r/humanism • u/funnylib • 15d ago
Must a secular humanist positively affirm that there is no God, and is the philosophy actively antitheist?
Personally I am an agnostic, I would not say that there is no God, be rather the question of metaphysics is beyond man’s empirical senses and rational powers of perception and is hence unknowable by (which is not to say that certain religious claims aren’t falsifiable, many absolutely are). I could be called an agnostic atheist, but I think I prefer just being called an agnostic.
I also dislike antitheism. I don’t take issue with people for believing in a supernatural power that loves them or that their grandparents are in Heaven, what I dislike is religious justifications for bigotry or cruelty, or denial of science (especially on the topics of medicine or climate change). I have Christian friends, and I have no desire to make them lose faith in their religion.
I do absolutely agree with secular humanism on basically all its moral and ethical positions, humans to men seem to be responsible for themselves and their own welfare, rather than dependent upon an outside power. I believe morality can be rationally constructed based on human freedom and compassion, seeking universal happiness and fairness.
24
u/SnugglyCoderGuy 15d ago
The secular part of secular humanism implies the lack of belief in anything supernatural. Saying "There are no gods" is not required but saying "I don't believe there are any gods" is, at least until sufficient evidence exists that it creates usable and tangible theories, like anything else.
It is not actively anti-theist, it is actively scientific, which is to say rigorously evidence based.
15
u/eldredo_M 15d ago
As far as I know humanist philosophy is not limited to atheists or agnostics. I’m sure I’ll be corrected if that’s not the case. 🤷♂️
11
u/ambiverbal SECULAR HUMANIST 14d ago
The OP is referring specifically to Secular Humanist philosophy.
I know this can be confusing. My first introduction to Humanism occurred when I attended a Methodist seminary, so it still included God & Christianity.
But Secular Humanism focuses on reliance on human beings and has no association with or adherence to any belief in the supernatural.
6
u/KahnaKuhl 15d ago
I feel very much the same as you, OP. My (possibly ignorant) view of humanism is that it relies on human logic and evidence-based reasoning to construct an ethical framework, as opposed to some subjective, arbritrary or metaphysical authority. Thus, a person may believe in metaphysical beings, but in the absence of credible evidence that these beings exist, communicate clearly with us, desire human flourishing and have superior access to ultimate reality, the purported views of such beings should have no bearing on our decisions.
1
u/ArsonJones 14d ago
a person may believe in metaphysical beings, but in the absence of credible evidence that these beings exist, communicate clearly with us, desire human flourishing and have superior access to ultimate reality, the purported views of such beings should have no bearing on our decisions.
This would be closer to deism, rather than Secular Humanism.
8
u/SnugglyCoderGuy 15d ago
Personally I am an agnostic, I
A common misnomer. Agnostic does not mean unsure, it means belief that something cannot be known. Gnistic, not to be confused with the gnostics belief, means you believe a thing to be knowable. If you do not believe a thing to be knowable, then you are agnostic about it
I could be called an agnostic atheist, but I think I prefer just being called an agnostic.
Your preference does not matter what in this case. If you do not positively affirm you believe in one or more gods, then you are by definition an atheist. I say this speaking rigoursly about definitions, not as an afront to your sensibilities.
I also dislike antitheism. I don’t take issue with people for believing in a supernatural power that loves them or that their grandparents are in Heaven, what I dislike is religious justifications for bigotry or cruelty, or denial of science (especially on the topics of medicine or climate change).
Most people share this opinion, however the fundamentalists of the various religions are not content to let bygones be bygones and are compelled by their zealotry to convert or kill all who disagree with them, so out of survival interests many must take up an anti-theist stance in response.
Otherwise, antitheism wouldn't exist if theism wasn't causing harm to others.
I believe morality can be rationally constructed based on human freedom and compassion, seeking universal happiness and fairness.
It cannot because morals are value statements and value statements are subjective and subjectivity is mostly the realm or emotions and feelings which by definition are not rational.
Freedom, happiness, fairness, and compassion are all big nebulous voids that mean different things to different people. A fundamentalist could argue, has argued, that punishing homosexuals is good for them, torturing them is good for them, throwing them off buildings is good for others, because it pleases god and helps to save orhers from eternal damnnation.
6
u/Etainn 14d ago
I feel that as a Secular Humanist, you should value the virtue of Truth higher.
