Talk:Humanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Religion. This project provides a central approach to Religion-related subjects on wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Humanism is part of WikiProject Atheism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide atheism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
For more information and how you can help click Show → If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details. Quick help: See changes to: Main talk page Article layout Links to Atheism information and Wikipedia:Research resources Writing about religion and Article development Citing sources, Verifing Sources and Original research Assume good faith and be civil Core articles Atheism article New atheism articles To Do List: edit - history - watch - purge Join WikiProject atheism and be bold Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members Help with articles. See this month's adopt an article. Help out with the To-do lists Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for atheism related articles (see: atheism layout style, The perfect article, and Featured articles) Add Atheism navigation template on the bottom of all atheism articles; (use {{Atheism}} or see navigation template) Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box) Add {{Category:atheism}} to the bottom of all atheism related articles, so it shows up on the list of atheism articles Maintenance / Etc Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources, and atheism references). Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process) Watch the list of atheism related articles and add to accordingly (see atheism articles) And always write for an encyclopedia. Article to improve for the month of November Agnosticism Create Notable atheist articles Shorten / merge into others false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Expand an atheism stub Your immediate attention false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Atheism, using footnotes.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	There also exists an archive of past discussions. Before archiving, this page has been refactored – see the archive's bottom section details on 2006-08-21 till 2006-11-10 refactoring
Archive 1 contains mainly: comments that had become of little use for the future; all discussions on humanism assumed to be religious/secular/atheist (thus mainly on what the topic is supposed to be about or not); all discussions on which individuals are considered to be humanists, which largely depends on viewpoints regarding the above.

Contents 1 Humanism in a historical perspective 1.1 Humanism's genesis 1.2 Two historical points and One on relevance of historical humanism today 1.3 More on History 1.4 Other influences on modern Humanism 2 Speciesism 3 Tech: template errors 4 Tech: deletion/copyvio 5 Style: vagueness, "parochial" 6 First four sections 7 humanism as a morality 8 grammer/usage ? 9 Is this link proper? 10 Marxist Humanism 11 Integration of Humanism and Faith 12 Overall Description of Humanism 13 OED on Humanism 14 Edits January 8 thru 10 15 Broken Link 16 Accidental revert 17 Criticism 18 Comparing Humanism to the foremost world religion: Ronnie-ism

[edit] Humanism in a historical perspective

Section title created on 21 Aug 2006 to hold related comments as subsections.

[edit] Humanism's genesis

0riginally a section rather uninformatively titled 'Humanism'

The genesis of Humanism lay in the belief among 14/15c scholars that true worth was to be found in the "litterae humaniores" of ancient Rome, and in the study of Latin, NOT Greek, as is stated here. (Interest in Greek was re-awakened later.) The heroes of the early Humanist thinkers were the Roman sages Cicero, Livy, Tacitus and Seneca, among many others. — 202.156.2.58 6 Apr 2005 (was unsigned, undated)

[edit] Two historical points and One on relevance of historical humanism today

Originally a section created at top of this talk page.

I agree about the article not being clear, but from the completely opposite viewpoint (than those described below [note by refactorer: assumedly then 2 sections lower by Upfront 2 Jul 2005, now in archive]). I seem to agree with Buridan [who made many comments now in archive]. I have two main points: (1) history of humanism, especially 13-15th c, is missing. (2) the roots of christian european humanism in arab humanism (known as 'Adab' - Humanism) ie writing in arabic (by christian, muslim and jewish writers) of the 9th to 13th c. is also missing.

The first problem is straight forward and can be solved through input from a historian of the medieval-renaissance europe intellectual history. Historians who have written on this include paul kristellar, cassirer, donald kelley, many others.

The second problem can be solved by historians of muslim intellectual history especially covering the arab-muslim-christian-jewish interactions in byzantium (damscus, aleppo), baghdad, codoba, sicily and other mediteranean states. These would include historians such as W. Montgomery Watt 'The Influence of Islam on Medieval Europe' (Edinburgh: University Press, 1972), George Makdisi, 'The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West' (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1981), and The Rise of Humanism in Classical Islam and the Christian West' (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1990), and Franz Rosenthal 'The Classical Heritage in Islam, Emile and Jenny Marmorstein, trans. (New York: Routledge, 1992).

If we look at the history of humanism (and also the history of philosophy) we will see that religion and humanism have (often) been hand in hand. Some try to separate them. Modern 'notions' of 'humanism' always being 'secular' or 'nonreligious' are erroneous if they try to cover all historical humanism in their generalization. The same can be demonstrated in philosophy.

I would refer to christian humanists of the thirteenth to fifteenth century and arab humanists of ninth to thirteenth century (rouphly) in support of this. [Note: The history of humanism in Wikipedia, besides the inadequate 'Renaissance' entry, is totally missing. Hence, I argue, all the confusion.] Among pre-Renaissance figures are Marsilio Ficino, Pico Mirandolla, another Pico and precursors include dante and boccacio. Key texts are 'Orations on the Dignity of Man' and others. Many of these entries are here on Wikipedia, and quite adequate, if possibly neglecting point No.2, which Makdisi or example brings out - concerning 'adab' humanism taught as a subject in the muslim colleges such as in baghdad 12th c.

