Talk:Humanism/Archive 2

Criticism

I noticed that this page doesnt seem to contain a criticism section. I think the post-humanist arguments deserve some space here.(Heidegger, Sloterdijk?) I'm not familiar enough with this terrain to write it myself so I leave it as a suggestion.

Humanism in a historical perspective

Section title created on 21 Aug2006 to hold related comments as subsections.

Humanism's genesis

0riginally a section rather uninformatively titled 'Humanism'

The genesis of Humanism lay in the belief among 14/15c scholars that true worth was to be found in the "litterae humaniores" of ancient Rome, and in the study of Latin, NOT Greek, as is stated here. (Interest in Greek was re-awakened later.) The heroes of the early Humanist thinkers were the Roman sages Cicero, Livy, Tacitus and Seneca, among many others. — 202.156.2.58 6 Apr2005 (was unsigned, undated)

Two historical points and One on relevance of historical humanism today

Originally a section created at top of this talk page.

I agree about the article not being clear, but from the completely opposite viewpoint (than those described below [note by refactorer: assumedly then 2 sections lower by Upfront 2 Jul2005, now in archive]). I seem to agree with Buridan [who made many comments now in archive]. I have two main points: (1) history of humanism, especially 13-15th c, is missing. (2) the roots of christian european humanism in arab humanism (known as 'Adab' - Humanism) ie writing in arabic (by christian, muslim and jewish writers) of the 9th to 13th c. is also missing.

The first problem is straight forward and can be solved through input from a historian of the medieval-renaissance europe intellectual history. Historians who have written on this include paul kristellar, cassirer, donald kelley, many others.

The second problem can be solved by historians of muslim intellectual history especially covering the arab-muslim-christian-jewish interactions in byzantium (damscus, aleppo), baghdad, codoba, sicily and other mediteranean states. These would include historians such as W. Montgomery Watt 'The Influence of Islam on Medieval Europe' (Edinburgh: University Press, 1972), George Makdisi, 'The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West' (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981), and The Rise of Humanism in Classical Islam and the Christian West' (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990), and Franz Rosenthal 'The Classical Heritage in Islam, Emile and Jenny Marmorstein, trans. (New York: Routledge, 1992).

If we look at the history of humanism (and also the history of philosophy) we will see that religion and humanism have (often) been hand in hand. Some try to separate them. Modern 'notions' of 'humanism' always being 'secular' or 'nonreligious' are erroneous if they try to cover all historical humanism in their generalization. The same can be demonstrated in philosophy.

I would refer to christian humanists of the thirteenth to fifteenth century and arab humanists of ninth to thirteenth century (rouphly) in support of this. [Note: The history of humanism in Wikipedia, besides the inadequate 'Renaissance' entry, is totally missing. Hence, I argue, all the confusion.] Among pre-Renaissance figures are Marsilio Ficino, Pico Mirandolla, another Pico and precursors include dante and boccacio. Key texts are 'Orations on the Dignity of Man' and others. Many of these entries are here on Wikipedia, and quite adequate, if possibly neglecting point No.2, which Makdisi or example brings out - concerning 'adab' humanism taught as a subject in the muslim colleges such as in baghdad 12th c.

If we trace Dantes inluences (in Wikipedia), we go back to the 'Sicillian school' and the court of 'Frederik II of Sicily'. If we look at influences, later adventures and the early life of Frdederik II (for example thru Wikipedia) we will easily see the influence of arab culture. This is one line of capturing the interaction of the many local flavors with the 'inspired' (later 'enlightened') cultural influences of the muslim, jewish and christian arabs, already floating around the mediterranean for awhile.

responding to another point: I think the comparison of the renaissance with our times is incisively relevant because of the play between technological development and the human spirit. I think we would be cutting our roots off thinking what we have, happened out of the blue. We have everything to learn, especially from humanism, as we move in a post-human society like the modern industrial economies.

Best. i am not a historian but how can i be of help. Ibn-arabi 15:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

More on History

Originally a section created at top of this talk page, following the bad example by Ibn-arabi 3 Jan2006.

I basically agree with Ibn-arabi here. Without a discussion of Erasmus (Thomas More etc.) and the reformation of the catholic church this section seems very incomplete and distorted. A lot of the key information is already in Wikipedia elsewhere and just needs cross-linking. Secular humanism has co-opted the term humanism but in no way eclipsed its original meaning and what is a critical piece of christian history as the article currently appears to imply. Interestingly, I have a 20 year old copy of encyclopaedia brittanica which by comparison fails to mention secular humanism at all, but devotes over 5 pages to Erasmus and the shift in catholic philosophy from a fatalistic to a humanist one. A change which almost certainly had wider support and a greater impact on western civilization that the advent of secular humanism has yet to muster. — 84.92.123.69 12 Jan2006 (was unsigned, undated)

Other influences on modern Humanism

Originally a section, moved here as subsection on 21 Aug2006.

The article is good - much better than it was a year ago.

It's fair to say that the European Renaissance was a critical period in the development of ideas that eventually gave rise to modern Humanism. I feel however that the article needs to say more about other influences on modern Humanism in the description of its History. It is not an entirely western way of thinking. Many modern Humanists I know, including myself, have been and continue to be, inspired by the philosophical ideas of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, for example. It can be argued that European philosophers like Nietzsche (who has been an inspiration for many Humanists) was influenced by eastern ideas through Schopenhauer who had studied Buddhism (albeit with poor translations). The influence of Arab thinkers on the renaissance needs to be stated more explicitly.

It's important to make it clear that Humanism is not only product of Western culture. Paul B. 17 Jan2006 (signed as shown, IP id other contributions; undated)

As currently written, the introduction to this topic is biased and definitely not NPOV. I agree with other commenters that the historical development of humanism needs to be expanded significantly. I am new to (contributing to) Wikipedia, so I don't want to jump in and make sweeping changes without hearing feedback from others. --64.81.240.233 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting critique, 64.81.240.233. Try out some of your ideas here on the talk page, and see what folks say. I for one am interested in more details of historical development of humanism. Welcome to world of writing/editing on Wikipedia! --Dialecticas 00:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Allow my asking to put one more ":" in front of a comment than you find in the comment above in the same section, that causes an extra indent (Wiki-style on talk pages to make it easier to follow a discussion; I just put a ":" in front of your paragraph) [and use the 'Show preview' to inspect the effect before the 'Save page']. The current intro seems unbiased and NPOV to me: it describes 'humanism'. If this may seem a horrible kind of thinking to you, you are not going to be a humanist; if it seems a marvellous too-good-to-be-true presentation, you already are one. You should not be afraid to make sweeping changes, provided that these are well sourced (also read this proposal), NPOV and generally try to follow Wikipedia guidelines, without wiping content that meets those standards: your changes can and will be reverted or modified by others if needed (but do not get offended or too much disappointed then, new users learn by try-and-error). Perhaps bear in mind that this article has been modified numerous times to come to its present state and there have been many controversies (there is also an archive of earlier talks, see top of this talk page), thus it may be unlikely that sweeping changes will remain undisputed. If unsure, you might declare on the talk page more precisely what modifications you have in mind, and await reactions before applying those. One more tip: Most contributors to Wikipedia are inclined to assume inexperienced or even malicious edits from users identified by their IP-address; your edits may be taken more seriously if you create a user account with some nickname, especially when editing controversial or often vandalized articles. Please do not let this stop you, we surely can use all the help that comes available. Good luck. — SomeHuman 3 Jan2007 01:06 (UTC)

Speciesism

I was thinking of replacing the section on speciesism with the following:

---Humanism and anthropocentrism ---

A distinction is often made between philosophies such as humanism, that recognize and exalt the value of what can be seen as specifically human traits, and related philosophies such as anthropocentrism and human exceptionalism, which hold that humans because of this have a status and rights which no other creature may have. Some have interpreted humanism as a form of speciesism (similar to racism), often because of the word itself.

Proponents of the latter philosophies tend towards a view that, because other species are not human, therefore they de facto have none of the rights we classify under human rights and should not be considered capable of personhood. Humanists tend to differ from this view and hold that whilst humans should aspire to be the best that humans can be, this does not exclude respect for, and valuing of, other species and other animal's world-view as well. For these reasons, humanism appears to be neutral with regard to issues of animal rights.

Comments? FT2 (Talk) 10:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It sounds better than what is in the article at present, however this could turn into a very controversial section. I think your edits are a good start in the right direction. —Viriditas | Talk 10:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that humanism has nothing to do with putting humans first or knocking non-human animals. This is, at best, a misconception, and the suggested edit only furthers the misconception. Alienus 17:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet, the editor appears to address that very point. The content appears to be drawn from the humanist literature. I don't see the problem. —Viriditas | Talk 22:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

At the cost of adding lots of words that don't improve the article and make it less clear whether humanism means hating non-humans. It's not a positive change. Alienus 22:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we are reading the same section or there is some difficulty communicating, as we appear to be speaking past each other. —Viriditas | Talk 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a basic disagreement on either "What is humanism" or "How do humanists see non humans or non human animals". Maybe answering how you see those would help clarify the difference and allow a better article?FT2 (Talk) 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue on speciesism is a very valid negative view on humanism that is completely ommited in the current article. There is a whole literature on this, and many contemporary philosophers (including Derrida) use the word meaning exactly that. This is not simply a mis-understanding. --132.239.66.166 19:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Tech: template errors

I'm getting this ugly error smack dab on the top of the article:

Error creating thumbnail: convert: unable to open image `/mnt/upload3/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Humanism.png': No such file or directory. convert: unable to open file `/mnt/upload3/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Humanism.png'. convert: missing an image filename `/mnt/upload3/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cd/Humanism.png/50px-Humanism.png'.