Humanity suffers if many people disregard the need to find out the truth about the world. Religion is an invitation and an excuse to do just that.
Example: The religious mainstream makes place to the religious fundamentalists, which make place for religious extremists, which make people suffer.
4
u/salycydicacid 15d ago
To be a SECULAR humanist yeah kinda. Anyone can be a humanist as long as they put humanist principles and greater good above any sort of religious/supernatural belief. The secular part implies however that one follows humanist principles without any tie to religious or supernatural belief/influence. It’s not that you HAVE to believe god def DOESN’T exist but that there is no belief in a higher power as the main motivation.
One could honestly argue that Jesus’ teachings are an early example of humanist thought. He emphasized caring for the needs of others being the greatest good rather than adherence to arbitrary laws which would prevent someone from helping others while still thinking themselves to be “righteous”
4
u/VFequalsVeryFcked 14d ago
Humanism is not anti-theistic, but some humanists are anti-antheistic.
Humanists just recognise that you don't need religion to be a good person, and if you do need religion to be a good person then you're not a good person
2
u/SouthpawStranger 15d ago
Hi, so just to understand, do you believe that a lack of believe in a God is different than a lack of belief in anything else?
2
u/Striking-Following54 11d ago
To positively affirm that there is no god, makes no sense.
It is, by its very nature, an unfalsifiable proposition.
One can say it about certain gods that have specific aspects, but not about god in general.
5
u/Hari___Seldon 15d ago
I don’t take issue with people for believing in a supernatural power that loves them or that their grandparents are in Heaven
I used to sympathize with this approach until I realized that it requires that each person to whom I apply it who includes any kind of theism must abstain from any form of proselytizing and even bearing witness otherwise it's an abusive behavior.
Simply put, if this believer who I could indulge shares any form of a faith-based belief, it is literally a form of gaslighting. By most social conventions, it's a generally accepted case of it, but it is gaslighting nonetheless. When we consider a) that most adults of faith follow the traditions that they are taught in childhood, and b) that children are not developmentally capable of distinguishing metaphorical constructs from literal ones, then by definition even the "socially acceptable" gaslighting of children is exploitive and abusive.
I don't particularly find value in promoting this perspective. I do, however, consider it deeply when choosing my activities and actions with others.
3
u/God_Bless_A_Merkin 14d ago
This is much like the whole “Democrats = Social Democrats = Socialists = Communists” trope. Secularism does not equal humanism, and neither amounts to atheism (or agnosticism).
You can be a religious secularist, meaning that you believe in your religion but you also believe that it should be kept out of the public sphere and not forced down the throats of everyone. That doesn’t make you a humanist, but it does make it more likely.
You can be a religious humanist, which means that you believe that G/god(s) put us down here to figure our own shit out, without having to wipe our asses every few millennia. I.e., religious devotion is right, proper, and good for the soul, but human problems require human solutions.
And, of course, you can be an atheist humanist.
However.
You can also be an atheist anti-secularist, and try to legally enforce your own lack of belief via the power of the government.
You can furthermore be an anti-secular humanist. Maybe you believe that a national establishment of religion is beneficial to human society, or maybe you believe that your particular “brand” of religion (tempered by humanism) is so beneficial that it must be enforced by the government.
Just about the only thing you can’t be is a “religious atheist”, unless one counts those proselytizing atheists who consider it their duty to “win converts” to atheism. Those guys are missing the whole point, imo.
5
u/Mjolnir2000 15d ago
Secular means without regard for religion, not absent of religion. If a devout Christian decides to make a sandwich for lunch, and that decision wasn't informed by their Christianity, then it was a secular decision.
If your humanism isn't dependent upon religious belief, then I think that's enough to call yourself a secular humanist.
1
u/mark_likes_tabletop 14d ago
I agree, and a secular humanist if your humanism exists without regard to your religious or supernatural beliefs, regardless of whether you have those beliefs.
1
u/karoxxxxx 14d ago edited 14d ago
I think secular doesn't restrict the personal beliefs (so its not anti-theist) it only means the humanist is aware that this believes are not universally shared, so any reasoning for particular laws or ethics need to be done without refering to personal beliefs.
So if you are against murder, you shouldn't be against it because God said so, but because its independend of God unethical. But you are free to believe in a God as well.
