Atheist or Humanist - what's in a name?

[naomi24]

A comment from someone that they had no problem with humanists (or words to that effect), and the “Why are atheists so mistrusted (despised?) by those who believe?” thread got me thinking. Would the religious see atheists as less of a threat if they dropped the word ‘atheist’ and adopted the term ‘humanist’ instead?

http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism

[woofgang]

no, because I don't see atheists as a threat in the first place

[naomi24]

Perhaps 'threat' was the wrong word to use. Let's go for 'mistrust'.

[jno]

humanists define themselves as believing in something. Atheists define them as not believing in something. Perhaps people respond to the inherent negativity (which often displays itself in telling others why they're wrong about things).

[LazyGun]

I think jno has the heart of it.

Not sure Naomi. Atheism obviously only represents a narrow facet of a persons worldview - one defined entirely by that persons response to religion or a deity. Humanism represents a much broader definition and acts as a code for a set of cultural and ethical values too.

There is a lot of discussion about another new descriptor for atheists with a social justice agenda - Atheism+ - but this is still an evolving definition.


http://www.humanism.org.uk/humanism

http://freethoughtblo...ghts-on-divisiveness/

Humans loves their stereotypes - it fits into the human need for a narrative, and allows decision making based upon a set of assumptions about how that individual might act, what common values you might share.

So when people define themselves by their religion - Jewish, Christian, Mormon, JW, Muslim etc - those labels offer some insight into a presumptive set of cultural and social values. I don't like that form of thinking myself - I think it lazy and misleading - but it is deeply ingrained.

So,the term Humanism offers some context to someones presumptive social and cultural values, and may actually serve to reassure those faithful who see atheists as having no ethical or moral framework.

[emmie]

i doubt if many people of faith see us as anything at all, i don't mind being called humanist, atheist, matters not a jot.

[naomi24]

//humanists define themselves as believing in something//

I think jno has it entirely wrong. What do humanists believe in?

From the link:

Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who:
•trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)

[naomi24]

LG, //Atheism obviously only represents a narrow facet of a persons worldview - one defined entirely by that persons response to religion or a deity. Humanism represents a much broader definition and acts as a code for a set of cultural and ethical values too.//

That, of course, is true – but in my experience most atheists are also humanists, so perhaps by continuing to describe ourselves as atheists, we are giving a false impression and doing ourselves a disservice. It seems to me that ‘humanist’ somehow comes across as a much gentler term, and might therefore be viewed as less aggressive – and in a less aggressive manner.

[woofgang]

how can I either trust or mistrust you based on a fairly undescriptive label? I don't know you.

[naomi24]

Woofgang, In that case, the question doesn't apply to you, but thanks for your answer.

[jno]

from Wiki

"Humanism is the body of philosophies and ethical perspectives that emphasize the value and agency of human beings"

The second half of the sentence does indeed point to a preference for rationalism over fideism... but it's the second part of the sentence for a reason.

[jno]

(sorry, just to make it clear the second half of the sentence is on the Wikipedia page; I didn't quote it).

[naomi24]

The second half of the sentence? What are you talking about?

[naomi24]

Well, that's useful. :o/

[jno]

you'll find it on the Wiki page. Broadly speaking it says humanists emphasise the value and agency of human beings and tend to prefer rationalism to fideism.

That definition clearly says what humanists believe in, and puts it as the most important of their attributes; which chimes with my first post. They define themselves with reference to who they have faith in. That is positive. Atheists - a+theists - define themselves by who they don't believe in, and that's negative, or reactive.

This isn't a comment on individuals; as you say, many people will be both. It's a comment on what they choose to call themselves, and how others respond to this, which was in answer to your original question.

[naomi24]

I've looked and there appear to be several Wiki pages, but I think this comes from the one you're referring to.

//Today IHEU uses 'Humanism' capitalized and without qualification.[8] Formal positions adopted by Humanist organizations from around the world in the form of the Amsterdam Declaration 2002 would assert the integrally non-theistic nature of Humanism, and IHEU's Minimum Statement (1996)[9] and current bylaws (adopted 2009)[10] both assert a Humanism which is "not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality."

When the first letter is capitalized, "Humanism" describes the secular ideology that espouses reason, ethics, and justice, while specifically rejecting supernatural and religious ideas as a basis of morality and decision-making.//


To clarify, I should have used a capital 'H' in my question - so please read 'Humanist' - not 'humanist'.

[mibn2cweus]

I find the terms 'atheist/atheism' are used pejoratively (for the most part) by theists to describe those who don't share their beliefs. Without theists, those who believe in a divine creator and overseer of reality, there would be no use for such terms as 'atheist/atheism'.

Atheists are most broadly defined as simply those who are not theists, those who do not believe in the existence of a deity(s), whether or not they share or ascribe to any of the theists moral principles or ideals.

For the moment, I'll let the humanists speak for themselves.

[naomi24]

I'll speak for myself and declare myself a 'Humanist' - with a capital 'H'.

[mibn2cweus]

...'Humanists' speak for themselves. ;o)

[naomi24]

As indeed do 'Atheists'. ;o)

[jno]

just the Wiki page on humanism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

I cited the first sentence, because I think that reflects people's first thoughts on humanists (if it didn't the article would be badly written). It also reflects mine, which I laid out in my first post.

I'm not that bothered about capital letters, but people should feel free to award themselves some if it helps.