If we trace Dantes inluences (in Wikipedia), we go back to the 'Sicillian school' and the court of 'Frederik II of Sicily'. If we look at influences, later adventures and the early life of Frdederik II (for example thru Wikipedia) we will easily see the influence of arab culture. This is one line of capturing the interaction of the many local flavors with the 'inspired' (later 'enlightened') cultural influences of the muslim, jewish and christian arabs, already floating around the mediterranean for awhile.

responding to another point: I think the comparison of the renaissance with our times is incisively relevant because of the play between technological development and the human spirit. I think we would be cutting our roots off thinking what we have, happened out of the blue. We have everything to learn, especially from humanism, as we move in a post-human society like the modern industrial economies.

Best. i am not a historian but how can i be of help. Ibn-arabi 15:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More on History

Originally a section created at top of this talk page, following the bad example by Ibn-arabi 3 Jan 2006.

I basically agree with Ibn-arabi here. Without a discussion of Erasmus (Thomas More etc.) and the reformation of the catholic church this section seems very incomplete and distorted. A lot of the key information is already in Wikipedia elsewhere and just needs cross-linking. Secular humanism has co-opted the term humanism but in no way eclipsed its original meaning and what is a critical piece of christian history as the article currently appears to imply. Interestingly, I have a 20 year old copy of encyclopaedia brittanica which by comparison fails to mention secular humanism at all, but devotes over 5 pages to Erasmus and the shift in catholic philosophy from a fatalistic to a humanist one. A change which almost certainly had wider support and a greater impact on western civilization that the advent of secular humanism has yet to muster. — 84.92.123.69 12 Jan 2006 (was unsigned, undated)

[edit] Other influences on modern Humanism

Originally a section, moved here as subsection on 21 Aug 2006.

The article is good - much better than it was a year ago.

It's fair to say that the European Renaissance was a critical period in the development of ideas that eventually gave rise to modern Humanism. I feel however that the article needs to say more about other influences on modern Humanism in the description of its History. It is not an entirely western way of thinking. Many modern Humanists I know, including myself, have been and continue to be, inspired by the philosophical ideas of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism, for example. It can be argued that European philosophers like Nietzsche (who has been an inspiration for many Humanists) was influenced by eastern ideas through Schopenhauer who had studied Buddhism (albeit with poor translations). The influence of Arab thinkers on the renaissance needs to be stated more explicitly.

It's important to make it clear that Humanism is not only product of Western culture. Paul B. 17 Jan 2006 (signed as shown, IP id other contributions; undated)

As currently written, the introduction to this topic is biased and definitely not NPOV. I agree with other commenters that the historical development of humanism needs to be expanded significantly. I am new to (contributing to) Wikipedia, so I don't want to jump in and make sweeping changes without hearing feedback from others. --64.81.240.233 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting critique, 64.81.240.233. Try out some of your ideas here on the talk page, and see what folks say. I for one am interested in more details of historical development of humanism. Welcome to world of writing/editing on Wikipedia! --Dialecticas 00:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Allow my asking to put one more ":" in front of a comment than you find in the comment above in the same section, that causes an extra indent (Wiki-style on talk pages to make it easier to follow a discussion; I just put a ":" in front of your paragraph) [and use the 'Show preview' to inspect the effect before the 'Save page']. The current intro seems unbiased and NPOV to me: it describes 'humanism'. If this may seem a horrible kind of thinking to you, you are not going to be a humanist; if it seems a marvellous too-good-to-be-true presentation, you already are one. You should not be afraid to make sweeping changes, provided that these are well sourced (also read this proposal), NPOV and generally try to follow Wikipedia guidelines, without wiping content that meets those standards: your changes can and will be reverted or modified by others if needed (but do not get offended or too much disappointed then, new users learn by try-and-error). Perhaps bear in mind that this article has been modified numerous times to come to its present state and there have been many controversies (there is also an archive of earlier talks, see top of this talk page), thus it may be unlikely that sweeping changes will remain undisputed. If unsure, you might declare on the talk page more precisely what modifications you have in mind, and await reactions before applying those. One more tip: Most contributors to Wikipedia are inclined to assume inexperienced or even malicious edits from users identified by their IP-address; your edits may be taken more seriously if you create a user account with some nickname, especially when editing controversial or often vandalized articles. Please do not let this stop you, we surely can use all the help that comes available. Good luck. — SomeHuman 3 Jan 2007 01:06 (UTC)

[edit] Speciesism

I was thinking of replacing the section on speciesism with the following:

---Humanism and anthropocentrism ---

A distinction is often made between philosophies such as humanism, that recognize and exalt the value of what can be seen as specifically human traits, and related philosophies such as anthropocentrism and human exceptionalism, which hold that humans because of this have a status and rights which no other creature may have. Some have interpreted humanism as a form of speciesism (similar to racism), often because of the word itself.

