section. However this should also apply to the controversy section as well. Schnarr 02:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The entire basis for the section seems to be "Hurrr durrr, humanism doesn't believe in our god, therefore is fundamentally flawed, derp derp derp". The response subsection also seems to be of little value; just a how-to for riposting such arguments, counter to WP:NOTMANUAL. The whole thing contributes nothing to the article. Delete it? Brammers (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assesment of the criticism and response section, I back up the proposal for deletion of both --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC).

Deleted. Brammers (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition / reversion of new info in lede

I just deleted the following new addition frome the lede, and wanted to bring it here for discussion:

"First, Secular Humanism is a worldview. That is, it is a set of beliefs through which one interprets all of reality—something like a pair of glasses. Second, Secular Humanism is a religious worldview.[2] Do not let the word “secular” mislead you. The Humanists themselves would agree that they adhere to a religious worldview. According to the Humanist Manifestos I & II: Humanism is "a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view."[3]

Not all humanists, though, want to be identified as “religious,” because they understand that religion is (supposedly) not allowed in American public education. To identify Secular Humanism as a religion would eliminate the Humanists' main vehicle for the propagation of their faith. And it is a faith, by their own admission. The Humanist Manifestos declare:

"These affirmations [in the Manifestos] are not a final credo or dogma but an expression of a living and growing faith."[4] What are the basic beliefs of Secular Humanism? What do Secular Humanists believe? Theologically, Secular Humanists are atheists. Humanist Paul Kurtz, publisher of Prometheus Books and editor of Free Inquiry magazine, says that "Humanism cannot in any fair sense of the word apply to one who still believes in God as the source and creator of the universe."[5] Corliss Lamont agrees, saying that "Humanism contends that instead of the gods creating the cosmos, the cosmos, in the individualized form of human beings giving rein to their imagination, created the gods."[6] Philosophically, Secular Humanists are naturalists. That is, they believe that nature is all that exists - the material world is all that exists. There is no God, no spiritual dimension, no afterlife. Carl Sagan said it best in the introduction to his Cosmos series: "The universe is all that is or ever was or ever will be."[7] Roy Wood Sellars concurs. “Humanism is naturalistic,” he says, "and rejects the supernaturalistic stance with its postulated Creator-God and cosmic Ruler."[8]'' Secular Humanist beliefs in the area of biology are closely tied to both their atheistic theology and their naturalist philosophy. If there is no supernatural, then life, including human life, must be the result of a purely natural phenomenon. Hence, Secular Humanists must believe in evolution. Julian Huxley, for example, insists that "man ... his body, his mind and his soul were not supernaturally created but are all products of evolution."[9] Sagan, Lamont, Sellars, Kurtz—all Secular Humanists are in agreement on this.

Atheism leads most Secular Humanists to adopt ethical relativism - the belief that no absolute moral code exists, and therefore man must adjust his ethical standards in each situation according to his own judgment.[10] If God does not exist, then He cannot establish an absolute moral code. Humanist Max Hocutt says that human beings "may, and do, make up their own rules... Morality is not discovered; it is made."[11]

Secular Humanism, then, can be defined as a religious worldview based on atheism, naturalism, evolution, and ethical relativism. But this definition is merely the tip of the iceberg. A more complete discussion of the Secular Humanist worldview can be found in David Noebel's Understanding the Times, which discusses (in detail) humanism's approach to each of ten disciplines: theology, philosophy, ethics, biology, psychology, sociology, law, politics, economics and history.''

I removed it because a)it's too long for the lede, b) it contradicts some of the sourced material in the lede, c) it doesn't seem entirely neutral in its point of view. Is there any consensus as to whether this info should stay or go or be integrated into the text? Dawn Bard (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Secular humanism and human nature

The statement in the section entitled 'Secular humanism and human nature' are not backed with references. Someone should either add references or delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.22.225.2 (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Presocratics: rediscovered in the Renaissance? I don't think so

According to Wikipedia's entry on Pre-Socratic Philosophy "While most of them produced significant texts, none of the texts have survived in complete form. All that is available are quotations by later philosophers and historians, and the occasional textual fragment." So, no. Their writings have never been rediscovered in the Renaissance or at any other time. Checking wiki could have averted this howler.Mballen (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Notable People section getting out of hand

Because there is already a list of humanists, I propose trimming the list in this article down to a few people who are notable for being secular humansts (is Joss Whedon famous for being a secular humanist, or for being the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly?) TechBear (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)