Talk:Humanism/Archive 6

A modest question
Sands credentials seem a little thin to me. Kind or like quoting Linus Pauling on Vitamin C! Potentially this can cut two ways. If Sands credentials are thin, then critics of her pov can be used with similarly thin credentials. The flip side is that opposing editors may want to use such critics and therefore should defend Sands'! Just a thought. Student7 (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, are you talking about George Sand, by any chance? If you are, you should know that she is not the person referenced in the article. George Eliot is the one who became famous as a translator of German and then as a great English philosophical novelist.


 * Secondly, I think you were asked this before, just what exactly do you mean by "credentials" and "thin" especially when applied to historical and literary figures? Could you favor us with an explanation? Are you saying that she was unimportant? Because if you are, many people with genuine depth of knowledge of the period would strongly disagree with you.


 * Finally, when you say that you find George Eliot's "credentials" "thin", the fact that you appear unable to distinguish between George Eliot the English thinker and novelist and the prolific and brilliant French novelist George Sand, throws into some doubt the solidity and depth of your own knowledge and ability as a judge of these matters.Mballen (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Before she became a novelist, Mary Anne Evans served for two years as the editor of the influential publication, The Westminster Review (although she did this anonymously, as her employer, the publisher George Chapman wanted to take all the credit). Under her editorship the review "again became the important intellectual journal it had once been under former editor John Stuart Mill.. ." The translation of Strauss had also been issued anonymously -- this was one of the most influential religious publications of the century in the English speaking world. When people realized she had been the translator, Evans gained great respect. Later she translated Feuerbach as well. She wrote essays and knew socially and corresponded with all the leading intellectual figures of her day. To say she had no "credentials" is not accurate. She had been privately educated at great length and depth, which meant knowing and reading extensively Ancient Greek and Latin as well as the modern European languages, including German, with whose thinkers the general public in England was not yet conversant. Even before she began to write the great novels that brought her fame, she was definitely considered an intellectual heavyweight by her contemporaries.Mballen (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Victorian Overview


 * As David J. DeLaura and a number of other historians of Victorian intellectual life have pointed out, many Victorian atheists and agnostics abandoned Christianity for a particularly Victorian reason: They found it immoral!


 * "The loss of religious faith in such representative early Victorian agnostics as F. W. Newman (John Henry Newman's brother), J. A. Froude (brother of Newman's close friend, Hurrell Froude), and George Eliot was not due, in the first place, to the usually suggested reasons -- the rise of evolutionary theory in geology and biology and the Higher Criticism of the Bible. Indeed, in each life the dominant factor was a growing repugnance toward the ethical implications of what each had been taught to believe as essential Christianity -- especially the set of interrelated doctrines: Original Sin, Reprobation, Baptismal Regeneration, Vicarious Atonement, Eternal Punishment."
 * George MacDonald, for example, left his Congregationalist pulpit because he could not accept that God would damn for all eternity babies who had not been baptised before their death, and similar repugnance proved the straw that broke the camel's back for Ruskin. In St. Paul and Protestantism, Arnold "contemptuously rejects the 'monstrous' vision of a capricious God who deals in election andf predestination and cruelly emphasizes the crass commercial quality of the Puritan catchwords, "covenant," "ransom," "redeem," "purchase," bargain" [DeLaura, 13].
 * Suggested Readings


 * Altholz, Josef L. "The Warfare of Conscience with Theology." The Mind and Art of Victorian England. Ed. Josef L. Altholz. Minneapolis: U. of Minnesota P, 1976. 58-77.


 * DeLaura, David J. Hebrew and Hellene in Victorian England: Newman, Arnold, and Pater. Austin: U of Texas P, 1969.