I tried to figure it out but can't... somebody who knows how please fix --Davidkazuhiro 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no such error in either Firefox or IE. Perhaps it was just a temporary problem on the Wikipedia servers? -Rhwentworth 01:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes the problem seems to be gone from this article but it still pops up on the other humanism articles. Have you tried checking the others? Use Firefox, IE and Maxthon and the same problem persists for all. Most likely server problem but its lasted for a while now. Its just weird how the same template is fine on some articles but screws up on others. Please check the other Humanism articles and see for yourself. I just did so myself --Davidkazuhiro 05:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Tech: deletion/copyvio

just had to delete the page because an anon inserted copyrighted info. should be back in ten minutes or so, sorry for the delay . . . --heah 01:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

okay it's back . . . seems like there must be an easier way to do this than having to click on 850 different reversions to restore them, when only 3 were being left out . . . But as far as i know there isn't. --heah 01:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I Have No Idea I have no idea what i am saying. I just want to holla to all the people from grand old NJ. So hollaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! User_talk:Chris gonzalez

Style: vagueness, "parochial"

The opening section talks about universal morality and something about problems being parochial. This gets redirected to "parish", so my first thought is that humanists advocate a world state, which is surely wrong. So what does this sentence mean? Bob A 04:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not very family with Humanism but something is telling me this article is propaganda and misleading. It is very vague. --HResearcher 09:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The link for the word parochial near the beginning refers to the parish article, whereas I think it should refer to the parochialism article. How is this changed? Azlib77 20 Aug2006

Fixed. To see how it's done, look at the page in edit mode. —Viriditas | Talk 23:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'parish' link under "parochial" was highly inappropriate, the one Viriditas put there is the right one. Though I think that article emphasises too much on governments. In this context the term has similar but more general meaning. Like in countries where every village and every part of town has a parish ([Late] Latin: parochia) with typically locally organized circles, events, etc: focused on the local scale (thus within a particular point of view), having (too) little contact with and thus interest for and knowledge about the universal scale (like the parish belonging to a much larger Church that mainly has more, other, and perhaps more important things in mind). "Parochial" is a rather polite adjective to point out showing an interest only in the close (at heart) aspects of what is mainly a much broader subject. — SomeHuman 21 Aug2006 01:27 (UTC)

Upon incidentally finding other articles where 'parochial' has its original and evident meaning of relating to a parish, whereas I now found 'Parochial' to redirect towards 'Parochialism', I made 'Parochial' a disambiguation page. — SomeHuman 13 Jan2007 18:57 (UTC)

First four sections

Why are the first four sections === sections? I suspect that these were intended for later in the article moved up by a junk edit, and never moved back. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Did a search and it seems a vandal's error was not corrected properly back in March 28, 2006. Now inserted. statsone 06:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

humanism as a morality

Humanism is not a morality in itself, it is mostly the philosophy of human personal development and not about universal human values. That should be mentioned. — 217.211.36.143 (talk•contribs) 26 Nov2006 (was unsigned, undated)

I'm not sure all humanists would agree. What is your justification / citation for this statement? Abtract 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just becouse all humanists doesn't agree then it is not in itself an morality. My justification is the longer text below. It is based on my history lessions.

'humanism

In my opinion humanism is the idea that human beings are in the centrum of the universe and have connection throught the mind to the objective reality or through some religious connection with higher powers.

That is how classical greek humanistic philosophy is. The greek human being becouse of his mind and or religion is in the centrum of the universe. With his knowlegde,education or gnosis he can develop to a better person. Some greek philopshies point out the purpose with humanism should be to become a god. In Shinto and Slavic peganism elements are supposed to focus in the human creature and appoint us a central role in the universe.

Nihilists, liberals, gnostics and Satanists all refer to humanism. Likewise did the Rosencrussians and so do the freemansons. Greek ortodox heresy have a unique christian humanism that defines salvation to be antrophosis. Occult ideas about alchemy wasn't about making gold but a philosophy about the elements in the body and how they focused in the soul. The purpose develop as moral human being and transform the soul. Therefore it was a form of humanism.

Antique humanism and japanese humanism is not elilitarian and elitist idealogies about the superhuman are humanistic as well. Look at those cultures and compare them to humanism. They are cultures or philosophies that put man in centre of the universe and attribute the reason to the human mind or the human soul. The philosophical elements are used in all tree cultures to explain this.

Egalitarianism is the opposite to humanism which is a form of indivualism.

Humanist philosophy took an elitist form in antique Greece and in the humanistism of the freemansons. Various elitist philosophies are based on humanism. The modern secular educational system is humanistic becouse it is has orgins in the humanistic idealogy.

Personal human development means that people are not equal.

Objective human values would declare human beings incapable of personal development and incapable of free will. Objective values exist becouse society belief in that people need to be guided.

You should mention humanism in alchemic thought and occult philosphies as well the connection with elemental worship in shinto, slavic peganism and classical greek philosophy .

This article idealise humanism and is partial.

Humanism predates morality as we see morality today.

Antique classical humanism and bourgoise humanism where not of a moral nature either.

— 217.211.36.143 (talk•contribs) 26 Nov2006 (was unsigned, undated)

What little I understood of that seems incorrect (I think). If you intend to make any edits I suggest you become clear about your sources so that you can cite them when you edit ... school lessons is unfortunately not a sufficient citation. It would be helpful if you opened a wikipedia account and signed your comments and edits with 4 tildes. Abtract 19:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [Abtract responded while the above was THIS before it became re-edited by 217.211.36.143 who at the same time continued hereunder:]

What did you not understand? I intend to follow you advice later. Do you not agree that there is a connection between the philosophy of elemental forces and humanism? In alchemy the human soul and the human being is the centre of the elements. The philosophy of the macrocosm(greek for big "order" and worldorder, the objective universe) and the microcosm(greek for little order or smal world order, the human mind) also refers to the qualities of the human being that makes us the centre of the universe. The human mind is seen as a little world within the individual person that makes humanity the centre. — 217.211.36.143 (talk•contribs) 26 Nov2006 (was unsigned, undated)

Oh dear ... I can only repeat my previous remarks: What little I understood of that seems incorrect (I think). If you intend to make any edits I suggest you become clear about your sources so that you can cite them when you edit ... school lessons is unfortunately not a sufficient citation. It would be helpful if you opened a wikipedia account and signed your comments and edits with 4 tildes. Abtract 13:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

grammer/usage ?

"...the existence of a supernatural." I think, "a supernatural (adjective) what?". Is that correct usage, or should it be "...the supernatural"? — Długosz (talk•contribs) 13 Dec2006 (was unsigned, undated)

Dont't know about that but try learning to spell before you go on to winge about "grammer"--62.249.233.80 18:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this link proper?

A compromise, that suggests how secular and religious humanism might be unified, is outlined in a Four Part Wikibook, see Thinking and Moral Problems, Religions and Their Source, Purpose, and Developing A Universal Religion.

It bothers me that these links sort of redirect the encyclopedic content to an outside work, implictly being as authorative as a "main article" type link. — Długosz (talk•contribs) 13 Dec2006 (was signed, but undated)

Marxist Humanism

Radical "left" humanism, such as Marxist Humanism, merits inclusion in the Humanism template. It is secular, so maybe it could be included there? Could we create a new category, such as political or radical humanism? Marx, in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (called by some his "Humanist Essays"), famously labeled his philosophy from the outset a "thoroughgoing Naturalism, or Humanism." Any objections? --Dialecticas 21:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No new category. Whatever one's opinion on political conclusions based on Carl Marx' economical views, the humanism based on Marx' philosophical views is not particularly radical compared to several or even most other strains of humanism — though of course political systems may have promoted his humanist ideas in a radical left way. And it should be Marxist humanism, small "h". Indeed it might seem to belong under 'Secular humanism' in the template, but that would require the other specific strains to be put either there or under 'Religious humanism'; its present mentioning under 'Related articles' is probably more appropriate: the controversies about humanism being 'religious' or 'secular' are mainly a contemporary issue, which was given far less notable weight by those creating these strains of humanism or by the earlier historical discussions of these. — SomeHuman 13 Jan2007 19:23-19:42 (UTC)

Integration of Humanism and Faith

There is a big problem with the opening's statement: "In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on faith, the supernatural, or divinely revealed texts." If this were true, humanism could not be integrated with a faith perspective. Historically humanism has in fact been integrated with faith perspectives. A sacred book might say or have God say: "Humanity, you are in charge of the world. Your judgment is vital." I therefore made a revision in the text to allow this integratability of humanism and a transcendental perspective. --Wilson Delgado 16:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider making it say, "USUALLY rejects" or "OFTEN rejects" to indicate that, while it does not necessarily reject transcendental justifications, that is still a very common mode of employ? OldMan 23:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this option. I would see no problem with such a change if it is really true. It is probably indeed true that almost everyone in a certain sub-category of humanism would be characterized by the *rejection* of the transcendental sphere. But to say it is true of humanism in general (my understanding is closer to the Encyclopedia Britannica's general description) -- that would seem to me to stretch things too far. I see too many humanists who are believers -- Michelangelo, Petrarch, Shakespeare, Montaigne, et al., and these people give great respect to the divine even while they might have a powerful center of gravity in the human sphere. This very Wikipedia article has a section on religious or Christian humanism -- these would make no sense if religious or Christian humanists really *reject* or in most cases reject anything like what they believe to be the divine will. Christian humanism would seem to be a self-contradictory concept. I will abide by the decision of Wikipedia arbiters, of course. --Wilson Delgado 00:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also an article on Renaissance humanism for the names you mention. For topics that exist at present, the introduction normally gives the presently established meaning; only further sections and (as in the broad topic here) separate articles reflect history and recent developments such as the current version of Christian humanism which is by adherers of the established meanings rather rejected precisely because it is seen, as you pointed out, to be contradictory. — SomeHuman 11 Jan2007 02:31 (UTC)

Yes, let us go with the presently established meaning. The Encyclopedia Britannica article claims that the presently established meaning is much broader than the non- or anti-transcendendalist streams of humanism (see the section above). Also Renaissance humanism did continue on to contemporary times by all those who cultivate the values of Renaissance visions and practices, so historically it can not be strictly limited to the Renaissance. Strategically, it seems better to conceptualize humanism broadly, and not in a way that makes certain streams of it self-contradictory. Following reason, what will the Wikipedia arbiters say? --Wilson Delgado 02:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