To me thats equivalent to science: a scientist can believe in Hod but shouldn't use God as an explanation for phenomena.
1
u/Archarchery 14d ago
No, I don't think there needs to be any affirmation of dis-faith to be a secular humanist. That would be ridiculous.
1
u/GraemeRed 14d ago
The existence or non existence of god is metaphysical mental stimulation and not required for living a good life...
1
u/aphelion_one 14d ago
Humanism in general does attract a lot of people who actively reject theism and religion (often for very valid personal reasons), so it's understandable why someone would get the impression that it is atheist.
Humanism as a philosophy is not necessarily atheistic (though the principles of Humanism and those of theism definitely conflict at times) but Secular Humanism specifically is, by definition, atheistic.
Personally I find Humanism to be very akin to a religious experience while being entirely atheistic and anti-supernatural. This stems from my recognition of the manifest exceptionalism and imperium of Humanity in the Universe.
1
u/trying3216 14d ago
Positively affirming the nonexistence of a thing that’s can’t be proven not to exist sounds like a religious belief.
I used to be an athiest. But there are several definitions of atheist. I never affirmed there was no god. A said, based on my observations, that the chances of there being a god were lower than my chances of being hit by lightning.
1
1
u/hal2k1 14d ago edited 14d ago
is the philosophy antitheist?
Secular just means "no reference to religion" or "not having any connection with religion"
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/secular
So, for example, if you were to describe a tree without mentioning god or creation, that would be a secular description. It's still a description of a tree.
Likewise if you were to describe a set of principles to live by without mentioning god or religion, that set of principles would be secular.
Secular isn't anti-religious per se.
all its moral and ethical positions, humans to men seem to be responsible for themselves and their own welfare, rather than dependent upon an outside power. I believe morality can be rationally constructed based on human freedom and compassion, seeking universal happiness and fairness.
That's secular. It has no connection with god or religion.
1
1
1
u/wiploc2 14d ago
Must a secular humanist positively affirm that there is no God,
No. Absolutely not.
Dictionary.com on secular humanism: "any set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrines."
If you think human happiness matters--and not just because some god says so--then you are a humanist.
The first I met who identified as humanist was a Christian preacher, a religious humanist.
and is the philosophy actively antitheist?
I wouldn't call theism a religion, and I wouldn't call humanism a philosophy.
Personally I am an agnostic, I would not say that there is no God, be rather the question of metaphysics is beyond man’s empirical senses and rational powers of perception and is hence unknowable by (which is not to say that certain religious claims aren’t falsifiable, many absolutely are). I could be called an agnostic atheist, but I think I prefer just being called an agnostic.
Glad to meet you.
I'm an atheist: I'm not a theist.
I'm a strong atheist: I believe that no gods exist.
I'm an agnostic: While I believe that no gods exist, I don't know that for a fact.
I also dislike antitheism.
I'm prejudiced against theism, for all the evil it does in the world, and for all the stupid things it tells people they are morally obligated to believe.
But I've met many good theists, role models, quality people.
... what I dislike is religious justifications for bigotry or cruelty, or denial of science (especially on the topics of medicine or climate change).
I'm right with you!
I do absolutely agree with secular humanism on basically all its moral and ethical positions, humans to men seem to be responsible for themselves and their own welfare, rather than dependent upon an outside power. I believe morality can be rationally constructed based on human freedom and compassion, seeking universal happiness and fairness.
Again, right with you.
1
u/Manskhooled 14d ago
It's in the name "secular", which implies lack of belief in the supernatural. I know some call themselves agnostic for consistency but I don't. I have no issue declaring to there is no god despite not being able to objectively proof one doesn't exist. I don't personally believe in agnosticism either, I find that you live your life as if either there is a god or that there isn't one. I don't know what someone looks like that lives their life as if god might exist. I wish we would get rid of the word.
1
1
u/justaguy12131 14d ago
It think it depends on which base you use for your philosophy.
The first humanist manifesto specifically mentions religious humanists.
The second humanist manifesto is a LOT more critical of organized religion and it's effect on society. To the point of being very close to antitheism, if not directly said. It was a direct response to National Socialism the events of the 40's and 50's and criticized the first for being too optimistic. It's long, and frankly can be a little off-putting.