Proponents of the latter philosophies tend towards a view that, because other species are not human, therefore they de facto have none of the rights we classify under human rights and should not be considered capable of personhood. Humanists tend to differ from this view and hold that whilst humans should aspire to be the best that humans can be, this does not exclude respect for, and valuing of, other species and other animal's world-view as well. For these reasons, humanism appears to be neutral with regard to issues of animal rights.

Comments? FT2 (Talk) 10:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It sounds better than what is in the article at present, however this could turn into a very controversial section. I think your edits are a good start in the right direction. —Viriditas | Talk 10:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that humanism has nothing to do with putting humans first or knocking non-human animals. This is, at best, a misconception, and the suggested edit only furthers the misconception. Alienus 17:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet, the editor appears to address that very point. The content appears to be drawn from the humanist literature. I don't see the problem. —Viriditas | Talk 22:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

At the cost of adding lots of words that don't improve the article and make it less clear whether humanism means hating non-humans. It's not a positive change. Alienus 22:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we are reading the same section or there is some difficulty communicating, as we appear to be speaking past each other. —Viriditas | Talk 22:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a basic disagreement on either "What is humanism" or "How do humanists see non humans or non human animals". Maybe answering how you see those would help clarify the difference and allow a better article?FT2 (Talk) 00:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue on speciesism is a very valid negative view on humanism that is completely ommited in the current article. There is a whole literature on this, and many contemporary philosophers (including Derrida) use the word meaning exactly that. This is not simply a mis-understanding. --132.239.66.166 19:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tech: template errors

I'm getting this ugly error smack dab on the top of the article:

Error creating thumbnail: convert: unable to open image `/mnt/upload3/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Humanism.png': No such file or directory. convert: unable to open file `/mnt/upload3/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Humanism.png'. convert: missing an image filename `/mnt/upload3/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cd/Humanism.png/50px-Humanism.png'.

I tried to figure it out but can't... somebody who knows how please fix --Davidkazuhiro 18:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no such error in either Firefox or IE. Perhaps it was just a temporary problem on the Wikipedia servers? -Rhwentworth 01:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes the problem seems to be gone from this article but it still pops up on the other humanism articles. Have you tried checking the others? Use Firefox, IE and Maxthon and the same problem persists for all. Most likely server problem but its lasted for a while now. Its just weird how the same template is fine on some articles but screws up on others. Please check the other Humanism articles and see for yourself. I just did so myself --Davidkazuhiro 05:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tech: deletion/copyvio

just had to delete the page because an anon inserted copyrighted info. should be back in ten minutes or so, sorry for the delay . . . --heah 01:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

okay it's back . . . seems like there must be an easier way to do this than having to click on 850 different reversions to restore them, when only 3 were being left out . . . But as far as i know there isn't. --heah 01:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I Have No Idea I have no idea what i am saying. I just want to holla to all the people from grand old NJ. So hollaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! User_talk:Chris gonzalez

[edit] Style: vagueness, "parochial"

The opening section talks about universal morality and something about problems being parochial. This gets redirected to "parish", so my first thought is that humanists advocate a world state, which is surely wrong. So what does this sentence mean? Bob A 04:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not very family with Humanism but something is telling me this article is propaganda and misleading. It is very vague. --HResearcher 09:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The link for the word parochial near the beginning refers to the parish article, whereas I think it should refer to the parochialism article. How is this changed? Azlib77 20 Aug 2006

Fixed. To see how it's done, look at the page in edit mode. —Viriditas | Talk 23:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The 'parish' link under "parochial" was highly inappropriate, the one Viriditas put there is the right one. Though I think that article emphasises too much on governments. In this context the term has similar but more general meaning. Like in countries where every village and every part of town has a parish ([Late] Latin: parochia) with typically locally organized circles, events, etc: focused on the local scale (thus within a particular point of view), having (too) little contact with and thus interest for and knowledge about the universal scale (like the parish belonging to a much larger Church that mainly has more, other, and perhaps more important things in mind). "Parochial" is a rather polite adjective to point out showing an interest only in the close (at heart) aspects of what is mainly a much broader subject. — SomeHuman 21 Aug 2006 01:27 (UTC)

Upon incidentally finding other articles where 'parochial' has its original and evident meaning of relating to a parish, whereas I now found 'Parochial' to redirect towards 'Parochialism', I made 'Parochial' a disambiguation page. — SomeHuman 13 Jan 2007 18:57 (UTC)

[edit] First four sections

Why are the first four sections === sections? I suspect that these were intended for later in the article moved up by a junk edit, and never moved back. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 03:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Did a search and it seems a vandal's error was not corrected properly back in March 28, 2006. Now inserted. statsone 06:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] humanism as a morality

Humanism is not a morality in itself, it is mostly the philosophy of human personal development and not about universal human values. That should be mentioned. — 217.211.36.143 (talk•contribs) 26 Nov 2006 (was unsigned, undated)

I'm not sure all humanists would agree. What is your justification / citation for this statement? Abtract 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just becouse all humanists doesn't agree then it is not in itself an morality. My justification is the longer text below. It is based on my history lessions.