An afterthought, to clarify what the problem seems to be, logically, at least from my perspective: Imagine an article on the idea of SHIP that says "is always made of steel" because this is the common form of ship today. Then one adds a subsection on "Wooden Ships." Why not drop the steel from the first definition and stick to what is common to all ships? I realize this is not an exact analogy, because I would say there are still "wooden ships" today, in the argument's analogue, and that people often think of them first when the word is used. --Wilson Delgado 04:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Humanism does reject transcendential justifications, but not all humanists necessarily ban transcendential experience or awareness from their lifes. The first belongs in the intro, the refinement — not necessarily by all humanists seen as contradicting — belongs in the in extenso description further on. — SomeHuman 11 Jan2007 05:52 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis was a humanist. C.S. Lewis integrated transcendental justifications into his large understanding of life (see Mere Christianity, for example). In drawing a big bold almost completely exclusionary line between the core meaning of humanism and a living acceptance of the importance of the transcendental, this article violates NPOV. It makes a secularist humanism the norm and the essence of humanism. The Encylopedia Britannica's article, cited in the section above does not do this. Wikipedia loses credibility if a major article on a major concept is vitiated this way. I am appealing to Wikipedia arbiters to review this argument and make a decision. --Wilson Delgado 16:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Humanists can integrate any justification with their humanist views, it does not mean that accepting such justification as a sufficient justification would still be humanism. As such it is rejected by humanism. However, simply inserting the word sufficient into the article would suggest that humanism generally accepts trancendential justifications as equally valid, which is largely false. 'Justification' actually means 'sufficient justification'. This has nothing to do with 'secular humanism' or 'religious humanism': the first does not at all integrate trancendential aspects, let alone justifications; neither justifies on trancendential grounds but religious humanism may see the transcendential justifications to be in line with non-transcendential justifications. This is why C.S. Lewis needed to integrate both, failing to do so forces a choice which justification counted to him, the outcome decides whether he is seen to be a humanist, or not. In his case, it might in fact not have remained as uncontested as your statement that he is a humanist claims; I am however not going into discussions on specific biographies or literary discussions.

By the way, please do not create new sections at top of talk pages, but at the bottom; I put those now at their proper place. — SomeHuman 13 Jan2007 23:49 (UTC)

You have not answered the objection. Humanism itself can focus on the human, can praise the human, can delight in the human, but all of that focus and praise and delight does not necessarily entail a *rejection* of a reliance on faith or the transcendental. The word *reject* is too strong. What you call weaselry I would call an attempt to be more precise and adequate to reality. Language uses words; words are symbols; the meanings of symbols do not always have the crystal-clear boundaries that you want to suppose must exist for the word humanism. You are removing the word from its living context an making it a technical term without the real-life ambiguities of actual speech. You seem to have hijacked this article and twisted it into a sub-meaning of humanism, against a major standard reference work and against the usage of many people. This is unacceptable. --Wilson Delgado 18:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The IHEU website specifically includes in their definition of humanism this phrase: "It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality." The American Humanist Association FAQ says, "Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity." The British Humanist Association says, "humanists recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone. Our decisions are based on the available evidence and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions, not on any dogma or sacred text. Humanism encompasses atheism and agnosticism..." With these three leading authorities on humanism EXPLICITLY REJECTING supernaturality, faith, and theism in the very DEFINITION of humanism, I must now agree with the above commenters: the stronger language is the more precise and technically accurate, and attempts to add nuance only weaken the very concept of humanism. Please don't revert or continue to add qualifications that are simply not correct. Thanks. OldMan 15:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear OldMan, there was never any doubt that secular-humanist groups would define humanism (their humanism) in such a way. The problem is that over-riding authorities like Encyclopedia Britannica, the Oxford English Dictionary, and that powerful authority Established Custom have not ceded the word to the secular-humanist groups. It is not the exclusive property of whatever number of groups want to establish a new (or their own) meaning for the word humanism. It just spoils Wikipedia to let a particular usage be taken for the general usage. For the love of Wikipedia, can't reason prevail here? --Wilson Delgado 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been casually watching this debate and had a (small) idea. Wilson Delgado, what do you think of possibly accepting the definitions put forward that pose a rejection of a reliance on faith, and adding a little to the definition of religious humanism? What I mean to say is, you're partially correct when you say that religious humanism wouldn't be possible if humanism proper was defined completely negating faith. But it is possible; its existence is enough proof. So you could add something like: "Religious humanism bucks the norms of what is generally understood as humanism by not abandoning faith and transcendental thought. Those who identify as religious humanists see no contradiction between their humanist and religious beliefs." Maybe the wording's not right on, but it's meant to convey that just because something isn't in line with a majority-given definition doesn't mean it's not valid to its proponents. Minority movements within schools of thought are still valid. --Dialecticas 16:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dialecticas, for getting in on this debate. I was very much hoping to hear other voices. After considering your solution, I still have a problem with the part being taken for the whole, that is, I think that humanism should be defined without reference to a stance on the transcendent. That is the real sub-classification that should come in later. I don't have a problem with someone saying that a vital, organized branch of humanists today define themselves in such a way as to reject the transcendent. But for me this rejection is not a necessary part of general usage, as I have argued above, and furthermore, I will add here, it needn't be part of the essential concept. For me, it is in no way inconsistent for a humanist to have the insight that the religious impulse is deep in humanity and to propose the thought that being fully and happily human necessarily implies respecting the implications of that insight. Such a person might get thrown out of the British Humanist Association while still self-identifying as a humanist. --Wilson Delgado 19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There need not be such a huge disagreement over our personal feelings on the topic, of course. You give basically three citations for your viewpoint, as have I. My three sources were essentially the largest, best-known organizations of humanists that best represent humanist aims around the world. Two of your citations--the OED and Ecyclopedia Britannica--are not PREscriptive in nature, but DEscriptive... and, need I bother to mention it, obsoleted by their inability to keep up with changes as quickly and accurately as Wikipedia can. (Your EB quotation elsewhere on this talk page is indicative that, in fact, EB can be and is presently at least fifty years behind the changes in your vaunted Established Custom.) Your third citation is the idea that one can call oneself a humanist while still holding faith as a cornerstone of their philosophy; of course, this should carry as much weight as any person who wishes to call himself a medical doctor while possessing no medical education outside of a high school anatomy class. I believe the proper course of action at this time is not to make any further changes that are not properly referenced to leaders within the movement, studies on the movement, or authoritative representatives of the movement. OldMan 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But if an encyclopedia says it is not going to give what the word means, but what it should mean, is it not doing a terrible disservice to people and failing to fulfill its role? The descriptive is essential in such enterprises. What authorities do you consult for the actual usage today? I still don't see why the movement should control the word. The English language had it a long time before those folks appeared, and possession in nine-tenths of the law. Perhaps one simple solution to our difficulties would be to advertise in the headword that this article is about humanism as defined by secular humanist groups. Name the article Humanism (Modern Secular) or Humanism (Non-Religious), and I would certainly accept that, and even approve of the description as it stands. --Wilson Delgado 20:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that no-one here has read the top line of the article, that refers to Humanism (lifestance) which already reflects the modern majority of humanist organisations as humanism defined by the IHEU, which - as a lifestance - is on this Wikipedia written with capital "H". OldMan's all 3 references went to the IHEU and its organisations that of course support the IHEU viewpoint as speaking for all humanists. That however is not by all humanists accepted, not even by all secular humanists. Some of the latter reject the dogmatic Church style of the IHEU as much as Protestants reject such of Roman Catholicism; and humanists having lived before the Humanist Manifestos do not lose their status.
On the other hand, 1) historical philosophies that precede the coining during Renaissance humanism of the term 'humanism' and 2) the Renaissance strains of personal philosophies that were at their time still detaching from a powerful Church and growing into what became finally established as 'humanism', do not belong in the introduction section of this article decribing the established meaning of humanist philosophy; the first belong in a section about similar historical philosophies (mostly reevaluated during the Renaissance) or, just as the second, in the article 'Renaissance humanism' itself; and neither belong very recent interpretations by self-called 'religious humanists' who contradict the generally accepted characteristics of the established meaning of humanism: for such the comparison with a false claim to be a medical doctor is rather valid, the many humanists do not have to find a new name for themselves simply because some start to say "We are humanists too but we do not accept what all other humanists since four centuries see as essential to humanism".
Religious humanism does exist, and there is not necessarily a contradiction between being a humanist and believing in the supernatural, but the buck stops where 'truth' and its consequences on life would no longer become established by already established humanist means but instead would accept a by such means unsupported opinion as truth because of transcendential justifications. For many humanists as well as for many religious people, this appears as a contradiction and therefore they reject 'religious humanism', but others can accept the humanistic method as a conditio sine qua non while their religious concepts are not abandoned from their personal lifes because the directions their religious motivations steer them to, coincide with what the humanist method suggests or allows - that is religious humanism.
Religious people who cannot accept such, may adhere a humanistically inspired religion but are not humanists and any such false claim will by the latter remain rejected and as long as the wider world did not become sufficiently convinced to have established such a new meaning of humanism, it does not belong in the article unless in a section about some making the false claim; a section that could as well state the IHEU's Humanism definition not to define entire humanism either. — SomeHuman 16 Jan2007 03:59-05:58 (UTC)

Given the article's content and the discussion on this page, I have made a small change that I hope will be accepted as a solution. It is clear that this article is about humanism as a philosophical term, rather than as a cultural / educational one. It would help many readers to have this pointed out in the first sentence. Thank you for an interesting debate. --Wilson Delgado 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that makes the first sentence redundant, and is thus unnecessary. I also think that if my references were that contentious, they should not simply be removed, but replaced with better references that more accurately document the issue of debate. Keep in mind the template at the top of this article: "This article or section does not cite its references or sources. Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!) This article has been tagged since December 2006." Let's try to improve rather than simply revert, per Wikipedia:Revert. Thanks! OldMan 15:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On the lead sentence: I don't know if it is really redundant to say "Humanism, as a philosophical term, is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that... ." All philosophical terms do not necessarily connote what is predicated here (reference to categories of philosophies). Stylistically there is the redundancy of "philosopical" and "philosophies." If this can be done better another way, let's do it. But how else do you say, right from the start, that, though there may be other uses of the word humanism, this article deals with the philosophical usage? As it stood, the lead sentence was implying that humanism must refer to philosophies. I grant that the full article and the page as a whole dispels this implication, but wouldn't it be better to be more precise at the start? --Wilson Delgado 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You may have a point but this article is not a disambiguation page. The top line already mentions the lifestance (a formalized strain of the philosophical school described in this article). The opening sentence immediately states it is a category of philosophies, so your insert is indeed too obviously redundant and not quite necessary because the main other meaning is Renaissance Humanism as a cultural movement; it is mentioned in the history section of this article and not directly contradictory to the school of philosophies either. Anyway, I put a reference to a disambiguating source instead, so we can avoid the uneasy redundancy while the reference makes the distinction. Note that most definitions, some of which are shown in the web reference I now put at the end of the introduction paragraph, stick to this main meaning alone. I assume they correctly see Ren. Hum. as the early origin of the philosophy, and not as a separate thing. — SomeHuman 16 Jan2007 17:05 (UTC)

I agree with your most recent changes and appreciate the new citation. OldMan 19:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Overall Description of Humanism

Compare the current lead paragraph of Wikipedia's article on Humanism with that of the parallel article in the Encyclopedia Britannica:

HUMANISM - term freely applied to a variety of beliefs, methods, and philosophies that place central emphasis on the human realm. Most frequently, however, the term is used with reference to a system of education and mode of inquiry that developed in northern Italy during the 14th century and later spread through Europe and England. Alternately known as “Renaissance humanism,” this program was so broadly and profoundly influential that it is one of the chief reasons why the Renaissance is viewed as a distinct historical period. Indeed, though the word Renaissance is of more recent coinage, the fundamental idea of that period as one of renewal and reawakening is humanistic in origin. But humanism sought its own philosophical bases in far earlier times and, moreover, continued to exert some of its power long after the end of the Renaissance.