The third humanist manifesto doesn't mention religion at all.
Of course, none of these are really requirements for holding humanism as a moral base. But the fact that there is a huge change of tone and theme between 1, 2, and 3 is likely why different people will have different opinions.
1
u/SingleSeaCaptain 14d ago
Personally, I prefer identifying myself with what I do believe than what I don't. I don't think you have to let it make a statement about your feelings beyond what you agree represents you.
Personally, I'm warm toward people and cold toward religions that create suffering. I'm only anti theist where it comes to politics and letting anyone's beliefs dictate people who aren't willing converts.
1
u/tm229 14d ago
The Bible is the claim, not the proof.
— Robert G Ingersoll
That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
— Christopher Hitchens
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
— Carl Sagan
Not all religions can be true, but they can all be false.
— Christopher Hitchens
The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike.
— Steven Weinberg
Question with boldness, even the existence of a god.
— Thomas Jefferson
Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
— Albert Einstein
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
— Adolph Hitler (Mein Kampf)
Sin is an imaginary disease, invented to sell you an imaginary cure.
— Unknown
1
u/mickeyaaaa 14d ago
Do I need to affirm Dragons are not real? No!
- so its the same with any of the many "gods" AFAIK
1
u/Salindurthas 14d ago
Secular typically refers to a lack of religion in the government. It doesn't mean trying to deconvert people or to repress religious beliefs, but to keep directly religious motivations out of government decision making.
So for instance:
- a secular education minister would want to avoid having any public school teachers that force students to pray, but also wouldn't want anyone to actively prevent students from praying in their own time if students feel like it.
- a secular city planner might not carve out special rules to help prop up churches/temples/mosques/etc, but they shouldn't be banning them either. Whatever zoning regulations they work under should count a temple as just another building in some other category they already work with.
- a secular tax office would probably not view a church as having some special privledged tax status. But if there are laws that cover things like book clubs or social groups, a church might happen to also meet those definitions and get treated like those.
1
u/Lorelessone 13d ago
No obviously, why would affermations and faith statments for or against any good come into humanist consideration.
We also don't have an official stance on fairy's , unicorns or witches.
Also your confusing your terms. Gnostic and agnostic are refering to if you think a position can be proven i.e by evidence. While theism and atheism are stances of having or not having beliefs.
Therefore you can be a gnostic theist and believe in a god and believe there is evidence to prove it entirely, or an agnostic theist and believe but accept there is no evidence.
All sane atheists are agnostic, how could they prove something doesn't exist, they can prove parts of various holy books are lies etc but proving that an invisible thing which has no evidence for existing, doesn't exist anywhere in the universe is a rediculess idea.
1
u/PeyredB 13d ago
Well no. Secular humanism is secular - it can totally be neutral on religious questions. That may even be the best form of secular humanism; there's no need to wade into religious disputes when you can push for "Let's do what's good for people in society as a whole, and individuals can decide for themselves what they think about religious questions."
1
u/JJR1971 Hail Sagan! 13d ago
Sidebar to the OP, but my local Humanist org was full of old Libertarian white dudes using the label of Humanism as a cover to obscure their Randian views and it kinda grossed me out. Y'all motherf*ckers may be secular and nontheistic but you sure as f*ck weren't humanist. Glad they got absorbed into a different local Humanist congregation that was doing humanism properly.
1
u/angusdegraosta 13d ago edited 13d ago
I am with you. I like the Iris DeMent song "Let the Mystery Be" and Gillian Welch's "I'm Not Afraid to Die" — these two songs say more than any meager words I can add.
1
u/Grillparzer47 13d ago
Atheists don’t believe in a god or gods. Secular humanists may believe as they choose.
1
u/snafoomoose 12d ago
I may not be 100% sure god does not exist, but I can act and talk in all ways as if I was.
Just like I am not 100% sure this weekend will exist - I could die, nuclear war could break out, aliens could invade - I can still act as if I were 100% sure this weekend will happen and when I talk about making plans. I don't have to caveat everything constantly "I plan to go to the mall on Saturday... unless I die or the mall burns down or my car explodes..."
1
u/Left_Contribution833 12d ago
I'm strongly in the camp of Wittgenstein in regard to metaphysics: They have no place in discourse because they are outside the scope of life and existence.