'humanism

In my opinion humanism is the idea that human beings are in the centrum of the universe and have connection throught the mind to the objective reality or through some religious connection with higher powers.

That is how classical greek humanistic philosophy is. The greek human being becouse of his mind and or religion is in the centrum of the universe. With his knowlegde,education or gnosis he can develop to a better person. Some greek philopshies point out the purpose with humanism should be to become a god. In Shinto and Slavic peganism elements are supposed to focus in the human creature and appoint us a central role in the universe.

Nihilists, liberals, gnostics and Satanists all refer to humanism. Likewise did the Rosencrussians and so do the freemansons. Greek ortodox heresy have a unique christian humanism that defines salvation to be antrophosis. Occult ideas about alchemy wasn't about making gold but a philosophy about the elements in the body and how they focused in the soul. The purpose develop as moral human being and transform the soul. Therefore it was a form of humanism.

Antique humanism and japanese humanism is not elilitarian and elitist idealogies about the superhuman are humanistic as well. Look at those cultures and compare them to humanism. They are cultures or philosophies that put man in centre of the universe and attribute the reason to the human mind or the human soul. The philosophical elements are used in all tree cultures to explain this.

Egalitarianism is the opposite to humanism which is a form of indivualism.

Humanist philosophy took an elitist form in antique Greece and in the humanistism of the freemansons. Various elitist philosophies are based on humanism. The modern secular educational system is humanistic becouse it is has orgins in the humanistic idealogy.

Personal human development means that people are not equal.

Objective human values would declare human beings incapable of personal development and incapable of free will. Objective values exist becouse society belief in that people need to be guided.

You should mention humanism in alchemic thought and occult philosphies as well the connection with elemental worship in shinto, slavic peganism and classical greek philosophy .

This article idealise humanism and is partial.

Humanism predates morality as we see morality today.

Antique classical humanism and bourgoise humanism where not of a moral nature either.

— 217.211.36.143 (talk•contribs) 26 Nov 2006 (was unsigned, undated)

What little I understood of that seems incorrect (I think). If you intend to make any edits I suggest you become clear about your sources so that you can cite them when you edit ... school lessons is unfortunately not a sufficient citation. It would be helpful if you opened a wikipedia account and signed your comments and edits with 4 tildes. Abtract 19:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [Abtract responded while the above was THIS before it became re-edited by 217.211.36.143 who at the same time continued hereunder:]

What did you not understand? I intend to follow you advice later. Do you not agree that there is a connection between the philosophy of elemental forces and humanism? In alchemy the human soul and the human being is the centre of the elements. The philosophy of the macrocosm(greek for big "order" and worldorder, the objective universe) and the microcosm(greek for little order or smal world order, the human mind) also refers to the qualities of the human being that makes us the centre of the universe. The human mind is seen as a little world within the individual person that makes humanity the centre. — 217.211.36.143 (talk•contribs) 26 Nov 2006 (was unsigned, undated)

Oh dear ... I can only repeat my previous remarks: What little I understood of that seems incorrect (I think). If you intend to make any edits I suggest you become clear about your sources so that you can cite them when you edit ... school lessons is unfortunately not a sufficient citation. It would be helpful if you opened a wikipedia account and signed your comments and edits with 4 tildes. Abtract 13:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] grammer/usage ?

"...the existence of a supernatural." I think, "a supernatural (adjective) what?". Is that correct usage, or should it be "...the supernatural"? — Długosz (talk•contribs) 13 Dec 2006 (was unsigned, undated)

[edit] Is this link proper?

A compromise, that suggests how secular and religious humanism might be unified, is outlined in a Four Part Wikibook, see Thinking and Moral Problems, Religions and Their Source, Purpose, and Developing A Universal Religion.

It bothers me that these links sort of redirect the encyclopedic content to an outside work, implictly being as authorative as a "main article" type link. — Długosz (talk•contribs) 13 Dec 2006 (was signed, but undated)

[edit] Marxist Humanism

Radical "left" humanism, such as Marxist Humanism, merits inclusion in the Humanism template. It is secular, so maybe it could be included there? Could we create a new category, such as political or radical humanism? Marx, in his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (called by some his "Humanist Essays"), famously labeled his philosophy from the outset a "thoroughgoing Naturalism, or Humanism." Any objections? --Dialecticas 21:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No new category. Whatever one's opinion on political conclusions based on Carl Marx' economical views, the humanism based on Marx' philosophical views is not particularly radical compared to several or even most other strains of humanism — though of course political systems may have promoted his humanist ideas in a radical left way. And it should be Marxist humanism, small "h". Indeed it might seem to belong under 'Secular humanism' in the template, but that would require the other specific strains to be put either there or under 'Religious humanism'; its present mentioning under 'Related articles' is probably more appropriate: the controversies about humanism being 'religious' or 'secular' are mainly a contemporary issue, which was given far less notable weight by those creating these strains of humanism or by the earlier historical discussions of these. — SomeHuman 13 Jan 2007 19:23-19:42 (UTC)