Notice that Humanism is not so specifically and formally a philosophy, as in the Wikipedia article. EB claims that *frequently* the term has an *educational* reference. Shouldn't the Wikipedia entry on Humanism reflect the most frequent usages of the word? --Wilson Delgado 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The 'Humanism' article clearly describes the 'philosophy'. The 'system of education and mode of inquiry' would be another and completely separate article, e.g. 'Humanism (dialectical method)' [provided such would be the correct term]. I doubt whether the EB's choice of phrasing was very fortunate: it states the philosophy first (and at least in other languages that I know it is most usually used as such) but then rather contradictorily says it is most frequently used otherwise. I do not think this other meaning deserves having the title 'Humanism', the current one might keep it (else we would need a distinct disambiguation page but I would not want to try to explain, shortly but clearly and unmistakingly, which is which...). The current one should then at its top mention e.g. For the system of education and mode of inquiry, see Humanism (dialectical method). If such would indeed be the main meaning, the article is bound to exist by some title, how else can we explain that for such a long time so many people have been contributing to the current article and its talk page without any earlier mentioning of that other meaning? Could it be, that the EC simply refers to what we know as Renaissance humanism? This is indeed very often shortly called 'humanism' and, though being philosophical, also "an intellectual movement" valuing "the witnesses of reason and the evidence of the senses in reaching the truth" "in opposition to the philosophers ... whose methodology was derived from Thomas Aquinas" [my italics pointing at what from its article intro seems to coincide with the second EB's description]? The EB gives the answer by explicitly saying so in your quote.— SomeHuman 14 Jan2007 02:13 (UTC)

A couple of items show that the broader understanding of humanism can be assumed assumed: (1) Socratic Humanism, by Laszlo Versenyi (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1963). (2) H. A. K. Hunt: The Humanism of Cicero. Melbourne: University Press (London: Cambridge University Press), 1954. Socrates and Cicero believed in the divine, so their humanism was of the sort that could be integrated with a transcendental perspective. They were not Renaissance figures. --Wilson Delgado 21:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

OED on Humanism

For reference in this discussion, here is how the Oxford English Dictionary expresses the current usage of humanism:

1. Belief in the mere humanity of Christ: cf. HUMANITARIAN n. 1a. [Obsolete]

2. The character or quality of being human; devotion to human interests.

3. Any system of thought or action which is concerned with merely human interests (as distinguished from divine), or with those of the human race in general (as distinguished from individual); the ‘Religion of Humanity’.

4. Devotion to those studies which promote human culture; literary culture; esp. the system of the Humanists, the study of the Roman and Greek classics which came into vogue at the Renascence.

5. Philos. A pragmatic system of thought introduced by F. C. S. Schiller and William James which emphasizes that man can only comprehend and investigate what is with the resources of the human mind, and discounts abstract theorizing; so, more generally, implying that technological advance must be guided by awareness of widely understood human needs.

--Wilson Delgado 22:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The OED tends to put meanings in historical order, not order of importance or frequency. Meaning 4 began earlier than meaning 5, but the order does not imply that 5 supersedes 4. On the contrary, 5 is a specialized use in disciplinary circles. Many people, therefore, can be assumed to take 4 as the primary meaning. The Encyl Brit clearly supports the idea that the broader use is often taken as primary.--Wilson Delgado 14:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, the OED order does not prove anything, one cannot assume one particular POV preference. Other dictionaries are cited in two references in the intro of the article, and those mostly show the philosophical school to be the primary meaning; it shows 'Humanism' to be used as short for 'Renaissance Humanism'. Perhaps people have been taught about Renaissance Humanism at school but they are not unaware of the philosophy or the particular lifestance and will not so easily confound the two in proper context; without context however, 'Renaissance Humanism' is nearly always as a whole term used for that meaning. — SomeHuman 19 Jan2007 15:05 (UTC)

I do not say that the OED order proves anything, only that it generally indicates historical sequence. But why are you denying that the order in OED means anything and then asserting that order in the other dictionaries proves something? This seems self-contradictory as an argument. More importantly, if 'Humanism' is short for 'Renaissance Humanism', then in fact many people will *necessarily* be taking the primary meaning of 'Humanism' as *other* than the primary meaning you want to use for this article. The note should give an indication clarifying this confusing situation. Therefore the edit should be allowed. --Wilson Delgado 15:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wilson, would you mind doing us the small favor of refraining from contentious edits that do not cite sources? I note that this article is the number one Google search result for humanism, thus a lot of people will be looking to this article for a simple definition. The next several links on the subject, though, all go to associations and articles that take the modern, secular definition as opposed to the historical definition. This does not mean the latter is unimportant; hence, we would certainly welcome your inputs to the articles on Renaissance humanism and in the history section of this very article. I am gathering from my studies, however, that Renaissance humanism was largely congruous to the aims of secular humanism today, except that practitioners of it were still so close to the inquisition and religious persecution that it was culturally unthinkable for them to completely dismiss faith as secular humanists do today. Since this is just my impression, though, I won't actually put this in the article; instead I will see if there is a historian who has published a work that says so in so many words, and cite his work instead.

Again, this article still contains this heading: "This article or section does not cite its references or sources. Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!) This article has been tagged since December 2006." I feel this article could deserve an "A" grade for quality if we were to spare our effort on un-sourced debates and focus primarily on those issues where there is clear consensus and ample documentation. Thanks! OldMan 16:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

OldMan, I did not think I was being contentious but providing helpful clarification. Just imagine if you were one of the many readers who typically understands humanism as the larger historical cultural tradition and you happened upon this article which foregrounds a totally different meaning and presents it as the *essential meaning*. Wouldn't it be helpful to have someone say, "I know you think the primary meaning is other than this article presents, and many others do as well, but here we are taking this philosophical usage as the primary meaning"?

Now you want me to put a note within a note to say that the usage as it is conveyed by the Encylopedia Britannica and the OED and numerous other dictionaries indicates that some people use the word humanism to mean something broader than this article highlights? Is this really necessary? I will do this if you wish. But I don't think encyclopedias typically cite dictionaries and encyclopedias for their own primary meanings; they usually just explain the terms. The reference to word usages sources is understood.

On Renaissance humanism and secular aims, see Charles Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist Thought (U of Notre Dame, 1970) and Gary Remer, Humanism and the Rhetoric of Toleration (Penn State UP, 1996). Remer says (4) "the humanists did not accept the rationalism of the Enlightenment; they were deeply religious men who believed in divinely revealed truths." --Wilson Delgado 16:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the assumptions you make in your first question, therefore your first question is moot: you are the first person I've met in over two decades now who believes "humanism" (even with the lower-case h) and "Renaissance humanism" are necessarily synonymous, so I do not think it very likely that there are "many readers" who share this view. That incorrect assumption aside, this article has sections for the history of humanism stretching all the way back to humanists in ancient Greece, also encapsulating Renaissance humanism, and including discussion of current religious humanism. Therefore, I do not think this article is underrepresenting the history, breadth, and contentiousness of the definition of the term at all.

And no, I do not think it should be necessary to put a note within a note to cite your qualification of the definition of the term. I also agree with you that it should not be so necessary to cite dictionaries and other encyclopedias at each other when there are many scholarly works on the subject of modern humanism, a clear differentiation between modern and historical usage of the term, and a clear consensus everywhere across the web except for here. If you are unable to find a citation for the "factual edit" you added, we can clean up that reference later by deleting both the ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.›  note and the errant qualification itself. OldMan 16:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, what would you think to adding a second disambiguation reference to the top of the article along the lines of, "See also the historical reference to Roman literature at Renaissance humanism?" Has that been tried and voted down already? That might be a good way to deal with your conflict over the current use of the term. OldMan 17:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I accept this suggestion, and I would find it quite satisfactory. My one hesitation is that many people use the word with a still broader historical / cultural connotation than just *Renaissance* humanism.