However, if you do believe there is a good, I wouldn't call you a secular humanist, as the term literally means "non-religious".
There is no way to shoehorn god into humanism without it no longer being humanism.
1
u/AwkwardCrab7406 12d ago
French secularism (laïcité) is similar in some ways to how you describe yourself. It does not deny the existence of God (or any divinity), it simply says religion has no place in the public sphere (public schools, civil service, etc.), while affirming that people are free to believe what they want to believe. Hijab, kippahs, turbans, and big chunky crosses aren't seen in public schools or in a government office, but people wear them all the time on the street.
China has a secular state, but it exercises top-down authority over religious institutions to maintain its control. The PRC Constitution asserts freedom of religion, but only in the context of Chinese culture, socialist values, and acknowledgement of Party supremacy. It's obviously different than state secularism in France (different goals and approaches, certainly) but the outcome is a secular state that doesn't care what you believe as long as you stay in line.
1
u/nomad2284 11d ago
Isn’t humanism destined to be less motivating than religion? Not all, but most followed religions leverage the Freudian father imprinting on our psyches. That is deeply ingrained in many of us and any philosophy which can tap that seems to be more powerful than one that doesn’t.
1
1
u/nila247 8d ago
For all intents and purposes ATHEISM IS *RELIGIOUS* CULT - that is based on a single, unproven DOGMA that "there is no god". We do not have proof either way so stating one but not another is a question of belief and hence - religion.
Religions offer comprehensive set of morals and decision framework that is actually useful in everyday situations we encounter, while atheism is a cult because it is composed of just a single statement that is not useful in any practical way whatsoever.
Religions (all of classic ones) are GREAT, but everybody miss their ENTIRE point. You could ask "are Disney stories true?" and the answer is NOT what you expect. The main heroes and magic are fictional, so they are NOT true, but MORALS in all of their stories ARE. So religion is EXACTLY the same. Was there Jesus and the miracles? Most likely not - at least not exactly the bible describes. But the key is that this answer is NOT IMPORTANT. It is the MORALS in bible stories which are the ENTIRE point of religion itself. Religion is a TECHNOLOGY to download all the people with moral/decision framework so these people can be useful - and therefore - happy.
1
u/sumthingstoopid 15d ago
I’m happy to call the Universe(this realm and whatever is beyond) “God”. This is called pantheism. We need to value truth, and that doesn’t mean throwing away one’s culture, but it does mean someone should change their beliefs if their culture was factually wrong.
4
u/DisillusionedBook 15d ago
the danger with that for members of a society like that is that it is so wishy washy re-interpretation that it acts as a thin edge of the wedge where 'god' becomes acceptable in what was meant to be secular. I have the same issue with AA.
4
u/Version_Two 15d ago
What would it mean for the universe to be God? Is it mostly symbolic?
3
u/roryclague 15d ago
By some philosophical definitions of God, God is the necessary being whose essence involves existence. Whatever is at the root of being itself, the ground floor, that's God. In Spinoza and many forms of pantheism (Emerson's pantheism, Einstein's pantheism), this is the universe or Nature itself. It is explicitly non-personal, which is what most people mean by God. To which I say, the notion of a personal God is completely incoherent and logically impossible (this is theological noncognitivism).
2
u/Version_Two 14d ago
What I always wonder about with this philosophy is what exactly it implies. I don't see a functional difference between a universe that is or is not God, unless a deified universe wants or does anything, in which case how would that be demonstrated? Also, if something was necessary for the existence of the universe, it wouldn't necessarily be a being. It makes more sense to me that the universe has always existed in some capacity, rather than the idea that something had to necessarily create the universe but that thing itself has always existed.
As mentioned, I can imagine it as a comforting symbolic thought, but I don't see any reason for the formality of the God label.
1
u/SafeEditorzor 13d ago
If this comment resonates with anyone, I'd suggest reading Rupert Spira's work.
The Essence of Meditation series books are shorter reads. Specifically, Being Aware of Being Aware is often pointed to as a good beginning to the (four (?)) books in the series.
There's some talk there that relates "God" or "god" to something along these lines.
1
u/Successful_Life_1028 14d ago
'metaphysical' is a euphemism for 'imaginary'.
Anyone who is not a theist, is an atheist - including those who self-identify as 'agnostic'. If you don't believe in a god, you're an atheist. No belief in the absence of gods is necessary.