 * Murphy, Howard R. "The Ethical Revolt against Christian Orthodoxy in Early Victorian England." American Historical Review 60 (July 1955): 800-17.Mballen (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also a major problem for others including Gerard Manley Hopkins who stayed, although in his case converting to Catholicism, where of course most of the doctines you list above are not held, though Original Sin (not really the issue?) and eternal damnation (much more so?) are. Johnbod (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Johnbod. Once again, I want to stress that in my post I didn't make myself entirely clear, my post above, starting at Victorian Overview, was taken in its entirety (except for the bolding of George Eliot's name) from the linked Victorian Web site, so it was not me who listed these points. In any case, it's an odd thing that George McDonald is listed here as a critic of Christianity -- he is now a big favorite of the Christian right, ironically enough. (I think he is great, so I am glad that at least someone is keeping his work in print. I had always heard, incidentally, that he was a minister who became disillusioned with Calvinism when a dear friend committed suicide, and McDonald realized he couldn't stomach the doctrine of eternal damnation for suicides). I am not an expert in these matters but I have the impression that Strauss and Feuerbach have pretty much now been absorbed into mainstream Christian theology as well, even though they were perceived as dangerously revolutionary in their day. However, my point in all this is to reaffirm that George Eliot definitely belongs in this history although perhaps some re-writing to emphasize the reasoning behind this is called for. I hope not: Perhaps adding some of the bibliography cited here will suffice. Incidentally, I am now working my way through a long article entitled "John Stuart Mill, Humanist" (that Matthew Arnold was a humanist is not in question). It is not surprising incidentally, given the intellectual prominence of Eliot/Evan and Martineau, that "women were admitted as full members of the British Religious Society," as the subsequent paragraph states.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mballen (talk • contribs) 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Awkward translation from Terence

 * "I am a man [i.e. human, not 'male'], I think nothing human alien to me"

I suggest "I am a human, I think nothing human alien to me". -Pgan002 (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Problem with that is it loses the distinction that the Latin language has between "homo" --"man" and "humanus"-- "pertaining to mankind".


 * Latin also has another word for man, "vir", which is more weighted to gender. "Puto"-- "I think", here also has the meaning of "consider". There are various ways to translate this, and over a millenia or more, probably most have been tried. It can be like a game (in the sense of classical humanism) to capture as many of the nuances with the most economy.


 * Perhaps: "I am a man and consider nothing pertaining to mankind alien to me." But that sort of loses the pithiness of the original. Roman society and early humanism itself were rather male-oriented so maybe it is not necessary to insist that the word "man" here is generic. St. Augustine, if I remember correctly, notes that in theaters this line always drew a standing ovation. (Anyway, it's a nice story).Mballen (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Capital H Humanism
My god the use of capital letters is incredibly confusing. Is there any possible way to devise a system of the usage of non-capital and Capital H humanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.173.189 (talk) 00:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Needs re-written in places, and the overall structure of this overview could be improved.
That said I don't think sweeping changes are a good idea, so please no-one delete the entire article!

As time permits I will try and make some changes here, but first my concerns with the article are as follows: There are parts that read like a tract for modern humanism rather than a summary of the viewpoints of humanists throughout history. For instance, saying "because traditional religion was failing to meet the needs of the day" is an assertion, it is not encyclopedic language.

The opening paragraph jumps right in at the 19th century with references to anti-clericalism, before any attempt to show the philosophy and it's historical progress from classical antiquity. Why is the explanation of umanista not included in the opening paragraph?

After the introductory paragraph, the article starts with a section called Religion, but the content of that is merely the views of 20th century humanists toward the state of religion at that time, with references to the Humanist Manifesto. This is no place to begin, and most of this section should be placed in the sub-section on 19th-20th century humanism. Most references to the humanist manifestos would be better contexted within the 19/20th century section as far as possible.

A summary section on religious humanism (not humanism as a religion or as an alternative to religion), as the side box specifically lists Christian, Jewish and Buddhist humanism, with revelant links needs to be included in the main body of the overview. Christian humanism (Northern Renaissance Humanism) is too significant to ignore, and there is already an article on wikipedia. It needs to be linked to from this overview. Also as far as current wikipedia articles permit this section should also reference Jewish and Buddhist humanism.