I don't think I'm so alone. Consider Remer's title: Humanism and the Rhetoric of Toleration. If you met Remer, this would be one person who thinks Humanism should be understood as Renaissance Humanism. Then, there are all his readers and the scholarly circle within which he writes...possibly millions of people! --Wilson Delgado 18:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a reference that will help show my context: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07538b.htm . It is an early 20th century Encyclopedia, granted, but my point is that this understanding lived on beyond this article's appearance and it has informed generations of scholars and thinkers in Academe. It has set up a usage that goes on today. --Wilson Delgado 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Remer's title most strongly suggests Renaissance Humanism by associating 'Humanism' with 'Rhetoric'. The early 20th century Catholic Encyclopaedia could at that time only (even now still not uncommon) wave away —and that only if it could not be simply ignored— atheism (simply put, "atheists do not exist, those are really agnosts") and humanism which at that time (and relevant places) was purely secular; secularism was severely fought against by the Catholic Church: In every Catholic country humanists and other freethinkers had to struggle (and are in some countries still struggling) for some secular laws which were and are opposed by Catholic parties as well as by the Pope. Though at that time, Catholicism had a stronger control on many people's press, education and circles, readers of the Catholic Encyclopaedia would not have stayed utterly blind for what was clearly going on in society. — SomeHuman 20 Jan2007 05:46-06:18 (UTC)

Allow me comment on your poetic mood: I can understand someone thinking humanism should be understood as Renaissance Humanism; I do not assume even a Gary Remer in 1996 to have thought it actually does mean only, or for the larger world even mainly, that — but I did not meet him, no. — SomeHuman 20 Jan2007 06:42 (UTC)

But the point is that the word Humanism / humanism is de facto used in certain circles with a primary meaning of "Renaissance humanism" -- (and possibly also the tradition that derived from it). That is the usage of Remer's book, and the usage of thousands and thousands of other published academic pieces. They will go on talking about humanism and humanists without *any* implication of the meaning suggested by, say, the BHA. For *these* groups, there is another default meaning for the word, though it can also be specified by modifiers like Renaissance. The word Humanismus was first used in the early 1800's by a German educationist (Niethammer) to describe an education based upon the classical curriculum. It does not matter that another group now promotes a more specialized meaning of the term if the traditions of the earlier usages still continue, are vital, are widespread among scholars and intellectual circles. The Catholic Encyclopedia's complete re-write in the 1960's has another excellent article on Humanism, with the same general understanding of the first version. If major reference works are taking the word Humanism and writing articles with this understanding of the term, shouldn't Wikipedia avoid disregard for this long-established, still-continuing usage when it tries to describe the "default" meaning of the term? Please note that I fully agree that the default meaning is different in other circles. I am not at all disputing that. That is why I favor more precise disambiguation on the page. --Wilson Delgado 13:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Remer uses the term in clear context, does "Rethoric" not ring a bell? (The classics, and especially the revival of it during the Renaissance). And usage in academic circles is not what is most common usage as Wikipedia guidelines prescribe. Original meanings of terms do not necessarily, or even usually, remain the prevalent meaning. Proof: just look up the etymology of a random set of terms, some old meanings are obsolete but others still survive but are nowadays not the most common. As stated before, usually the adjective is used with the substantive when Renaissance Humanism is meant, unless such is clear by context. There simply is no such coined association with another adjective, because it is not needed, as it is the default. An appropriate adjective like 'secular' only occurs when someone started talking about 'religious humanism', for the same reason: secular humanism being the default — today.
Never use a source's ignoring of a topic to prove something about that topic while that source is known to have a strong bias, the CE is approved by the Catholic Church which most strongly opposes (secular) humanism. — Bluntly: they don't wanna talk about it.
In case some inaccurately linked 'humanism' should by context have linked to 'Renaissance Humanism', in the first place it should be corrected like [[Renaissance Humanism|humanism]]. I'm sure soon enough someone following the inaccurate link will see what is wrong about it, and the present article does mention the 'Renaissance Humanism' article so it won't take much effort to make the correction. If on the contrary someone found the term 'humanism' somewhere and looked it up in Wikipedia, then the most common usage of 'humanism' today is what stands most chance of being the right place to arrive. In the less likely event of R. H. being the context, if one had to look up the term (it will not be an academic), one will have to read so as to possibly find out what could be appropriate: a simple link 'see also Renaissance Humanism' would not give a clue at all.
In case this once more cannot convince you, please find other contributors to support your view and deliver some new arguments; this has taken too much energy and you stay utterly alone. — SomeHuman 21 Jan2007 06:28-06:45 (UTC)

How can I be alone when other major reference sources support me? That is, OED, Encyc Brit, Cath Encyc, and I'll add now the Free Dictionary at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/humanism . NONE of these articles or definitions implies that the *essential* meaning is the religion-resistant version of secular, philosophical humanism that the article now proposes as the essential meaning. None of them proves that the *most common* meaning today is what you want to make the most common meaning. All of my sources allow for the Renaissance Humanism meaning for the word by itself. Wikipedia's article on Humanism therefore stands alone when compared with other standard authorities of the day.

The time spent on this discussion is worth it if it helps to clarify a major concept in what aims at being a truly useful encyclopedia.

The fact that Remer uses the word in a clear context does not negate the use of the word humanism as a shorthand for Renaissance humanism. People come to use the word and frequently assume that the context is understood. *Rhetoric* alone in Remer's title does not say *Renaissance*; the secular humanists use the *rhetoric of toleration* frequently as well, I would assume. The context for the title is the general usage of Humanism to sometimes mean Renaissance Humanism.

The Catholic Encyclopedia can not be fairly charged with not trying to be objective and authoritative. You imply they don't want to talk about secular humanism just because they don't like it or agree with it. If that is true, then I wonder why they have a lengthy article on Atheism. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm. No, the editors of the Cath Encyc were operating with an established meaning of the word Humanism, and that is the main reason the article was written as it was.

I do wish other contributors would express themselves, or that truly neutral arbiters would decide. I wonder how many of my possible allies have long ago given up on this article. Problems have been raised by others before, as you can read on the talk page. One fellow said that this article sounds like propaganda to him, for example. Please take the hint from such readers as this. --Wilson Delgado 16:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Has this entry ever been put up for arbitration or mediation? If not, why not? --Dialecticas 17:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Given: this article's own reference list already cites more than a half-dozen reference works that already explicitly reject supernatural inclusions of humanism. See reference 2: "...seeking, without religion, the best in, and for, human beings." Chambers Pocket Dictionary; "...a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially: a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason." Merriam Webster Dictionary; "...a non-religious philosophy, based on liberal human values." Little Oxford Dictionary; "...an appeal to reason in contrast to revelation or religious authority as a means of finding out about the natural world and destiny of man, and also giving a grounding for morality... Humanist ethics is also distinguished by placing the end of moral action in the welfare of humanity rather than in fulfilling the will of God." Oxford Companion to Philosophy; "The rejection of religion in favor of the advancement of humanity by its own efforts." Collins Concise Dictionary; "That which is characteristically human, not supernatural, that which belongs to man and not to external nature, that which raises man to his greatest height or gives him, as man, his greatest satisfaction." Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences; "A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth." American Heritage Dictionary...

Given: those sources that use "humanism" as a synonym for "Renaissance humanism" and implying that religiosity/supernaturality/faith are not mutually exclusive with humanism refer to a movement several centuries now past

Given: that Wilson Delgado thinks OED's definition 4 is still so widely used that it is a strong contender for description in this article vs. definitions 3 or 5

I believe: we must now defer to Wikipedia:Disambiguation by adding a "disambiguation link" to the top of this page. Fortunately, as of 1800 hours on 2007-01-19, Wilson Delgado has agreed to this technique for disambiguation. I have now added this disambiguation link as a replacement for the clumsy wording in the first, defining paragraph of this article.

I further assert: the faith-inclusive definition of the term "humanist" is now wholly and adequately represented in this article by 1. the disambiguation link at the top of the page, 2. the definition and disambiguation link in Reference 1, 3. the complete subsection on religious humanism that occupies the position immediately following the introductory paragraph, 4. the complete subsection on religious humanism complete that contains yet a third link to the Renaissance humanism article, 5. yet another subsection on religious humanism under the heading of "Modern Humanist Philosophies," and 6. a template with still more links to various kinds of religious humanism, and a fourth link to the Renaissance humanism article! Frankly, I'm not sure the current state of humanist thought actually warrants all six of these concessions to faith-compatible humanism, yet there they are, as a compromise.

So I respectfully request: if there is to be any further editing of this article to increase the visibility of faith-compatible humanism, please do so only after establishing a clear, unquestionable consensus herein (and please, it would be nice to see more than one person asserting that it is in fact necessary). Thank you! OldMan 21:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I accept OldMan's disambiguation as a good compromise. Thank you for your work and your well-presented rationale. --Wilson Delgado 00:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Edits January 8 thru 10

I reverted the edits as they was no basis or discussion. The article on Dante Alighieri has no mention of religion or humanism. statsone 07:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You might bear in mind that reverting should be mainly used against vandalism which these edits seemed not to be. Help:Revert#When to revert There is no requirement for "basis or discussion" before editing. Perhaps it would have been better to build on the edits rather than revert them :) Abtract 08:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The edits may not have been outright vandalism, but changes were made that changed the POV. Also, error were placed into the article. statsone 13:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Broken Link

The #2 link in the refernce notes appears broken. http://humaniststudies.org/humphil.html 2ct7 13:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It not only worked fine at retrieval, but also now. You probably encountered either a momentarily connection problem at your side or tried accessing the source while its server ran a maintenance routine or was excessively used, as happens with Wikipedia at times. — SomeHuman 19 Jan2007 01:23 (UTC)

Accidental revert

I was adding in references and accidentally reverted to to two week old version, sorry. Accusations of "highly deceptive 'edits'" does not assume good faith on my part. Also editors of this page should keep in mind and abide by WP:OWN.2ct7 17:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The latter is my point exactly. You can see my and other editors' discussions on this talk page, often before we make a change and then while trying to keep in mind the remarks made by the others. I do not see you here except in the non-discussion in the above section and now here where you appear as the pot unjustly blaming the kettle.

