Do Humanists worship Humanity?

[McCulloch]

Do you know what the difference between humanism and theism is, exactly?

Simple. There is only one, and it is found only in who is worshiped. Theists worship a deity outside themselves, and humanists worship themselves. As a group, but still.

Do Humanists worship Humanity?

[SailingCyclops]

I don't think it's about whether the object one worships is apparent to one's senses. It's about whether it has the qualities claimed for it.

Lose the concept of worship, accept the qualities of nature as they are understood, and there is no problem. At least for me. Again, I do not worship nature, I respect nature as the source of life, and understand that I am merely a small part of it. It is not rational to worship something you are a part of. I would also say that human worship is as meaningless as a cell in your body worshiping the body would be. I try to live in harmony with Gaia, and to do as little harm as possible. That is not worship in any sense, it's simply sanity.

The thing about worshiping/venerating/assigning 'larger than life' and sometimes impossible qualities to things that can be 'demonstrated to exist,' is that one is always, and I mean, ALWAYS, disappointed; because you expect too much, and whatever it is you expect it of isn't going to be able to deliver.

Why expect anything more than what we know about life? Nature/Gaia is not larger than life, it is life. We are one carbon life form among many. We are born, we obtain consciousness, we live a brief time, and then we cease to exist. To expect more from nature than what we understand and observe is irrational and would indeed lead to disappointment.

I'm not saying that Humanists all do that...but I have met many who do; they are Romantics at heart, assigning a pure goodness to the base of "Humanity" that is more often assigned to a deity.

I think both are in error. If one were to define "goodness" as how harmonious a species lives within it's environment, then humans are at the bottom of the list. I sometimes like to use the following medical analogy, what do we call liver cells which:

Begin to replicate beyond the liver, which flow throughout the body, which produce toxins killing off other cells, and which eventually overpower the body's immune system causing the entire body to die?

It's called cancer. If you look at how humans interact, overpopulate, pollute, infect, and destroy Gaia, then humans can be likened to Gaia's cancer. Not a part of the biosphere which can be considered "good".

They don't look at those aspects of the "Humanist Manifesto III" as goals to strive for ....

I have never read the "Humanist Manifesto". I like to keep my blood pressure down, so I likely will not read it

Humans do very bad things in a group. They support each other in doing horrific things...there is a reason 'mob' has such a bad connotation, after all.

Agreed! My point exactly; it's the cancer analogy. It's a symptom of our corporate insanity. We are the only species which kill for no reason, which pollute our own homes, which take pleasure in doing harm...... no other species destroys it's own means of survival, or is self-destructive. What other species have devised the means of exterminating all life on earth, and are willing to do so?

Dianaiad Is this what you mean by "you go first"?

Bob

[dianaiad]

I don't think it's about whether the object one worships is apparent to one's senses. It's about whether it has the qualities claimed for it.

Lose the concept of worship, accept the qualities of nature as they are understood, and there is no problem. At least for me. Again, I do not worship nature, I respect nature as the source of life, and understand that I am merely a small part of it. It is not rational to worship something you are a part of. I would also say that human worship is as meaningless as a cell in your body worshiping the body would be. I try to live in harmony with Gaia, and to do as little harm as possible. That is not worship in any sense, it's simply sanity.

The thing about worshiping/venerating/assigning 'larger than life' and sometimes impossible qualities to things that can be 'demonstrated to exist,' is that one is always, and I mean, ALWAYS, disappointed; because you expect too much, and whatever it is you expect it of isn't going to be able to deliver.

Why expect anything more than what we know about life? Nature/Gaia is not larger than life, it is life. We are one carbon life form among many. We are born, we obtain consciousness, we live a brief time, and then we cease to exist. To expect more from nature than what we understand and observe is irrational and would indeed lead to disappointment.

I'm not saying that Humanists all do that...but I have met many who do; they are Romantics at heart, assigning a pure goodness to the base of "Humanity" that is more often assigned to a deity.

I think both are in error. If one were to define "goodness" as how harmonious a species lives within it's environment, then humans are at the bottom of the list. I sometimes like to use the following medical analogy, what do we call liver cells which:

Begin to replicate beyond the liver, which flow throughout the body, which produce toxins killing off other cells, and which eventually overpower the body's immune system causing the entire body to die?

It's called cancer. If you look at how humans interact, overpopulate, pollute, infect, and destroy Gaia, then humans can be likened to Gaia's cancer. Not a part of the biosphere which can be considered "good".

They don't look at those aspects of the "Humanist Manifesto III" as goals to strive for ....

I have never read the "Humanist Manifesto". I like to keep my blood pressure down, so I likely will not read it

Humans do very bad things in a group. They support each other in doing horrific things...there is a reason 'mob' has such a bad connotation, after all.