In my view this article needs to begin with an historical overview, moving from past to present, much of that is already in the article. DMSBel (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have made minor changes to the order of the overview. The opening sections Religion, Knowledge and Optimism have been moved to sub-sections within 19th/20th Century as they invariably were refering to humanists from this period. I have not otherwise changed them except that Religion I changed to Attitudes to religion which better sums up what the section is actually about.DMSBel (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That there were two links in the contents box pointing to Humanist manifestos was making the article look suspiciously like a promotion of humanist views (or perhaps someone had not noticed the other link) - I removed these and moved the links to the various manifestos to the 19th/20 century section - the era in which they were drafted. I added a single link as a sub-section within this.DMSBel (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are correct, and the reason for what you were seeing is that for several years there was very strong resistance on the part of at least one (maybe two) editors to any admission that humanism used to be considered complementary and not opposed to conventional religion (and still is in many quarters). There was even an edit war about this and a dispute resolution. The upshot was that this innocuous historical fact was omitted from the intro (having been inserted and deleted many times in many different wordings). The Renaissance section became very detailed in order to provide reliable sources to prove that this was indeed so -- which the aforementioned editors refused to believe! I still see a need for very short sections on Greek and Roman humanism, medieval humanism, and seventeenth century humanism (and I mean very short). For my part I have not given up, but have moved on to other things for the time being. I agree about removing the advert for the modern sect. Mballen (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I realise from your explanation that by being fairly new here there has been a lot of discussion that I have missed, so I apologise for raising issues that most likely have been thorougly discussed. Please take my comments not as criticism of the overview as a whole but only small sections of it. I gather that there are wikipedians with a better grasp of this subject than myself currently seeking to improve it. It is a very interesting subject. It seems clear to me that modern secular humanism is of a different character from renaissance humanism which was not an "organised movement" in the way that modern secular humanism is. Such organisation it seems to me is very much a modern trait. I cannot imagine there being a string of Renaissance Humanist organisations like we have today within secular humanism. To organise like this as associations etc., with declarations, manifestos etc. doesn't seem to me to have been even conceivable for people of that time. Ideas were not propagated in the same way as today, rather people travelled (without planes, trains etc.) to Rome for instance and spent time studying and measuring the classical architecture. No doubt it did not happen in isolation, but neither did it give rise to "organisations" 82.18.164.15 (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is so true. The humanists did travel and they would be sure to find a welcome shelter among other humanists, both Anthony Grafton (in Bring Out Your Dead: The Past as a Revelation, about the survival of humanism after the Renaissance) and Tony Davies, in his brief handbook Humanism The New Critical Idiom, emphasize this. Also they (humanist scholars) had a belief in friendship derived from Cicero (and to a lesser extent from Plato's Symposium, according to Davies), which meant that humanist scholars were supposed to treat courteously and extend a hearing and assistance even to people with whom they disagreed (this was in the seventeenth century) even going so far as to extend hospitality to those of different religions during the period of the most dreadful religious wars. Grafton says that they thus laid down the groundwork for the urbane and cosmopolitan tone of the 18th century "Republic of Letters" (a "modern phenomenon with an ancient history" as wikipedia calls it) of the printed word of literary magazines and revues in which this ethic was (and still is in some quarters, such as, say, wikipedia) supposed to obtain. Modern humanism derives more or less directly from this Enlightenment movement. And the Republic of Letters is one of the key links (as is Castiglione's extremely influential The Book of the Courtier). (In this respect, modern humanism appears at least to me, to have markedly degenerated).Mballen (talk)

Should parts of the section on renaissance humanism be moved to that page?
This is a very well written section, and in considerable detail. Great work on the principle of ad fontes. I think it would be better incorporated into the page for Renaissance humanism, as it seems to me to be too detailed for an overview, but the linked to page is in need of this sort of explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok. From MBallen's comment above I now understand the reason for the degree of detail here.82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Inclusive humanism? What is this about?
This section does not read easily. I also feel when I read it that someone is trying to promote an ideological position in this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC) My apologies, I deleted this prematurely, and was about to undo that. I cannot see how this fits into other forms of humanism though as it does not describe any particular form and it really does not make much sense to me. It is not encyclopedic in tone to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at one site which describes "inclusive humanism" it seems to be more a discussion of strategy or a debate taking place amongst some humanists and as such I don't quite see it as being another form. The main participants in the discussion are Dwight Gilbert Jones (whose site I visited) and Vir Narain. I have not read a great deal but it is concerned to maintain a critical distance from what is being termed the New Atheism - that being the more strident atheism most commonly associated with Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and others. While seeking to remain at a distance from strident anti-religious sentiments it seems to be espousing a humanism more or less the same as 20th century secular humanists. While distancing itself from "anti-theism" it still aligns with naturalism. Basically it seems to be as "non-supernatural" as secular humanism has always been, but seeking to be as tolerant as the early humanists. Basically I understand it to be non-theistic (in any commonly understood sense of theism), non-supernatural, but less stridently so than the New Atheists.

There is also Christologically Inclusive Humanism, which draws upon the theology of Karl Barth. http://eric.exeter.ac.uk/exeter/handle/10036/52454 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My attempt to improve this section, towards a neutral point of view, was reverted. That I can accept as I am not the only person working on this page. However I wish to make it clear that it was not vandalism.

''Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism''

The re-write I submitted is meant to summarise this position with reference to how it has emerged as an attempt to maintain distance from a more strident atheism. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Educational Humanism
Educational humanism

Humanism, as a current in education, began to dominate U.S. school systems in the 17th century. It held that the studies that develop human intellect are those that make humans "most truly human". The practical basis for this was faculty psychology, or the belief in distinct intellectual faculties, such as the analytical, the mathematical, the linguistic, etc. Strengthening one faculty was believed to benefit other faculties as well (transfer of training). A key player in the late 19th-century educational humanism was U.S. Commissioner of Education William Torrey Harris, whose "Five Windows of the Soul" (mathematics, geography, history, grammar, and literature/art) were believed especially appropriate for "development of the faculties". Educational humanists believe that "the best studies, for the best kids" are "the best studies" for all kids.[citation needed]

The above is absurd since there were no U.S. school systems in the 17th century. Because: A) there was no US (which was a colony of Great Britain), B) there were no school systems, and C) humanism was itself an educational movement, which the puritans of the seventeenth century endorsed (as did the Catholics and everyone else by then). Possibly reference is being made here to Czech educator and cleric John Amos Comenius (1592–1670), who advocated universal education and who, according to the puritan preacher Cotton Mather, was offered the Presidency of Harvard College, at the time a religious institution whose purpose was to prepare clergymen, but declined it.Mballen (talk) 14:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest it might be better to have a section "In Education" - I agree that the first sentence needs changing on the grounds of (A) & (B) as it stands it is simply incorrect - thanks for pointing this out. "Educational Humanism" - I think this term is an awkward one and likely to be misunderstood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Human, Humane, Human being, Humanity, Humanist, Humanism
I submit that the last two words can be defined broadly or narrowly. Being human does not entail rejecting supernaturalism, or theism, neither does being humane. This is self-evident because people who hold to belief in the supernatural are human beings. Being a humanist broadly means having a concern for humanity or other human beings, whether that concern is or is not coupled with belief in God, gods, angels, demons, aliens from other planets (what would they be, assuming for a moment they exist - martianists?) Sorry getting off topic there. In its broadest sense "humanist" defines an attitude which need not be necessarily anti-religious or anti-supernatural. For some religious faith is a completion of their humanness - they regard themselves more fully human through an acceptance of their creaturehood and acknowledgement of their Creator. More narrowly understood to be a humanist is to accept a creed which is exclusively naturalistic. I submit it is also possible for a humanist creed to be metaphysically neutral or free from metaphysical constraints in that it could uphold human ideals without explicitly rejecting supernaturalism. Many issues that concern humanists - for instance militarism, also concern people of faith. I reject the notion that by being human I am de facto a humanist, even as those who accept the historical personage of Jesus (as Neitzsche did) are not de facto christians.

Can someone clarify for me if the Linda Smith who died in 2006, who was a former president of the British Humanist Association, is the same Linda Smith who with William Raeper authored Brief Guide to Ideas? 82.18.164.15 (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Its ok, seems to be a different Linda82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was Linda Smith (comedian). Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is true. However, there is disagreement on this point. It used to be that humanism was concerned with living in this world, but did not preclude being religious, as you say. On the contrary. And many, if not most, religious people view it that way, I daresay. But there are those calling themselves humanists today who flatly and vociferously hold that you cannot have any belief in the supernatural and call yourself a humanist. Nevertheless they are still concerned with the problem of leading an ethical life -- and of balancing an ethical life with the acquisition of scientific knowledge, seen as a component of fulfilling human potential. (There also seem to be a lot of secular humanists who want to distance themselves from the more militant atheistic fringe.) Then there are the anti-humanists, who argue that humanism is by definition exclusionary in that it inevitably defines some humans as more human than others (such as men vs. women, Greeks versus Barbarians, Free men versus slaves, Europeans versus Arabs, and so forth) and/or shortchanges the claims of animals with whom we share the planet and the need to maintain the integrity and diversity of the environment. This point of view deserves a hearing as well, you know, whether or not one agrees with it. We may think we are more inclusive than in the past, but the historical record says that our predecessors were persistently deluded in this regard, and we may be as well. An ideal article ought to at least give these objections a nod, IMO.Mballen (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I had overlooked that there is a critique of renaissance and enlightenment humanism from anti-humanists - that is an area I don't really understand - postmodern? critiques are not an area I feel confident enough to venture into, as my intellectual moorings may not be able to stand up to the pounding, and quite simply some of this stuff borders on obscure. It probably should as you say be summarised briefly but I think someone already familiar with the territory needs to do that.82.18.164.15 (talk) 00:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Mballen wrote - There also seem to be a lot of secular humanists who want to distance themselves from the more militant atheistic fringe. Yes that seems to be the "inclusive humanism" mentioned in the article. The difficulty with summarising these positions is the semantics involved in their repositioning. For instance inclusive humanism as I understand it is still secular, but they don't wish to be associated with "anti-theism", so they have had to define a kind of theism that is compatible in order to distance themselves from militant atheism.