[edit] Integration of Humanism and Faith

There is a big problem with the opening's statement: "In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, humanism rejects transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on faith, the supernatural, or divinely revealed texts." If this were true, humanism could not be integrated with a faith perspective. Historically humanism has in fact been integrated with faith perspectives. A sacred book might say or have God say: "Humanity, you are in charge of the world. Your judgment is vital." I therefore made a revision in the text to allow this integratability of humanism and a transcendental perspective. --Wilson Delgado 16:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you consider making it say, "USUALLY rejects" or "OFTEN rejects" to indicate that, while it does not necessarily reject transcendental justifications, that is still a very common mode of employ? OldMan 23:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this option. I would see no problem with such a change if it is really true. It is probably indeed true that almost everyone in a certain sub-category of humanism would be characterized by the *rejection* of the transcendental sphere. But to say it is true of humanism in general (my understanding is closer to the Encyclopedia Britannica's general description) -- that would seem to me to stretch things too far. I see too many humanists who are believers -- Michelangelo, Petrarch, Shakespeare, Montaigne, et al., and these people give great respect to the divine even while they might have a powerful center of gravity in the human sphere. This very Wikipedia article has a section on religious or Christian humanism -- these would make no sense if religious or Christian humanists really *reject* or in most cases reject anything like what they believe to be the divine will. Christian humanism would seem to be a self-contradictory concept. I will abide by the decision of Wikipedia arbiters, of course. --Wilson Delgado 00:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also an article on Renaissance humanism for the names you mention. For topics that exist at present, the introduction normally gives the presently established meaning; only further sections and (as in the broad topic here) separate articles reflect history and recent developments such as the current version of Christian humanism which is by adherers of the established meanings rather rejected precisely because it is seen, as you pointed out, to be contradictory. — SomeHuman 11 Jan 2007 02:31 (UTC)

Yes, let us go with the presently established meaning. The Encyclopedia Britannica article claims that the presently established meaning is much broader than the non- or anti-transcendendalist streams of humanism (see the section above). Also Renaissance humanism did continue on to contemporary times by all those who cultivate the values of Renaissance visions and practices, so historically it can not be strictly limited to the Renaissance. Strategically, it seems better to conceptualize humanism broadly, and not in a way that makes certain streams of it self-contradictory. Following reason, what will the Wikipedia arbiters say? --Wilson Delgado 02:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

An afterthought, to clarify what the problem seems to be, logically, at least from my perspective: Imagine an article on the idea of SHIP that says "is always made of steel" because this is the common form of ship today. Then one adds a subsection on "Wooden Ships." Why not drop the steel from the first definition and stick to what is common to all ships? I realize this is not an exact analogy, because I would say there are still "wooden ships" today, in the argument's analogue, and that people often think of them first when the word is used. --Wilson Delgado 04:22, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Humanism does reject transcendential justifications, but not all humanists necessarily ban transcendential experience or awareness from their lifes. The first belongs in the intro, the refinement — not necessarily by all humanists seen as contradicting — belongs in the in extenso description further on. — SomeHuman 11 Jan 2007 05:52 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis was a humanist. C.S. Lewis integrated transcendental justifications into his large understanding of life (see Mere Christianity, for example). In drawing a big bold almost completely exclusionary line between the core meaning of humanism and a living acceptance of the importance of the transcendental, this article violates NPOV. It makes a secularist humanism the norm and the essence of humanism. The Encylopedia Britannica's article, cited in the section above does not do this. Wikipedia loses credibility if a major article on a major concept is vitiated this way. I am appealing to Wikipedia arbiters to review this argument and make a decision. --Wilson Delgado 16:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Humanists can integrate any justification with their humanist views, it does not mean that accepting such justification as a sufficient justification would still be humanism. As such it is rejected by humanism. However, simply inserting the word sufficient into the article would suggest that humanism generally accepts trancendential justifications as equally valid, which is largely false. 'Justification' actually means 'sufficient justification'. This has nothing to do with 'secular humanism' or 'religious humanism': the first does not at all integrate trancendential aspects, let alone justifications; neither justifies on trancendential grounds but religious humanism may see the transcendential justifications to be in line with non-transcendential justifications. This is why C.S. Lewis needed to integrate both, failing to do so forces a choice which justification counted to him, the outcome decides whether he is seen to be a humanist, or not. In his case, it might in fact not have remained as uncontested as your statement that he is a humanist claims; I am however not going into discussions on specific biographies or literary discussions.

