I mean, think about it: In the Christian world-view, what is the most important thing in the Universe? Hint: Not God. God is, in the Christian world-view, the best and wisest and most powerful thing in the Universe. But the most important thing, the thing with which every Christian is supposed to be most concerned, is the individual human soul. Every Christian’s first duty is to save his own soul, and every Christian’s second duty is to save others’ souls. As for this most excellent canopy, the air—look you, this brave o’erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire—why it appears no other thing to Christians but disposable scenery in a crude, savage and childish medieval morality play! And that willfully ignorant savage C.S. Lewis does nothing but to reinforce that point!
Cites, evidence, some sort of indication what you’re talking about? What people are these who say this? How common is it? Is it a fringe thing? A Fox News thing? Throw us a bone here.
:dubious: You really don’t need a single bone of any body to support the proposition that Fundies denounce “humanists,” and you motherfucking know it.
… Wow. That’s not poisoning the well or anything.
There is no other reasonable way in this particular debate might be framed, and you motherfucking know it.
In any case, an argument that confuses C. S. Lewis for a “Fundie” is a pretty laughable one. If you can apologize, we may be able to have a debate.
No, seriously, where are you getting this idea from?
But if you’re really interested in the question posed by the thread title, “humanism” is often short for, or specifically refers to, “secular humanism”; and a little googling turned up the following cites on secular humanism:
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
From what appears to be a conservative Christian (possibly but not necessarily fundamentalist) perspective: http://www.christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-r002.html
From self-proclaimed secular humanists themselves: https://www.secularhumanism.org/
Well, just think of the chaotic hellscape we’d be living in if we lived our lives with the same outlook as monsters like Isaac Asimov and Kurt Vonnegut!
I think a big part of it is they conflate humanism with atheism. I’m not making a value judgement on either, but I think it’s pretty clear why a fundamentalist Christian wouldn’t like atheism. Also, there’s a common belief with that type that any good deed is less meaningful if it isn’t done “for the glory of God.” Like helping an old lady across the street will make you feel good about yourself, so unless you’re doing it “for God” you’re really just patting yourself on the back. No, it doesn’t make much sense to me either… But basically, I think they want to have a monopoly on “goodness,” and the thought that you can be a decent person on your own without resorting to a higher power is threatening to them.
It also plays into their whole “Christians are under attack” delusion. While overtly Christian teachings and practices have been largely removed from public schools in the past 50 years, they still teach basic right and wrong, golden-rule type stuff to children. The Fundy crowd labels all these common sense-type ethical systems “Humanism” and calls foul, claiming that if they can’t force their Christian ideals on every child in public school, the Humanists shouldn’t be able to either. Of course just about any teaching or maxim that says “you should be nice to other people” could be labeled “humanist.”
It’s a common trope on right-wing conservative religious radio. I’ll cite Bob Dutko and Roger Marsh, on KBRT, who use the term occasionally as a pejorative.
In the 70s the boogieman of the religious right was Atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair.
In the 80s it was Secular Humanist Norman Lear (et al.).
It did have an effect, for a while,
Humanists believe in the achievements man can make on their own in the elevation of their species.
I understand why that upsets those that believe redemption from a superior force is the only path to that.
I rather like the formulation that as a Christian one rejects belief in Gods other than theirs, and as an atheist one only needs to reject belief in one further God, thus placing the two on a similar level when the number of available Gods to reject is considered- atheists only reject one more god than a Christian!
The Humanist Association is an atheist organisation, so they’d only be referring to them as they refer to themselves.
Are you certain about that? My concordance lists only two passages directly addressing your contextual concept of “soul”, both in Matthew (but not any other Gospel):
Every other reference uses “soul” in a purely metaphorical sense, such as “Love/Serve God with all your heart and all your soul.” (Deuteronomy 6:5, 10:12, 30:6; Joshua 22:5; 2 Kings 23:25, Matthew 22:37)
Well, call me a motherfucker, because this atheist has no idea what you’re blathering on about.
Typical atheist. Always fucking their goddamn mothers.
It’s funny - I once had a radical environmentalist denounce me as a “humanist” because I put humanity’s needs ahead of those of the planet. I guess it’s a useful epithet.
I’ve also run across self proclaimed humanists who say that we should kill any aliens, artificial intelligences or animals uplifted to sapience because they aren’t human. The word definitely means different things to different people.
Because humans are motherfuckers?
It may be an “American” thing that has not creeped over the border to Canada. While the OP is easily understood as self-evident among anyone who has been exposed to Fundamentalist or Evangelical broadcasts or writings in the U.S., it may not be so easily recognized elsewhere.
“Humanism” began as a movement within late pre-Reformation Catholicism that made a number of religious people (Catholic and non-Catholic) nervous as a potential revival of the Pelagian heresy. (That movement said that people could come to God seeking salvation as opposed to the traditional church’s position that God offered salvation and people were only capable of accepting it.) It regarded humanity as basically perfectable, with some humanists explaining that the perfecting agent was God and others explaining that humans could perfect themselves. During the nineteenth century, a number of anti-religious people saw science as a tool that would permit humanity to perfect itself, regardless of any gods, and adopted the word as self-descriptive.
There are still religious humanists around in the mold of Desiderius Erasmus (1466 - 1536) and to distinguish between them and those who felt that no gods were needed for humans to perfect themselves, the phrase secular humanist was coined. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, of course, reject even the views of the religious humanists, so they only occasionally tack “secular” onto the phrase when they are in condemnation mode.
Religious conservatives in the U.S. have perceived several successive decisions by the U.S. Supreme court that interpreted the separation of church and state to mean that religious activities should not be entwined with government activities, (such as school prayer, religious Christmas displays purchased by communities, etc.), as attacks on their beliefs that God should be an integral part of the public life of the nation. The choice by various atheist groups to self-label as “humanists” simply reinforces their belief that humanism, in any form, is evil.
= = =
This question could have easily been handled in General Questions, although with the rancor already expressed in the thread, I will leave it here, now.
BrainGlutton, your overreaction to the questions about the OP is inappropriate. Most condemnation of humanism occurs in the U.S. and acting as though that American phenomenon should be widely known across the entire English speaking world is rather parochial on your part.
In the future, if you are asked for evidence of a claim, simply support it with facts without posting figurative spittle on the screen.
[ /Moderating ]