As declared in the Manifesto of the Indian Humanist Union in 1966, “Belief in an anthropomorphic God, who listens to prayers, grants boons and gives rewards and punishments; and belief in revelation, prophets and incarnations are inconsistent with the Humanist outlook. Theism not accompanied by such beliefs, as well as atheism and agnosticism, are consistent with Humanism.

Their compatiblist "theism" is not theism as I recognise it and seems to be defined by what it is not rather than what it is, and when they have excluded pretty much everything that a theist as commonly understood would believe, I am not sure how what is left can be called theism. It therefore seems to me this attempt to be more "inclusive" is manoveuring and semantics. The only significant difference perhaps from secular humanism in the past is greater emphasis in inclusive humanism on what they refer to as "species governance" - and this from their website they see as only possible through a one world parliament. This is clearly a controversial subject. While this can be explained the section on Inclusive Humanism should not read like an apologetic for this goal. For this reason I believe this section needs re-written, with a NPOV.82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it seems simple enough to me. They do not believe in a personal god. Neither do Buddhists, as I understand it. But to those who do believe in a personal god, I guess it seems like not believing in any god at all. Deists don't believe in a personal God -- except for Rousseau, who did maybe, well, he believed in a merciful god who was impersonal (??) I don't really know. We are getting into deep waters here.Mballen (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In reference to the poster 82.18.164.15 above who mentioned critiques of humanism -- Tony Davies devotes a lot of space to this in his book Humanism a new critical Idiom and he has a bibliography as well, so we don't have to write about this at length (thank heavens). To simplify horribly -- apparently some self-described "anti-humanists" criticize humanism from the point of view that it falls short of humanistic ideals (Lyotard and Foucault) and can be thus be called humanist anti-humanists; others (such as Ezra Pound, T.E. Hulme and T.S. Elliot) considered humanism to be "sentimental slop" or overly feminine (Pound) and wanted to go back to a more authoritarian society such as applied in the Middle Ages (they believed). Others, like Heidigger considered themselves humanists like the ancient Greeks, but thought humanism applied only to the German "race" and specifically to the Nazis (and thus, in Davies' words, were anti-humanist humanists).Mballen (talk)

Description
The description page references the OED, but the words are changed to such a degree that the meaning appears not NPOV. I have instead quoted the OED directly and kept the reference. Honeyspider ej (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Honeyspider edited the opening to read:


 * Humanism is a rationalistic outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Although the word has many senses, its current philosophical meaning comes into focus when contrasted to the supernatural or to appeals to higher authority


 * This is still POV and misleading: Christian humanism does not fail to attach prime importance to the divine. Honeyspider's opening might imply to some readers that it does. Ancient Greek humanism did not fail to make an important point of respecting the ultimacy of the divine.  The breadth of usage of the word humanism should therefore be suggested in the opening.   Secondly, the compact OED is the reference, but even this gives another meaning to humanism that is not necessarily less important or widespread than the first.  If the article were appropriately titled Humanism (Philosophy), this would not be such a problem. Wilson Delgado (talk) 07:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ancient Greek humanism attached importance to the divine, but the divine was identified with permanence and harmony, which were thought to be aspects nature and reason, and apprehensible through mathematics. In should be kept in mind, however, that the classical Greek conception of mathematics was very very different than our modern one (according to Cornford and J.P. Vernant). For them it meant not calculation of the forces of motion, or of the infinite, but geometry and proportion -- permanence and harmony. This conception of mathematics endured through the Renaissance until the discoveries of Descartes, Pascal, and Newton in the 17th c. Proportion for the Classical Greeks also meant adherence to the mean -- doing nothing in excess and not standing out from the crowd in any way. Not heroic defiance or frenzy, but submission and conformity. The Roman and Italian ideal was somewhat different (and the Christian and Jewish more different still.) In the high Renaissance, Raphael in the Stanze in the Vatican in Rome, portrayed Pythagoras as a geometer -- and his portrait of the ancient Greek mathematician Pythagoras is a likeness of the contemporary architect Bramante, designer of St. Peters, whom Raphael shows kneeling on the ground, using a compass (God is also often depicted as a geometer Renaissance iconography). The Greeks took religion and politics out of the enclosed, hierarchical, and secret precincts of the royal courts and inner sanctum of the temple into the public square, where they could be discussed publicly. Raphael's painting of the mystery of the Eucharist shows an open-ended discussion, not a dogmatic pronouncement from on high. (Discussion among equals epitomizes humanism.) The Stanze has a wall depicting the Biblical and Church fathers and another, facing wall depicting the philosophers of classical antiquity. The two facing walls are totally complementary and mirror that harmonious balance between reason and divine revelation, which was the Renaissance ideal.Mballen (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is to say that the "two facing walls are totally complementary and mirror that harmonious balance between reason and the divine revelation?" merely because they are Raphael's conception of it? Perhaps the balance is not a harmonious one but an antagonistic one. Reason works from the ground up; revelation from the ethereal into substantive. They are philosophically opposed, not in agreement. Humanism is naturalistic; religion spiritualistic. Where is the compromise? Certainly not within the realm of humanism.