By the way, please do not create new sections at top of talk pages, but at the bottom; I put those now at their proper place. — SomeHuman 13 Jan 2007 23:49 (UTC)

You have not answered the objection. Humanism itself can focus on the human, can praise the human, can delight in the human, but all of that focus and praise and delight does not necessarily entail a *rejection* of a reliance on faith or the transcendental. The word *reject* is too strong. What you call weaselry I would call an attempt to be more precise and adequate to reality. Language uses words; words are symbols; the meanings of symbols do not always have the crystal-clear boundaries that you want to suppose must exist for the word humanism. You are removing the word from its living context an making it a technical term without the real-life ambiguities of actual speech. You seem to have hijacked this article and twisted it into a sub-meaning of humanism, against a major standard reference work and against the usage of many people. This is unacceptable. --Wilson Delgado 18:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The IHEU website specifically includes in their definition of humanism this phrase: "It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality." The American Humanist Association FAQ says, "Humanism is a progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity." The British Humanist Association says, "humanists recognise that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone. Our decisions are based on the available evidence and our assessment of the outcomes of our actions, not on any dogma or sacred text. Humanism encompasses atheism and agnosticism..." With these three leading authorities on humanism EXPLICITLY REJECTING supernaturality, faith, and theism in the very DEFINITION of humanism, I must now agree with the above commenters: the stronger language is the more precise and technically accurate, and attempts to add nuance only weaken the very concept of humanism. Please don't revert or continue to add qualifications that are simply not correct. Thanks. OldMan 15:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear OldMan, there was never any doubt that secular-humanist groups would define humanism (their humanism) in such a way. The problem is that over-riding authorities like Encyclopedia Britannica, the Oxford English Dictionary, and that powerful authority Established Custom have not ceded the word to the secular-humanist groups. It is not the exclusive property of whatever number of groups want to establish a new (or their own) meaning for the word humanism. It just spoils Wikipedia to let a particular usage be taken for the general usage. For the love of Wikipedia, can't reason prevail here? --Wilson Delgado 19:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been casually watching this debate and had a (small) idea. Wilson Delgado, what do you think of possibly accepting the definitions put forward that pose a rejection of a reliance on faith, and adding a little to the definition of religious humanism? What I mean to say is, you're partially correct when you say that religious humanism wouldn't be possible if humanism proper was defined completely negating faith. But it is possible; its existence is enough proof. So you could add something like: "Religious humanism bucks the norms of what is generally understood as humanism by not abandoning faith and transcendental thought. Those who identify as religious humanists see no contradiction between their humanist and religious beliefs." Maybe the wording's not right on, but it's meant to convey that just because something isn't in line with a majority-given definition doesn't mean it's not valid to its proponents. Minority movements within schools of thought are still valid. --Dialecticas 16:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Dialecticas, for getting in on this debate. I was very much hoping to hear other voices. After considering your solution, I still have a problem with the part being taken for the whole, that is, I think that humanism should be defined without reference to a stance on the transcendent. That is the real sub-classification that should come in later. I don't have a problem with someone saying that a vital, organized branch of humanists today define themselves in such a way as to reject the transcendent. But for me this rejection is not a necessary part of general usage, as I have argued above, and furthermore, I will add here, it needn't be part of the essential concept. For me, it is in no way inconsistent for a humanist to have the insight that the religious impulse is deep in humanity and to propose the thought that being fully and happily human necessarily implies respecting the implications of that insight. Such a person might get thrown out of the British Humanist Association while still self-identifying as a humanist. --Wilson Delgado 19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There need not be such a huge disagreement over our personal feelings on the topic, of course. You give basically three citations for your viewpoint, as have I. My three sources were essentially the largest, best-known organizations of humanists that best represent humanist aims around the world. Two of your citations--the OED and Ecyclopedia Britannica--are not PREscriptive in nature, but DEscriptive... and, need I bother to mention it, obsoleted by their inability to keep up with changes as quickly and accurately as Wikipedia can. (Your EB quotation elsewhere on this talk page is indicative that, in fact, EB can be and is presently at least fifty years behind the changes in your vaunted Established Custom.) Your third citation is the idea that one can call oneself a humanist while still holding faith as a cornerstone of their philosophy; of course, this should carry as much weight as any person who wishes to call himself a medical doctor while possessing no medical education outside of a high school anatomy class. I believe the proper course of action at this time is not to make any further changes that are not properly referenced to leaders within the movement, studies on the movement, or authoritative representatives of the movement. OldMan 19:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