You had not merely replaced a source with a newer one and added one reference, as your two edit comments on the history page show, but in fact 2ct7 did this — which in fact was reverting to a version that existed dozens of edits ago and was meanwhile largely improved by numerous editors: compare here 2ct7's latest version and that of 14 January, 2007 by IP-user 24.68.228.50. After my reverting [including some minor remaining childish vandalism that had occured shortly before 2ct7's mentioned edits and were overlooked by Wilson Delgado], 2ct7 replaced the older reference from Collins with the more recent one from OED, which appears appropriate. Now again you tried to get your POV in finding support by a source that is the basis of Humanism (life stance), an entirely different article on a far more narrow topic than the humanism of the article at hand. Please understand that maintaining an attitude of assuming good faith becomes hard under such circumstances. (I mean, how does one get dozens of versions back! Never mind, I know that funny things can happen.) I'm not going to be able to respond in the next hours, but I beg you to forget being bold when editing a page like this 'humanism' that is the result of a terribly long archived talk page and the current one, at which so many people have worked and to which they largely (and not always easily) found a consensus. — SomeHuman 24 Jan2007 18:11 (UTC)

SomeHuman I don't think you read the WP:OWN page in full, please take the time to read it again. Telling me not to be bold is exactly what the page addresses. Yes as I said I accidentally reverted to early version instead of editing the current version. My mistake, as I said in my previous post. Instead of repeatedly accusing me of bad faith and reverting my edits you should correct the mistake and incorporate the information I entered. Again it looks like I made a mistake when adding my references in and accidentally cut off the end of the paragraph instead of making a minor wording change and adding two more references, sorry. This article needs more references and I am adding them. If I make a mistake fix it, don't revert my addition and accuse me of bad faith. Yes the article is the result of a long archived talk page, I know I talked on it as well. Many editors have contributed to it, and that includes me, SomeHuman, as large sections of the article in its current form were written by me. That doesn't mean I own it or what I have written cannot be changed to be improved. In fact no one owns it, including who ever came to a consensus over it. The article needs improvement and you, SomeHuman, are not the only one who is allowed to edit it.2ct7 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I never accused you of bad faith. And you should know better because an article I had nominated for Afd for very good reasons but which you wished to keep, was actually by one other editor and largely by myself brought to reasonable standards (sources, rewrite) so as to be able to offer a 'weak keep'; despite repeated calls upon you to offer references, you never provided any assistance and its existence is still (if it's not yet deleted, I'll check later) on discussion for WP:N. I did not revert edits to the article 'Humanism' but reverted your terrible mistake; again, I'm not calling you terrible but the mistake was that; just as I did not state that you deceived anyone, but your edits were highly deceptive regardless whether these were intended as such or not. You on the other hand cannot make or answer a comment without addressing new and erroneous accusations towards me and yes, that bothers me. I clearly stated for which kind of articles it is not wise to be bold and referred to numerous editors that had not easily come to some consensus, which demonstrates that WP:OWN cannot be a relevant issue. If you think that all these editors do not own the article, I agree; but if you think that all these editors must then let you have your way with it, or having the right to scold anyone reverting your bold edits, you are dead wrong. That reverting is what WP:BOLD states is likely to happen to bold edits under such circumstances. Again your talk does not reflect facts: I reverted your terrible mistake as any author is required to do, you put one of your dozens of changes back in and that was fine as I stated in my comment here above. Then you put in another change with a reference that does not prove what you apparently thought, since you did not spot the difference between Humanism, the life stance, and humanism, the school of philosophies. Thus I reverted the consequently false rendering of humanism, the broad philosophical range. In case you would have bothered to verify the already provided references, you should have realized that your change contradicted several reliable sources. — SomeHuman 24 Jan2007 21:38-21:47 (UTC)

As to the other article which you had speedy deleted without discussion, I have provided sources and reference that are listed on the page. You did state that I was deceptive, calling my edit deceptive is the same as calling me deceptive and you did it again. The Humanism Life Stance article is about secular humanism. This main article on Humanism must include the fact that Humanism is considered a religion by many as I referenced. To not include this information gives incorrect coverage of the subject. There are many, many references that Humanism is considered a religion. To maintain NPOV this information must be included prominently in the article.2ct7 21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are most' wrong:

• I did not speedily delete any article. Not with or not without discussion. I had put an article up as normal Article for deletion, but an administrator had not awaited discussion since he found such article needed to be deleted immediately and so the admin did. Then you recreated that article and as it was still not of proper Wikipedia standards, I again proposed it as WP:Afd but instead of you improving the article (for which you had a lot of time, that you unfortunately used for continuously making false accusations on my address), another contributor and I improved it and I switched my vote (as nominator!) from 'Delete' to 'Weak keep' and defended that in comments. And what I find most annoying, is that you know all this by former discussions and by my notifying you on your own talk page to once more have a look at the Afd because the situation had significantly changed; how do you rhyme that knowledge with your above false accusation?
• If you make a mistake, and thus create something that misleads people in such manner as these to become deceived, than that something is deceptive and it can and must be said. That does not yet make you a deceptive person, and saying the latter would be wrong (unless it were proven to have been an intention instead of a mistake). Hence, I only did the right thing.
• The topic being 'humanism' does not require a promininent mentioning of 'religious humanism' any more than the article on 'Christianity' to require a prominent mentioning of the existence of Christian sects with ideas most people do not immediately associate with Christianity.
• "There are many, many references" reminds me of Commandant Lassard of the Police Academy films, who was not particularly noted for making well argumented statements. Please note that many, many reputable sources have been accepted by many, many contributors to establish the currently dominant meaning of 'humanism' to be the philosophical school, and this to be secular. There are rather recent attempts to bring religion and humanism into one line, and such concepts are by a minority called 'humanism' as well, but the large majority still calls it 'religious humanism'; without the adjective, people think of the established secular meaning. Humanism with capital "H" is just one particular strain of the much broader secular humanist philosophy. It is the strain promoted by the IHEU as a way of life. This is not a religion in the sense of believing in the supernatural, in fact it is most secular, but because as a way of life based on a philosophical school of thought, it is very similar to a religion as how it is influencing thought and behaviour of its adherers. Because in many countries, laws have provided protection of freedom of religion before the Humanist life stance became widespread, many laws explicitly use the term 'religion'. In those countries, it has been decided by courts that the Humanist life stance has to be regarded as is meant by the term 'religion' in the Law and hence Humanism is in some countries officially recognized as a religion. This is totally different from the concept of 'religious humanism'; strains of the latter are not even generally called 'religion's. The above-mentioned article that is up to become deleted, 'Church of Spiritual Humanism' (mentioning the term 'Spiritual Humanism' to be a trademark of that Church), describes one sample of an attempt to integrate religion with humanism, and this (officially recognized) Church clearly emphasizes that the scientifical method and other principles normally associated with secular humanism, are held above religious motives as far as determination of Truth is concerned. In as much as making me hesitate between calling the philosophical thoughts of this Church a sample of 'religious humanism' or 'secular humanism'. On the other hand, in line with the referenced article by a Chicago Tribune columnist, what this Church appears to promote might be even too vague and broad for being generally recognized as 'humanism'.

— SomeHuman 26 Jan2007 10:17-10:48 (UTC)

No you are most wrong:

• I did not say you speedy deleted the article I said you had the article speedy deleted. Your actions caused the article to be deleted without discussion. You did not start a discussion on the talk page for the article asking for improvement before nominating it for WP:Afd. You nominated and shortly there after without discussion it was deleted.
• Wishy-washy semantics do not change the fact that your intent and tone accused me of deceptive edits and not editing in good faith. You often play on the line of being insulting and then when called on it you retreat and claim that's not what you meant at all. But your statements about me ARE insulting and derogatory.
• When you claim to be an authority on what most people associate with upon hearing the word humanism I assume you have some references to back this up. What are they?
• The humanism life stance article deals with the IHEU's definition of humanism. This is not the only commonly accepted definition of humanism as a religion. Are you saying that Eric Zorn is an expert on what is humanism and what is not?

2ct7 17:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Your saying "You had the article speedily deleted" means I did something in order to have it speedily deleted and thus you put me responsible for the unilateral action of an administrator. That is like saying you are responsible yourself for having contributed to the article, which caused me to put it up for normal Afd, which caused an admin to delete speedily. Stop blaming people.

Your second point is only applicable to yourself (see once more your first point and my reply here above). The edit was deceptive, and I never retreated nor claimed I did not mean what I stated: only your interpretation of statements are incorrect and then you blame me for what I did not state. I resent you holding your assumed insight of my intent above the intent I clearly expressed to have had, and you thereby breach WP:AGF in a grotesque way; such is not WP:CIVIL but a clear WP:PA.

Your imagination is galloping wildly: where did I claim to be an authority? How many sentences can you write without false accusations? References? You do not have to assume, check the intro of the article and actually read the references that are there for quite a while, in particular the one at the end of the lead has a section 'Definitions of humanism' quoting 7 dictionaries. Can dictionaries no longer be assumed to give at least the meaning most people associate with the topic?

Your fourth point does not make sense at all in the context of my earlier reply: First calm down and then read my former reply from Please note onwards with just a little more attention.

— SomeHuman 28 Jan2007 01:20 (UTC)

Misquoting the OED

I don't have a copy of the OED in front of me, but the IP address from which the OED quote was changed from "system of thought" to "religion", User_talk:148.134.37.2, has been a vandal in the past. If someone has a copy of the OED, please double-check and let us know here that it does, in fact, say "religion" and not "system of thought." Otherwise, I'll change it back again within a few days. OldMan 19:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

---

The New Humanists

Should there be a section on new humanism, as represented by John Brockman? There is a fairly detailed set of essays on the topic at his site if anyone wants to look them up. It seems to represent an altogether different approach to humanism that is far more relevant in today's intellectual atmosphere. Vrsz 03:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

More perspectives!

The word Humanism is problematic. Here it has been presented, in the typical North American perspective, as rationalistic. However there are differing interpretations. The renaissance humanists had a very different point of view. For them the macrocosmos was a mystery, and without a doubt that is an important aspect of the spirit of renaissance humanism. The open-mindedness of the renaissance humanists would not reduce the world into a clockwork or human existence into a rational task.

This has been pointed out in the book of Salvatore Puledda, "On Being Human", where he makes and describes interpretations of humanism from the renaissance to the present, including marxist humanism, christian humanism, existentialist humanism, and New Humanism, here in the sense that Mario Rodriguez Cobos, pen name Silo, has outlined it. Puledda himself was an adherent of Silo's ideas, as I am myself as well.

In 1994 from this thought current came out the publication "El Humanismo en las Diferentes Culturas", featuring articles from scholars of different cultures on humanism: also about humanism in the Muslim culture and thinking (something that North Americans need to be enlightened about!), in Latin American cultures, and in Judaism. In this way humanism approaches true universality, when the diverse ways of putting the human being as the central value and concern are explored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juhauski (talk • contribs) 12:17, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Humanism rejects "faith"?

Humanism certainly rejects other "religions" such as Christianity, but many humanists do not reject "faith" in the wider sense of the world. See for example A Humanist's Faith or Humanism 101: Faith and Public Controversy. So how come the descritpion that Humanisim rejects those such as dependence on "faith" being a more appropriate statement of fact?--Msuker 08:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a more precise statement because dependence on faith, the supernatural and revelation, are all aspects of religion. By changing "faith" to "religion", you've just created an incomplete tautology. And your own argument for your change essentially works against you, since you're citing the existence of religious humanism as your proof that humanism is the rejection of religion. ornis (t) 08:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This is from the second article I've listed above.

"By "faith" I mean a mode of believing based on acceptance or commitment, often despite systematic evidence to the contrary, or belief not based on supporting evidence of the sort available for systematic, organized, public scrutiny."

It seems to me that the faith being talked here is not religious, or not necessarily religious. A person can have faith in love or education or greed or jealous and a host of things without being 'religious'. Sure there are very "religious" humanism of all sorts of denominations, but religious humanism is so named because its conspicuous interaction with religion which materialistic humanism or most other branches of the school normally detaches itself from. This is what makes them special, if not contradictory.

On the other hand, faith as defined in the article above, is prima facie acceptable to most humanism. It would not make headline news even in Humanism journals if somebody claims that he/she has faith in love. It would if any known humanist turns out to be "religious" in the narrow sense of the word, i.e. actually having faith in the teaching of any known religion. So I think Humanism as a whole rejects religion (not commenting on whether it should or anything), while it does not reject the wider sense of the word "faith", as faith in knowledge, in human nature, in democracy etc.

And finally, if it is difficult to prove up to the standards acceptable of Wikipedia that 'Humanism rejects religion in general', it would be twice or thrice more difficult to prove that 'Humanism rejects faith'. To that extent, a narrower word is preferable.--Msuker 10:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The English of the current version doesn't fully make sense. It's like saying "Bob likes animals, and gorillas, and giraffes", listing the whole in addition to its subsequent parts. How about rewording the phrase to:

In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, Humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on faith in the supernatural, or allegedly divinely revealed texts.

...or, to borrow a phrase from the definition of faith:

In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, Humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or allegedly divinely revealed texts.

Thoughts? — George ^[talk] 15:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's more or less how it read before, so certainly I'd agree to that. (To Murker) Really if you want to press this matter of religion you might as well, just cut the rest of the sentence, and leave it at: "dependence on religion" Bseacuse as I've tried to explain to you faith, like the other listed characteristics, is an aspect of religion. All you've done is taken a precise sentence and messed it up. ornis (t) 23:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

All this over one word? Faith is just as good and applies to something that one must believe in with no justification. Religion is the faith and everything else put together. I don't want to see a long discussion over this - already too long - so I will change back to faith. statsone 02:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to Statsone, all this over one word and I think that's completely justifiable. Religious and faithful are two completely different concepts. If you think one word is not important enough, then probably half of the philosophical discussion would be similarly labled pointless.

In response to Ornis, you think one aspect of religion is faith, which is sound enough. However, the other side of the story is that religious faith is but one type of faith. A Humanist can have faith without being a religious person or classified as religious humanism.

The version as it is fails to clarify the denotation of a very ambiguous word. As in one of the articles I've linked above, most philosophical work would start by defining such concept, which a link to another page on Wikipedia simply is not. Therefore I still strongly suggest more consideration over this issue of putting an ultimately ambiguous and potentially misleading statement on the top of a page. And I do hope other users are not as dismissive in the name that 'one word is nothing'.--Msuker 07:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Faith can refer to a religion, or to belief in God. It has two general implications which can be implied either exclusively or mutually: Refers to both. --statsone 02:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

TO Statsone If you read the first few lines of Faith properly, the two implications here are 1) Trust 2) Belief without reason. Religion or belief in God are but examples of faith. So what do you mean exactly by "refers to both"?

Typically humanist' rejection of "faith" refer to 2) Belief without reason rather than 1)Trust. As I said more than one times above and as evidenced in various articles, a humanist can safely have faith without being labled as religious or anything. --Msuker 10:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with the two alternatives I gave above, both of which make this distinction... ← George ^[talk] 17:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with your suggestion at all in my opinion. What's wrong is when Statsone decides to dictate an edit and dismiss this discussion, presumably because 'one word is not important', without actually reading/understanding more than one sentence of the article cited by himself. --Msuker 08:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Secular Religion?

I know these sound like opposites but are they? Humanism, the Church of Reality, and Yoism all have properties of a religious nature but are very secular as well. I'm a member of the Humanist Community of Palo Alto where we meet every Sunday morning. Each Sunday there is a presentation on some interesting subject and people contemplate together. A collection plate is passed and we have lunch together. The board considers themselves as a religion and a church, but it is an Atheistic church. Humanism rejects the supernatural. Do deities are worshiped.

Unlike Atheist groups Humanists are generally not anti-religious. Humanists take the position that we all need to get along and have world peace. It focuses on human relations in a secular world (or religiously neutral world) where people don't kill each other over religious difference. Humanists are similar to Unitarian Universalists exceot in UU reality is optional where it is required in Humanism.

So - getting to the point. Is this a secular religion? --Marcperkel 13:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, as a great many Humanists have been people of faith. As the article says in the Religion subsection, Humanism rejects reliance on supernaturalism but not necessarily the beliefs. The appearance of secular belief come from the fact that most Humanists of faith have a home within their faith communities, leaving non-religious Humanists to create specifically Humanist organizations. As a results, these groups reflect the non-religious beliefs of their organizers and members rather than the large spectrum of belief and non-belief found among Humanists. TechBear 14:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

== Humanist Maniefestos present Humanism as 'a religion'? No. This statement is incorrect.

"The Humanist Manifestos, which represent consensus statements of Humanists, present Humanism as an ethical process and a religion through which we can move above and beyond both the divisive particulars of older religious stances and the negation of these." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shmooth (talk • contribs) 22:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You may be interested

In the discussion here. Abtract (talk) 14:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Theists can't be humanists?

This article seems to imply, even when referencing religious humanism, theists cannot be humanists. Yet Søren Aabye Kierkegaard, a theist, is very much considered a humanist. And he is only one of many. Christian theists played a big role in Renaissance humanism, remember. So, what's the dealio?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.78.32 (talk) 05:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that religious humanists have a home within their community of faith and generally speak of humanist issues within the context of that religious faith. Typically a Catholic or Quaker humanist will frame things as a Catholic or a Quaker; thus, the views are presented as Catholic or Quaker rather than humanist.

Specifically humanist organizations were created by non-religious humanists to provide a similar home for themselves. As such, these organizations present a secular, non-religious context to humanist issues. Articles such as this one rely heavily on material from humanist organizations, which gives a decidedly secular, non-religious slant.

The solution would be to draw more from religious sources, and therein lies the problem. The ideals and goals of religious and non-religious humanists are essentially the same, but the context is different, making nearly all religious sources unusable in an encyclopedic context. Cites on, say, Jewish Humanism must come from works specifically about Jewish Humanism and not from the much larger body of works about Judaism in general. If the context is not humanist, it can not be used as reference for an article on Humanism. In the end, we are left with a collection of reference material that is overwhelmingly non-religious and secular.

If you can provide references that fit the necessary criteria, please feel free to work them in. TechBear (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem arises because of the often hard to differentiate difference between Humanism and humanism, that is the specific adoption of the humanist way of thinking and the humanist behaviour found in other beliefs. In other words, the motivation of a Humanist is to do things for a specific cause. Whereas a Christian may exhibit behaviour associated with Humanists, but is doing it in order to serve their god rather than for the causes of a humanist.

In other words you get humanist Christians but not Humanist Christians. Philipwhiuk (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, many people fail to differentiate difference between Humanism (big 'H') and humanism (small 'h'). Humanism (big 'H') is a naturalistic life stance. I think the difference between Humanism and humanism should be clearly mentioned in the article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ontology - two main branches of Humanism

This article fails to convey an objective information on what the term Humanism means. It should start with describing the ontology of Humanism including its two main branches - Anthropocentric Humanism and Theocentric Humanism. Instead, the article starts (the fourth sentence) by suggesting that Humanism is in opposition to any religion other than Atheism. It is misleading and should be corrected. Presenting the ontology would solve the problem (and it would help to decompose the article). Tomasz J Kotarba (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with 64.81.240.233 that th article is much improved over the year.

yet as Tomasz J Kotarba points out the distinction Anthropocentric Humanism vs Theocentric Humanism is a useful one to organize the material throughout the essay.

--Ibn-arabi (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What is this supposed to say?

I don't think this sentence is correct:

"Humanism, as a current in education, began to dominate U.S. school systems in the 17th century"

Obviously, since the US didn't exist in the 1600s, this can't be right. What is it supposed to say? --24.196.138.49 (talk) 04:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The section on Secular Humanism sounds like crap

I tried modifying it to remove the weasel words. My version, which has since been reverted, sounded much better because I actually gave some discussion as to the background behind the term and also had the so-called "weasel words" removed, but I was still quite unhappy with it. The fact is, there must be something that differentiates secular humanism from other kinds of humanism. Now, if humanists in general embrace the inherent worth of Mankind and his endeavors, then wouldn't being a secular humanist essentially indicate that one feels that humanity should endeavor to become a predominantly secular culture? In this case, does the secular humanist seek to make the world a better place by assuming a distinctly combative relationship with religious creeds, particularly those which most particularly derogate humanity as a whole?

To tell you the truth, though, it might be helpful for the editors of the article in general to consider the historical background behind what human worth really means. In some forms of Christianity, for example, Mankind is held to be inherently evil or flawed. This was particularly true of Catholicism as it stood in the 1600's. Mankind was held to be incapable of behaving morally, usefully or properly without being held under the bootheel of some tyrant. If you really want to get to the root of what humanism is, it would be for the best to examine and understand what brought about the need to set up a special philosophy for the sake of affirming the inherent worth of humanity.

The ideas that were held to be absolute truth in those dark days would be incomprehensible to most who were reared in the context of our enlightened society. For example, what was really revolutionary about Puritanism is that the Puritans...well, reflect on the politics that surrounded the publication of the King James version of the Christian Bible. It was a humanistic idea that it should be published at all. Under the teachings of the Catholic Church, human beings needed special guidance to truly understand the teachings of the Bible, and it rose quite a stir for an English version to be published. Believe it or not, many of the douchebags that do so much to get under the skin of modern "secular humanists" were descended from people who helped incorporate a truly humanistic idea into what Christianity was and what it should stand for.