Humanism may imply a morality but that does not make it a religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.115.95.151 (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Who is to say? You may say they are opposed. I may say they are antagonistic. But we are not talking in the article about how you or I or any modern person think reason or revelation work (if they think about it at all), but about how historians believe that people in the Renaissance and Antiquity thought they worked. And it is highly unlikely (to say the least) that the Pope who commissioned the Stanze of the Vatican, or Raphael, the artist who painted them, would have agreed with us and thought they were opposed. We can determine this through reading evidence from contemporary writings of the period, which are abundant. It is an outside possibility that Raphael and the Pope were sending a message that was "opposite" of what contemporary theologians and thousands of years of history had asserted. But the probabilities are against it. The historical and iconographic evidence points overwhelmingly to the fact that during the Renaissance humane letters (including science and mathematics) and theology were felt to be different but not incompatible spheres. This is not even a matter of controversy, but constitutes common knowledge, as anyone who consults the references listed in the bibliography of this article will quickly discover. As for the primary sources, there are thousands and thousands of books from this period, some of which are finally being printed in readable modern editions with English translation by the Harvard University Press and others.


 * As for whether humanism is a religion. All one can honestly say is that some people believe it to be one and others do not and attempt to explain why. (What you or I think doesn't really enter into the matter).Mballen (talk) 20:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Opposites of humanism?
Humanism says "man is good." So what -ism says "man is bad" ? Antihumanism doesn't seem to. Not really. There's something that unites Hypercalvinists, radical environmentalists and the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement in their view that humans are fundamentally bad. Then, of course, there is the more moderate view that unites other religions and environmental movements in their view that man has gone very off track but isn't fundamentally bad, which still are opposed to humanism but aren't as radical. What could be said to unite these movements and their different levels? --134.193.112.148 (talk) 06:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that humanism says that man is good (only that man is central) Do you have citations to back this up? "Not fundamentally bad" or "capable of improvement" is more like it. I don't know anything about the movements of which you speak, but I imagine that extreme Calvinists (or Lutherans) would say that man can only attain goodness by virtue of the grace of God. Obviously, humanists, especially "non-theists" would say that goodness (or betterment) is attainable through unaided human effort. The Renaissance humanists thought that the practice of the four Cardinal virtues (courage, prudence, justice, and temperance) could lead to the road to salvation, but was not sufficient in itself. For that, the addition of the three theological virtues (faith, hope, and Charity) was needed for the acqusition of God's grace. According to Charles Trinkhaus, some of the more acute and original humanists, such as Lorenzo Valla, thought that all the other virtues proceeded from and were aspects of Charity (love).


 * Antihumanism, as I understand it, would say that man is unimportant, and more important are the impersonal forces of history, evolution, progress, or destiny. In this schema questions of goodness or badness fade into insignificance.Mballen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC). Mballen (talk)

Thomas Paine as a "Founding Father"

 * While Thomas Paine can certainly can be considered a Founding Father it probably isn't the most apt short description of him for the purposes of this article. I think something like revolutionary firebrand, or, if something more sedate is preferred, essayist and pamphleteer, would be better. Badmintonhist (talk) 19:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You may be right, but he is described as a "founding father" in his entry in wikipedia, and the epithet is supported with two footnoted citations. Maybe we can figure out another way of saying it such as "key figure" in the American Revolution or some such.Mballen (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC).