To some extent, available good words may be in short supply. "Humanianity" I think has established its place, judging from Google. However, "Humanian" seems to be being used within a popular cult fiction, so hopefully with time our more "real" use of the word will allow it to become recognized as a highly meaningful word, with ethical and inspirational implications.
I can think of no better terms to describe what we are about, and I look forward to the time when there will be world-wide recognition and understanding of them.
Bill Van Fleet
Humanian
"Humanianity" and "Humanian"
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm
-
- Newbie
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 8:36 pm
Re: "Humanianity" and "Humanian"
Paul Kurtz has coined the term "eupraxsophy" ( http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.ph ... kurtz_24_6 ) to denote the particular kind of philosophy which he advocates -- a strictly secular one, in which no positive interpretation of the word "religion" is welcome. He has thus distanced himself from the American Humanist Association, which is more tolerant of "religious" values.
I subscribe to the two main publications founded by Paul Kurtz, and while I find them quite helpful for polishing my critical thinking skills, I find his position towards "religion" to be a bit too inflexible for my taste.
Seems to me there's no harm in recognizing "religion" as long as personal religious beliefs voluntarily arrived at are ( as Humanianity has done ) carefully distinguished from beliefs which are imposed by organized religions driven by the desire of their self-appointed leaders for wealth and power.![Smiley :)](./images/smilies/smiley.gif)
I subscribe to the two main publications founded by Paul Kurtz, and while I find them quite helpful for polishing my critical thinking skills, I find his position towards "religion" to be a bit too inflexible for my taste.
Seems to me there's no harm in recognizing "religion" as long as personal religious beliefs voluntarily arrived at are ( as Humanianity has done ) carefully distinguished from beliefs which are imposed by organized religions driven by the desire of their self-appointed leaders for wealth and power.
![Smiley :)](./images/smilies/smiley.gif)
Last edited by DuckyM on Fri Aug 21, 2009 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Administrator
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:34 pm
Re:
A fundamental factor in the varying attitudes toward religion, I believe, is the definition.
Most people assume that religion consists of a set of beliefs that, at least to some extent, are either inconsistent with the findings of science or are at least not addressed by science. This places religion, or the religions, in the awkward position of seeming to be against science, and thus those who recognize the value of science are prone to be against religion.
I think that idea of religion is both limiting and inaccurate.
If we look at everything that has been called religion and ask what is the common denominator, the feature shared by all, I believe we will conclude that the most important and defining feature is that of helping us to decide how to live our lives. This is an ethical issue (what we should do) rather than an "existential" issue (how the world really is, was, and/or will be). The important output of a religion will be the behavior of its members. The existential beliefs of that religion are usually beliefs that support the ethical beliefs. We should sacrifice a virgin (ethical) because there is a god in the volcano (existential). We should be kind to one another (ethical) because there is a god that wants us to be kind to one another (existential).
Science has demonstrated its value because the beliefs produced by it allow us to predict with extreme accuracy, such that we can do all sorts of miraculous things, even including walking on the moon, with relative safety.
It is the self-preservative characteristic of belief systems that leads us to have as a part of our religions beliefs that are antiquated and at odds with science. What we need is for religions to adopt a self-improvement feature that will help those religions to be much more relevant to those of us who have formal education that enables us to become so effective within our world. We need to stop being paralyzed by our inability to agree, and that means an openness to change within our belief systems.
"Humanianity" is not a new religion, then, but that part of all religion that seeks to make this world a better place, through dedication to the REUEP. It can be called "a religion," but it does not stand off by itself as being against other religions. Instead, it is like a "holy spirit" within most all religions, or within most all individuals to some extent. "Humanianity" is that commitment to (individual, group, culture, species) self-improvement in behalf of us all.
Most people assume that religion consists of a set of beliefs that, at least to some extent, are either inconsistent with the findings of science or are at least not addressed by science. This places religion, or the religions, in the awkward position of seeming to be against science, and thus those who recognize the value of science are prone to be against religion.
I think that idea of religion is both limiting and inaccurate.
If we look at everything that has been called religion and ask what is the common denominator, the feature shared by all, I believe we will conclude that the most important and defining feature is that of helping us to decide how to live our lives. This is an ethical issue (what we should do) rather than an "existential" issue (how the world really is, was, and/or will be). The important output of a religion will be the behavior of its members. The existential beliefs of that religion are usually beliefs that support the ethical beliefs. We should sacrifice a virgin (ethical) because there is a god in the volcano (existential). We should be kind to one another (ethical) because there is a god that wants us to be kind to one another (existential).
Science has demonstrated its value because the beliefs produced by it allow us to predict with extreme accuracy, such that we can do all sorts of miraculous things, even including walking on the moon, with relative safety.
It is the self-preservative characteristic of belief systems that leads us to have as a part of our religions beliefs that are antiquated and at odds with science. What we need is for religions to adopt a self-improvement feature that will help those religions to be much more relevant to those of us who have formal education that enables us to become so effective within our world. We need to stop being paralyzed by our inability to agree, and that means an openness to change within our belief systems.
"Humanianity" is not a new religion, then, but that part of all religion that seeks to make this world a better place, through dedication to the REUEP. It can be called "a religion," but it does not stand off by itself as being against other religions. Instead, it is like a "holy spirit" within most all religions, or within most all individuals to some extent. "Humanianity" is that commitment to (individual, group, culture, species) self-improvement in behalf of us all.
Last edited by wvanfleet on Sat Aug 22, 2009 6:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.