But if an encyclopedia says it is not going to give what the word means, but what it should mean, is it not doing a terrible disservice to people and failing to fulfill its role? The descriptive is essential in such enterprises. What authorities do you consult for the actual usage today? I still don't see why the movement should control the word. The English language had it a long time before those folks appeared, and possession in nine-tenths of the law. Perhaps one simple solution to our difficulties would be to advertise in the headword that this article is about humanism as defined by secular humanist groups. Name the article Humanism (Modern Secular) or Humanism (Non-Religious), and I would certainly accept that, and even approve of the description as it stands. --Wilson Delgado 20:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that no-one here has read the top line of the article, that refers to Humanism (lifestance) which already reflects the modern majority of humanist organisations as humanism defined by the IHEU, which - as a lifestance - is on this Wikipedia written with capital "H". OldMan's all 3 references went to the IHEU and its organisations that of course support the IHEU viewpoint as speaking for all humanists. That however is not by all humanists accepted, not even by all secular humanists. Some of the latter reject the dogmatic Church style of the IHEU as much as Protestants reject such of Roman Catholicism; and humanists having lived before the Humanist Manifestos do not lose their status.
On the other hand, 1) historical philosophies that precede the coining during Renaissance humanism of the term 'humanism' and 2) the Renaissance strains of personal philosophies that were at their time still detaching from a powerful Church and growing into what became finally established as 'humanism', do not belong in the introduction section of this article decribing the established meaning of humanist philosophy; the first belong in a section about similar historical philosophies (mostly reevaluated during the Renaissance) or, just as the second, in the article 'Renaissance humanism' itself; and neither belong very recent interpretations by self-called 'religious humanists' who contradict the generally accepted characteristics of the established meaning of humanism: for such the comparison with a false claim to be a medical doctor is rather valid, the many humanists do not have to find a new name for themselves simply because some start to say "We are humanists too but we do not accept what all other humanists since four centuries see as essential to humanism".
Religious humanism does exist, and there is not necessarily a contradiction between being a humanist and believing in the supernatural, but the buck stops where 'truth' and its consequences on life would no longer become established by already established humanist means but instead would accept a by such means unsupported opinion as truth because of transcendential justifications. For many humanists as well as for many religious people, this appears as a contradiction and therefore they reject 'religious humanism', but others can accept the humanistic method as a conditio sine qua non while their religious concepts are not abandoned from their personal lifes because the directions their religious motivations steer them to, coincide with what the humanist method suggests or allows - that is religious humanism.
Religious people who cannot accept such, may adhere a humanistically inspired religion but are not humanists and any such false claim will by the latter remain rejected and as long as the wider world did not become sufficiently convinced to have established such a new meaning of humanism, it does not belong in the article unless in a section about some making the false claim; a section that could as well state the IHEU's Humanism definition not to define entire humanism either. — SomeHuman 16 Jan 2007 03:59-05:58 (UTC)

Given the article's content and the discussion on this page, I have made a small change that I hope will be accepted as a solution. It is clear that this article is about humanism as a philosophical term, rather than as a cultural / educational one. It would help many readers to have this pointed out in the first sentence. Thank you for an interesting debate. --Wilson Delgado 13:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that makes the first sentence redundant, and is thus unnecessary. I also think that if my references were that contentious, they should not simply be removed, but replaced with better references that more accurately document the issue of debate. Keep in mind the template at the top of this article: "This article or section does not cite its references or sources. Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!) This article has been tagged since December 2006." Let's try to improve rather than simply revert, per Wikipedia:Revert. Thanks! OldMan 15:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

On the lead sentence: I don't know if it is really redundant to say "Humanism, as a philosophical term, is a broad category of active ethical philosophies that... ." All philosophical terms do not necessarily connote what is predicated here (reference to categories of philosophies). Stylistically there is the redundancy of "philosopical" and "philosophies." If this can be done better another way, let's do it. But how else do you say, right from the start, that, though there may be other uses of the word humanism, this article deals with the philosophical usage? As it stood, the lead sentence was implying that humanism must refer to philosophies. I grant that the full article and the page as a whole dispels this implication, but wouldn't it be better to be more precise at the start? --Wilson Delgado 16:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You may have a point but this article is not a disambiguation page. The top line already mentions the lifestance (a formalized strain of the philosophical school described in this article). The opening sentence immediately states it is a category of philosophies, so your insert is indeed too obviously redundant and not quite necessary because the main other meaning is Renaissance Humanism as a cultural movement; it is mentioned in the history section of this article and not directly contradictory to the school of philosophies either. Anyway, I put a reference to a disambiguating source instead, so we can avoid the uneasy redundancy while the reference makes the distinction. Note that most definitions, some of which are shown in the web reference I now put at the end of the introduction paragraph, stick to this main meaning alone. I assume they correctly see Ren. Hum. as the early origin of the philosophy, and not as a separate thing. — SomeHuman 16 Jan 2007 17:05 (UTC)

I agree with your most recent changes and appreciate the new citation. OldMan 19:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overall Description of Humanism

Compare the current lead paragraph of Wikipedia's article on Humanism with that of the parallel article in the Encyclopedia Britannica:

HUMANISM - term freely applied to a variety of beliefs, methods, and philosophies that place central emphasis on the human realm. Most frequently, however, the term is used with reference to a system of education and mode of inquiry that developed in northern Italy during the 14th century and later spread through Europe and England. Alternately known as “Renaissance humanism,” this program was so broadly and profoundly influential that it is one of the chief reasons why the Renaissance is viewed as a distinct historical period. Indeed, though the word Renaissance is of more recent coinage, the fundamental idea of that period as one of renewal and reawakening is humanistic in origin. But humanism sought its own philosophical bases in far earlier times and, moreover, continued to exert some of its power long after the end of the Renaissance.