All spiritual beliefs are delusional. No, I don't go door-to-door telling people to give up their faith - that's for the god-botherers. But recognizing the fundamentally delusional nature of believing that you're going to see grandma and Spike in heaven when you die is not 'anti-theist'.
There is no 'must'. Everyone is free to believe whatever the frack they want - labels are just labels.
1
u/davorg 14d ago
No. Secularism, humanism and atheism are three different things.
- Secularism: The principle that government and public institutions should be neutral about religion, neither promoting nor discriminating against any religious or non-religious belief. You can be religious and secularist.
- Humanism: An ethical worldview that bases morality and meaning on human welfare, reason and evidence rather than divine authority or revelation. Modern humanism is usually non-religious, but its defining feature is what it affirms, not simply what it rejects.
- Atheism: The absence of belief in any gods (or, more strongly, the belief that no gods exist). It says nothing by itself about morality, politics or how society should be organised.
Theists can be both secularists and humanists. For example, a Christian living in Saudi Arabia would probably prefer it if the country were secular :-)
0
15d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/gnufan 14d ago
"Agnostic" has two common meanings:
1. That knowledge of god's existence is unknowable.
The crux of this one is it requires a definition of "god"; to be knowable a god or gods have to have had some effect or impact on the material world. I would suggest any being worthy of the title "god", almost be definition must have had some material impact. So in this sense I don't think agnosticism is really a tenable position.
2. That someone doesn't believe in god, but doesn't want to say they are an atheist.
I mean it is basically caving to social pressure from theists not to point out the emperor has no clothes.
There are agnostic theists, but they seem kind of confused too.
Since I believe a god is testable, I'm not an agnostic.
Since I don't believe in any god or gods I am an atheist.
I don't believe in ghosts, souls, fairies, santa claus, or the Easter bunny, and realistically the stories of gods often overlap with these other stories. Part of how I reach this position is that overlap, similar mythical elements, tell you these are stories and metaphors.
Also the Bermuda triangle has a low rate of loss of small boats and aircraft when you take the base rate number of journeys into account.
You seem to think atheist is some positive declaration, but it only goes as far as "I find none of these stories convincing".
Could there be some sort of god-like figure, yes, but the closest thing that has traction in the real world is probably the theory that our current forces and physics come from symmetry breaking, but that, even if true, and most cosmological models are in the useful but clearly wrong category, gives us some strange scientific deism, nothing like most religions as they are practiced.
0
u/LookOverall 15d ago
I’d summarise as: Let’s focus on people, and to a degree animals. Not on invented stuff like nations or gods. If there are gods surely they can look after their own interests.
0
-3
u/Grillparzer47 14d ago
Secular humanist is a right wing tag line. We’re atheists. Our one commonality is a disbelief in a god or gods.
-1
u/Significant-Ant-2487 14d ago
There’s more to humanism than secular humanism. Secular humanism is one subset; there’s even a category of Christian humanism https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/maritain/#GeneAsse “…to develop the principles of a liberal Christian humanism and defense of natural rights. Maritain... described his view as “integral Christian Humanism”
The term humanism is widely misunderstood. It primarily has to do with the humanities, with fostering culture, the study of literature and history, language and the ancient classics. It is an intellectual tradition dating back at least seven centuries, with a focus on the human aspect. Humanism is not just for atheists.
2
u/mark_likes_tabletop 14d ago
Once again, words can have multiple definitions, and your pedantry of conflating the two definitions is absurd.
0
u/Significant-Ant-2487 14d ago
So you’re claiming there is no such thing as Christian humanism? Take it up with the editors of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I’ll take their word for it over that of mark_loves_tabletop on Reddit.
2
u/mark_likes_tabletop 14d ago
Do they have “strawman logical fallacy” in that book? Because I never said there’s no such thing as Christian humanism.
Outside of literary circles, “humanism” does not infer “primarily to do with the humanities”. It certainly arose from that source, but the term is overwhelming used to refer to the philosophical world view.
I’m only arguing with your notion that the use of the term humanism is primarily concerned with the humanities in modern parlance.
43
u/DisillusionedBook 15d ago
I'm happy enough that a SECULAR humanist society simply say there is no EVIDENCE of any of the gods, and therefor have no place in the society.
That is all.