Agreed! My point exactly; it's the cancer analogy. It's a symptom of our corporate insanity. We are the only species which kill for no reason, which pollute our own homes, which take pleasure in doing harm...... no other species destroys it's own means of survival, or is self-destructive. What other species have devised the means of exterminating all life on earth, and are willing to do so?

Dianaiad Is this what you mean by "you go first"?

Bob

OK, you aren't a humanist, you are a Gaeaist. Or something close to that.

...........oh, and there is nothing wrong with the Humanist Manifesto III. It's full of great goals and high ideals that we really should all strive for...and there's not a bit of sarcasm intended in that statement.

But I have to tell you...your post is one of the best examples of religious thinking I"ve come across; Humanity not as God, but as Satan.

................and as a wor...er, respecter of Gaea who believes that humankind is a cancer in her, the obvious solution (and one I have heard from MANY people who think/believe as you do) that it is best if humans stop procreating, and simply get out of Gaea's way; leave the planet. Provide fertilizer for the plants and food for the carrion eaters. I have been lectured ad nauseum about how evil I was to bring five more of the evil humans into the world.

And it is to those (and so far you do sound like one of those) who think that humans are a cancer on the biosphere and should be eliminated, that I say fine...you go first.

May I just say one thing?

Gaea doesn't think. She doesn't care. She has been responsible for mass extinctions that make anything blamed on the OT God look pikerish. HE, according to the story, at least, saved representatives of everything so that life could be repopulated as it was. Gaea wasn't so careful.

Gaea is a human construct; Gaea is Gaea only because humans have observed nature and want to put a name to it. If the 'cancer' that is humanity disappears....so does Gaea.

Or put it this way; if humans are a cancer on Gaea, is Gaea not responsible for our existence? Why are we NOT as much a part of Gaea as any blade of grass, forest fire, wolf pack or Bambi?

I wonder, can you see the irony in all this?

[Burninglight]

Do you know what the difference between humanism and theism is, exactly?

Simple. There is only one, and it is found only in who is worshiped. Theists worship a deity outside themselves, and humanists worship themselves. As a group, but still.

Do Humanists worship Humanity?

I don't know what they worship, but I know who they don't worship!

[Thatguy]

It's a wonderful video showing how we can work together to benefit each of us. Any Humanist who believes that only Humanists share socialization and humane values doesn't get the basics of Humanism. Humanists don't say that you must be humanist to be kind or considerate. Humanists don't claim exclusive possession of humanitarian values.

What do you have in mind by the idea of worship? If valuing something highly is worship than there are many things I worship. not only that, but theists are all polytheists since they, too, value many different things. I value my friends highly, I would sacrifice much for them, but I don't worship them. unless you define "worship" as "valuing highly."

Worship, I'd say, is more religiously adoring something as sacred, as a deity.

Humanists don't hold humanity to be sacred. We, particularly after WWII, fully recognize that humans, individually and acting together, can behave in beastly ways. Humans individually can be nasty, selfish, petty, and cruel. When humans gather together and act with a common purpose, we can geometrically increase the intensity of those characteristics. Humans can also be humane. And acting together we can be many times more so, reinforcing each other and accomplishing good beyond what an equal number of individuals acting alone could do. Any particular human isn't sacred. Even the best of us has had deep flaws. The same is true for any group of humans and for humanity as a whole.

Humanism isn't the veneration of humanity. It's valuation of what we believe to be the best impulses and values that humans have. Humans are a part of nature, not the adored be all and end all of Humanist thought.

The question's answered in most humanist texts. Not that I've read a lot of them. Here, for instance, is from http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.ph ... erry1_18_1

The idea that "humanists replace God with Man" seems to arise from a tendency among many Christians to assume that other religions and worldviews have a structure and content that parallels Christianity. So, since "Christians" worship Christ, humanists must worship humans.

But secular humanism is not a religion and humanists don't worship anything. We are far too realistic to worship humanity. While we recognize that all human beings have the potential to do good, we also realize that the potential exists for acts of great evil. Humanity's constant challenge is to understand itself and improve itself.

Your video shows the sort of concerted effort that brings a tear to humanist eyes. Wonderful. Just as videos of mobs setting fire to helpless victims makes us cry. We recognize that these same emotional responses are common to most of humanity, no matter what their religious views. We are not so idealistic that we believe that even those of us filled with joy today sharing your video might not tomorrow be part of the mob setting fire to the demonized perceived enemy. We just figure there are ways we can work together, values we can nurture, that might make each of us act in a more humane manner.

Such discussions may fill us with the sort of rhetorical excesses I've fallen prey to here. But we are realists who tend to see nothing as sacred, nothing as worthy of worship, but much as deserving admiration and praise. We can respect and value without idealizing. Or at least we can aspire to.

[McCulloch]

I don't know what they worship, but I know who they don't worship!

Can I assume that by this you mean The One True God? Yes, you would be right, Humanists generally do not worship any god or gods, but I might challenge that you know this One True God. I don't even know what you mean by God. What is God? How do you know that anything is true about this God? I admit, I don't know God. But I really don't think you do either.

• And He walks with me,
  And He talks with me,
  And He tells me I am his own.
  And the joy we share
  As we tarry there,
  None other
  Has ever
  Known.

[Burninglight]

I don't know what they worship, but I know who they don't worship!

Can I assume that by this you mean The One True God? Yes, you would be right, Humanists generally do not worship any god or gods, but I might challenge that you know this One True God. I don't even know what you mean by God. What is God? How do you know that anything is true about this God? I admit, I don't know God. But I really don't think you do either.

• And He walks with me,
  And He talks with me,
  And He tells me I am his own.
  And the joy we share
  As we tarry there,
  None other
  Has ever
  Known.

He can only be known by faith; without faith it is impossible to please God. Those that come to Him must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen!

[McCulloch]

He can only be known by faith; without faith it is impossible to please God. Those that come to Him must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen!

If faith is having confident belief in stuff without sufficient reason, then I have no faith. Furthermore, I do not see that faith is a virtue. Faith, to me, is selective gullibility. Why would an almighty God wish his people to be sucked into believing without sufficient reason?

However, I do believe that I have been diligent in seeking the truth about God. I skeptically and rigorously test all things, and hold to that which can be shown to be true. Will your God reward me?

[Burninglight]

He can only be known by faith; without faith it is impossible to please God. Those that come to Him must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen!

If faith is having confident belief in stuff without sufficient reason, then I have no faith. Furthermore, I do not see that faith is a virtue. Faith, to me, is selective gullibility. Why would an almighty God wish his people to be sucked into believing without sufficient reason?

However, I do believe that I have been diligent in seeking the truth about God. I skeptically and rigorously test all things, and hold to that which can be shown to be true. Will your God reward me?

My God is my Creator, he is also yours. I don't know if God will reward you. I don't know your heart - he does. IMO, a reward in your case would be having faith to believe in God and in Jesus Christ. Faith can be gullibility, if you have it in the wrong place, but all people have faith to one degree or other; for instance, when you sit in a chair for the first time, you have the faith it will hold you up. Does that mean gullibility? Your answer is no better than mine. Jesus said, unless you, become as a child, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. We must have child like belief not be childish!

[Thatguy]

all people have faith to one degree or other; for instance, when you sit in a chair for the first time, you have the faith it will hold you up. Does that mean gullibility? Your answer is no better than mine. Jesus said, unless you, become as a child, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. We must have child like belief not be childish!

So it would be reasonable, then, for me to wait to have faith in God until I see as much evidence to support that faith as I do to support my belief that a chair will support me? Should my faith in God also be as provisional as my belief in the supportive ability of a chair? If I start sitting in a chair and it creaks, I pop right up and find another chair. Should my faith in God be similar?
I think there's a significant different in the use of the word faith here. If faith merely means "trust based upon significant supporting evidence" then I have faith in lots of things. If it means "belief despite lack of evidence sufficient to support that belief" then I have faith in nothing.

[Burninglight]

all people have faith to one degree or other; for instance, when you sit in a chair for the first time, you have the faith it will hold you up. Does that mean gullibility? Your answer is no better than mine. Jesus said, unless you, become as a child, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. We must have child like belief not be childish!

So it would be reasonable, then, for me to wait to have faith in God until I see as much evidence to support that faith as I do to support my belief that a chair will support me? Should my faith in God also be as provisional as my belief in the supportive ability of a chair? If I start sitting in a chair and it creaks, I pop right up and find another chair. Should my faith in God be similar?
I think there's a significant different in the use of the word faith here. If faith merely means "trust based upon significant supporting evidence" then I have faith in lots of things. If it means "belief despite lack of evidence sufficient to support that belief" then I have faith in nothing.

No, you are right, the chair is just an analogy, and there is a significant difference. I was only pointing out that when you sit in a chair for the first time, you have faith it will hold you without having proof or you wouldn't sit in that sit; moreover, people don't understand the theory of electricity but that doesn't stop them from using the light switch. I have faith in God, not because I saw Him and have scientific proof, it is just that I know He exists by faith like I know the sun rose this morning; not because I saw it rise; it is because I see everything because of its rising. The Bible says "The heavens declare His glory"