Always with the implication that skeptics are hubristic, vain, arrogant, putting mankind at the center of everything.
It makes no sense. The Christian world-view, not the scientific one, is “humanism.” Think about it: In the Christian view, what is the most important thing in the universe? Not God. God is the best and wisest and mightiest thing in the universe; but the most important thing in the universe, that which should be central in every Christian’s thoughts and aims, is the individual human soul. It’s all about where you will spend eternity. The whole material universe God made, “this most excellent Canopy the Ayre, look you, this braue ore-hanging, this Maiesticall Roofe, fretted with golden fire: why, it appeares no other thing to” Christians than disposable scenery in a brief morality play on which the curtain will one day be rung once and for all. That’s vain and hubristic and arrogant.
The skeptical/scientific worldview, on the other hand, tells us the universe was here first, and humans are but a small and accidental and nonessential part of it, with no more claim than a virus has – or, for that matter, a rock – to be regarded as the point of everything.
I think it’s as simple as “If it’s not of God specifically, than it’s secular.” and since the focus isn’t a spiritual one, it’s humanistic. Now maybe that’s not right for everyone who views things this way, but that’s at least how they did it in my old church (fundamentalist non-denominational).
I think they may be partly referring to the humanist notion that morals and ethics come from humanity and aren’t dependent on a divine carrot-and-stick system to keep from degenerating into amoral chaos.
You’re not objecting to the “secular” part, are you? Most skeptics are secularist; they reject sectarian arguments out of hand and seek to live in a society with rational, worldly rules and behaviors.
And finally, it’s become a useful label for them to hang on people they don’t like and want to identify as “not-us”, just like you just used “Fundie”.
Because that’s what they are? It’s what they call themselves? Do you not like the term? I find it works pretty well. Then again, I don’t mind being called an “evolutionist” either, but other people seem to get thrown into a tizzy by that.
They’re trying to turn it into a negative, the way they often use atheist as an insult rather than description. It’s a way to sidetrack the discussion since they really can’t address whatever issue is being discussed on a rational level.
Oh, it’s definitely a perjorative term. Always meant to look down on those who participate in such ungodly things and to forewarn others not to be fooled by them.
If by “religious humanists” you mean mainstream socially-liberal Protestants and Catholics, and/or leftist Protestants and Catholics, the evangelicals seem to despise them not one whit less (but have not, AFAIK, coined or employed a name for them).
Humanism is a world view that doesn’t blame devils or demons for our troubles nor looks to gods or angels to help us. It is about humans taking responsibility for our actions and recognizing that only humans can fix our problems. It is necessarily a secular point of view, but perhaps not necessarily skeptical. I’ve heard of “spiritual humanism”, but that is just a matter of keeping some spirituality in your life without expecting God and prayer to solve all your problems. I still think that’s secular as opposed to religious.
I don’t see it as an offensive or inapt identifier at all. I’m much more bothered by “evolutionist” and “Darwinist” and they barely irk me.
But that isn’t really humanistic. People aren’t souls; souls aren’t real. Concern over the soul drives you to ignore people’s real, human selves in favor of an aspect of them that doesn’t exist. I’d consider it anti-human if anything. How often have we seen someone try to deflect accusations that God is evil or uncaring , by handwaving away human suffering as not mattering compared to the soul in eternity?
And? such people deserve contempt. They are dangerous to themselves and others - unlike secular humanists, so don’t pretend there’s some equivalence. They deserve to be insulted, to be treated with fear and disdain. It’s important to remember that they are anything but harmless.
No. Humanism/religious humanism was a Renaissance philosophical school that said that scholarship should look back at pagan sources, and that, instead of focusing on God, philosophy should focus on human relationships and study human beings. As Pope would later describe it:
“Know then thyself, presume not God to scan;
The proper study of Mankind is Man.”
Me, neither. I find the “Darwinist” thing just plain funny. It’s sort of accurate, but not really. When I study physics, I don’t call myself an “Einsteinist” or “Newtonist”. It’s just laughable.
This is not true. I know a good number of Christians who see God as the ultimate narcissist, having created all of humanity simply so that we might adore him and punishing a lack of proper adoration with an eternity of flame, torment, and being eaten by worms.
This is my experience with Christians too. But it’s really a matter of perspective. The most important thing to Christians is god. He even ranks either than your wife* in some circles. But the most important thing to god is Christians. And Jews too probably. Maybe, perhaps.
Basically this is an argument of semantics. If you asked the average Joe what ‘Humanist’ meant, he might give you any number of definitions. Secular isn’t quite so confused, but what really matters is the intent behind the word usage. Like ‘fundie’ it’s meant as a ever so slightly derogatory. Not entirely sure why that all matters of course.
I was going to add husband here, but the sexism I’ve experienced in the church is telling me not to.
I like the term secular humanist. I think it’s a fairly apt description of my position regarding morality. I didn’t even realize until this thread that it was intended to be derogatory, and I’m still not exactly convinced of that.