The meaning of what humanism is goes beyond mere empiricism, and the truth behind it has such an obvious meaning that it's difficult to even comprehend the idea that, at one point, it was an IDEA, not just an observation of the incredibly obvious. The truth behind it is that human beings actually are capable of learning the truth without some sort of special guidance, and human beings actually are capable of behaving with kindness and virtue without being forced or intimidated into doing so.

With this in mind, then perhaps "secular humanism" is simply a philosophy that affirms that human beings could have and would have learned to behave with justice and honor without being taught to by the tenants of some religion. It affirms the idea that true justice must be derived from Man. It affirms the idea that the knowledge we should hold above all else is that which we ourselves have garnered and thoroughly vetted through centuries of empirical examination. It affirms the idea that Mankind is moral and wise not because of the teachings of Christianity; but, conversely, perhaps the teachings of Christianity sometimes contain good ideas because perfectly human individuals learned them through the challenges of their lifetimes.

In this case, one could say that the primary statement behind "secular humanism" is that humanity really is inherently decent, with or without the assistance of a god. The statement is that the good things in life do not flow from the fingertips of some existant or non-existant sky father. However, one cannot really fully comprehend the meaning behind this statement until one has understood just how many sects of Christianity teach that humanity would eventually ruin or destroy the world without direct interference from God. They truly hold it to be impossible for righteous or virtuous behavior to be learned without there having been divine interference somewhere along the line. As such, secular humanism is simply a statement that the best things humanity has acheived, such as the concept of honor for example, are things that came from Mankind and Mankind alone. Whether brought about by a moment of inspiration or insight that was gained from centuries of hard-won experience, it was a product of human effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.20.186.69 (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Confusion

Humanism has two (main) conflicting meanings and the wikipedia page confuses the two. In a general, historical, sense, humanism has little to do with the modern humanist organisations whose names and logo appear on the right-hand side. I think wikipdedia's main humanism page should therefore be a general overview of uses of the term and avoid being usurped by IHEU and suchlike. Dadge (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC).

I very much agree with this sentiment. Not long ago I had a long argument with others about this very issue and finally in exasperation agreed to a compromise because of the disambiguation links added to the page. On reflection, I still do not think that it is fair to allow the traditional general usage, supported by many dictionaries and reference works like the Encylopedia Britannica, to be usurped by a subsidiary usage. Phrases like the humanism of Cicero (or Socrates or Thomas Aquinas or Saint Paul) invoke a broader understanding of humanism than can even be limited to the Renaissance variety. The Wikipedia article on humanism as it stands today is therefore fundamentally flawed. It tries to stuff the other meanings onto the page, but the conceptual confusion is made at the beginning of the article. Wilson Delgado (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This entry should be about humanism in its broadest sense; detailed information about Renaissance Humanism should be at Renaissance Humanism, detailed information about humanism as a rationalist/secular/materialist/anti-supernaturalist/atheistic/agnostic movement should be at secular humanism, and detailed information about Christian humanism should be at Christian humanism. This entry can and should make reference to and provide a bit of information about each of those, but we should be careful not to write it as if REAL humanism by definition always rejects religion. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am glad to see this developing consensus. A radical rewrite is certainly in order, along the lines suggested here. Thank you. Wilson Delgado (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have this article on my watchlist mainly to monitor vandalism. However, as I understand it, the way the articles are set up now, IHEU Humanism is at Humanism (life stance) and humanism in its broadest sense is here. As far as I can see the various forms of Religious humanism and secular humanism are given full and fair treatment with no particular pride of place given to the latter. Or am I missing something? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the question. Consider the first note of the article, which cites the Compact Oxford English Dictionary:

"humanism n. 1 a rationalistic system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. 2 a Renaissance cultural movement which turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought." This article handles sense 1. See history section and main article Renaissance Humanism for sense 2.

This gives the secular anthropocentric and systematic philosophical elements predominance. The problem is that many humanists are quite religious, so that it is misleading to delimit the basic term this way. The core of humanism involves an attention to the human sphere, apart from any system of thought or Renaissance curriculum. Humanism is a very rich concept that can indeed connote both those directions, but it also grounds them in something that is not reducible to "a rationalistic system of thought." It is probably better to represent the historical development of the meaning of the term while making explicit the various tributaries as 65.213.77.129 outlined them. Wilson Delgado (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

USAcentric

The vast majority of this article, including the external links section refers to the barbaric atheist ideology from the United States and the city of Amsterdam. While in most of the civilised world, the term "Humanism" is most frequently applied to mean the Renaissance Humanist movement, which barely gets a mention at all or an explination of its positions and philosphers in this article, apart from in passing in the history section. Very different to the current unrelated USAcentric movement, which we have to suffer the entire links section being dedicated to.

Compare to the intro from out friends at Britannica, the current article here is a shambles;

term freely applied to a variety of beliefs, methods, and philosophies that place central emphasis on the human realm. Most frequently, however, the term is used with reference to a system of education and mode of inquiry that developed in northern Italy during the 14th century and later spread through Europe and England. Alternately known as “Renaissance humanism,” this program was so broadly and profoundly influential that it is one of the chief reasons why the Renaissance is viewed as a distinct historical period. Indeed, though the word Renaissance is of more recent coinage, the fundamental idea of that period as one of renewal and reawakening is humanistic in origin. But humanism sought its own philosophical bases in far earlier times and, moreover, continued to exert some of its power long after the end of the Renaissance.

Please fix this, because currently it is very embarassing to read for people from the civilised world, including the little Americo-Amsterdamian atheist symbol which is in the top right corner and is not representative of Humanism in general. Compare to the Italian and Spanish articles; it:Umanesimo and es:Humanismo - Cos Oro (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Cos Oro. The opponents will say that there is a whole article on Renaissance Humanism, but I still don't think that gives them the right to commandeer the basic term humanism for their own limited usage (even if that is the primary meaning in their circle). If the original contributors had followed the lead of standard reference works, the article would not have fallen into its present terrible condition. I am unable to work on this for a while, but I would be happy to see and eventually contribute to a thorough revision in the near future. Wilson Delgado (talk) 04:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, the "barbaric atheist ideology from the United States and the city of Amsterdam", huh? And Wilson Delgado calls this "well said"? And here I was assuming good faith and more than half convinced that you had a valid point. Expect your edits to this article to be carefully watched. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Epithets aside, the argument for a radical rewrite stands vindicated on its own merits. I have not read anything that competently answers the fundamental criticism being made. If Steven J. Anderson or others can do this, by all means, let them go ahead and do it. Wilson Delgado (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

It seems to me that if there is no immediate consensus among the persons who happen to be involved with the page at this moment, then the default position should rest with what coheres with major reference works like the Encyclopedia Britannica, parallel (non-English) articles in Wikipedia and those elsewhere, and very common scholarly usage. Many have expressed problems with this treatment of humanism on the Talk Page going back quite a while. A change of the article to represent the more traditional and generally accepted baseline seems entirely in order. Other articles on, say, the meaning of humanism in modern (secular) humanist societies can be started and linked to from here. There is no problem with some such expression of viewpoints. Wilson Delgado (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I thoroughly disagree. There is a clear long-term consensus for the current version of this page. Before making major changes, please seek consensus here first, then implement changes. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I see no consensus (for a major rewrite) here either. New User:Cos Oro, account was two days old, insults all the editors of the article to announce his changes. Then, a mass deletion of categories, links, see also, etc. Premeditated vandalism, never thought that this would be accepted; what a precedent. An experiment: Do this same approach to Earth or any other featured article and see the response. We are not editing "Britannica" here... An expert on the subject matter should be sought since there is no general agreement. I am not opposed to changes, just those that are misdirected with an insultingly rude approach. ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 20:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

There has not been a long-standing consensus on this article. For years, differences have been expressed and over-ridden by a sub-group that is misleading people by stubbornly resisting the needed changes. To say that consensus is needed on Talk before the article can be changed is tantamount to saying that Wikipedia will have to keep this deceptive article up as long as the controlling subgroup maintains its position, no matter what evidence is brought against them. Wikipedia should not allow this. I am still waiting for the adequate counter-argument to the rational plea for a better description of the core meaning of humanism. But there now seems to be a blocking mechanism in place that is preventing progress. Ultimately this exposes a flaw in the Wikipedia concept. It needs to be handled. Let's go to arbitration. Wilson Delgado (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If the article is "deceptive" and not encyclopedic (as "Britannica"), then nominate the article for deletion. After it is deleted, then you can prove your theory that a supposed "subgroup" was blocking the majority for changes. At that time, write a new article expressing the correct views. ~ All Is One ~ (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, Wilson, if arbitration is what you think is the best way to handle this, the door's wide open. Of course, if you take a look at WP:ARBCOM you'll see that arbitration is supposed to be a last resort in dispute resolution, the first resort being, of course, finding consensus on the talk page, something you have yet to do. So, unless you're ready to be sent right back here without passing go or collecting two hundred dollars, you may find arbcom an unsatisfactory option at this time. Since your sole approach to your dispute with the current version of the page has been to claim sole possession of the WP:TRUTH™ and disregard other views as not being an "adequate counter-argument". You may find consensus-building a difficult process. Hint: what you call a "blocking mechanism" is what most everyone else on Wikipedia calls consensus. I, of course, welcome all good faith efforts by any editor to improve the article. Bring them here and let's discuss them. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

"Sole possession of the truth" is precisely what I've *not* been claiming, as I have appealed to the larger consensus of ordinary usage of the term *humanism* as evidenced by scholars, major reference works, and others who have complained on the talk page. This unjustified attack shows evidence of careless reading and/or incorrect judgment and/or lack of good will on the part of Steven J. Anderson. It is also very deceptive to talk about the "consensus" position of the Humanism article when there has not been consensus, only perhaps a reluctant compromise on the part of one or more persons a while ago. Others have complained to no good effect. This is very far from my having "sole possession of the truth." Wilson Delgado (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)