Notice that Humanism is not so specifically and formally a philosophy, as in the Wikipedia article. EB claims that *frequently* the term has an *educational* reference. Shouldn't the Wikipedia entry on Humanism reflect the most frequent usages of the word? --Wilson Delgado 19:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The 'Humanism' article clearly describes the 'philosophy'. The 'system of education and mode of inquiry' would be another and completely separate article, e.g. 'Humanism (dialectical method)' [provided such would be the correct term]. I doubt whether the EB's choice of phrasing was very fortunate: it states the philosophy first (and at least in other languages that I know it is most usually used as such) but then rather contradictorily says it is most frequently used otherwise. I do not think this other meaning deserves having the title 'Humanism', the current one might keep it (else we would need a distinct disambiguation page but I would not want to try to explain, shortly but clearly and unmistakingly, which is which...). The current one should then at its top mention e.g. For the system of education and mode of inquiry, see Humanism (dialectical method). If such would indeed be the main meaning, the article is bound to exist by some title, how else can we explain that for such a long time so many people have been contributing to the current article and its talk page without any earlier mentioning of that other meaning? Could it be, that the EC simply refers to what we know as Renaissance humanism? This is indeed very often shortly called 'humanism' and, though being philosophical, also "an intellectual movement" valuing "the witnesses of reason and the evidence of the senses in reaching the truth" "in opposition to the philosophers ... whose methodology was derived from Thomas Aquinas" [my italics pointing at what from its article intro seems to coincide with the second EB's description]? The EB gives the answer by explicitly saying so in your quote.— SomeHuman 14 Jan 2007 02:13 (UTC)

A couple of items show that the broader understanding of humanism can be assumed assumed: (1) Socratic Humanism, by Laszlo Versenyi (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1963). (2) H. A. K. Hunt: The Humanism of Cicero. Melbourne: University Press (London: Cambridge University Press), 1954. Socrates and Cicero believed in the divine, so their humanism was of the sort that could be integrated with a transcendental perspective. They were not Renaissance figures. --Wilson Delgado 21:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OED on Humanism

For reference in this discussion, here is how the Oxford English Dictionary expresses the current usage of humanism:

1. Belief in the mere humanity of Christ: cf. HUMANITARIAN n. 1a. [Obsolete] 2. The character or quality of being human; devotion to human interests. 3. Any system of thought or action which is concerned with merely human interests (as distinguished from divine), or with those of the human race in general (as distinguished from individual); the ‘Religion of Humanity’. 4. Devotion to those studies which promote human culture; literary culture; esp. the system of the Humanists, the study of the Roman and Greek classics which came into vogue at the Renascence. 5. Philos. A pragmatic system of thought introduced by F. C. S. Schiller and William James which emphasizes that man can only comprehend and investigate what is with the resources of the human mind, and discounts abstract theorizing; so, more generally, implying that technological advance must be guided by awareness of widely understood human needs.

--Wilson Delgado 22:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The OED tends to put meanings in historical order, not order of importance or frequency. Meaning 4 began earlier than meaning 5, but the order does not imply that 5 supersedes 4. On the contrary, 5 is a specialized use in disciplinary circles. Many people, therefore, can be assumed to take 4 as the primary meaning. The Encyl Brit clearly supports the idea that the broader use is often taken as primary.--Wilson Delgado 14:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, the OED order does not prove anything, one cannot assume one particular POV preference. Other dictionaries are cited in two references in the intro of the article, and those mostly show the philosophical school to be the primary meaning; it shows 'Humanism' to be used as short for 'Renaissance Humanism'. Perhaps people have been taught about Renaissance Humanism at school but they are not unaware of the philosophy or the particular lifestance and will not so easily confound the two in proper context; without context however, 'Renaissance Humanism' is nearly always as a whole term used for that meaning. — SomeHuman 19 Jan 2007 15:05 (UTC)

I do not say that the OED order proves anything, only that it generally indicates historical sequence. But why are you denying that the order in OED means anything and then asserting that order in the other dictionaries proves something? This seems self-contradictory as an argument. More importantly, if 'Humanism' is short for 'Renaissance Humanism', then in fact many people will *necessarily* be taking the primary meaning of 'Humanism' as *other* than the primary meaning you want to use for this article. The note should give an indication clarifying this confusing situation. Therefore the edit should be allowed. --Wilson Delgado 15:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wilson, would you mind doing us the small favor of refraining from contentious edits that do not cite sources? I note that this article is the number one Google search result for humanism, thus a lot of people will be looking to this article for a simple definition. The next several links on the subject, though, all go to associations and articles that take the modern, secular definition as opposed to the historical definition. This does not mean the latter is unimportant; hence, we would certainly welcome your inputs to the articles on Renaissance humanism and in the history section of this very article. I am gathering from my studies, however, that Renaissance humanism was largely congruous to the aims of secular humanism today, except that practitioners of it were still so close to the inquisition and religious persecution that it was culturally unthinkable for them to completely dismiss faith as secular humanists do today. Since this is just my impression, though, I won't actually put this in the article; instead I will see if there is a historian who has published a work that says so in so many words, and cite his work instead.

Again, this article still contains this heading: "This article or section does not cite its references or sources. Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!) This article has been tagged since December 2006." I feel this article could deserve an "A" grade for quality if we were to spare our effort on un-sourced debates and focus primarily on those issues where there is clear consensus and ample documentation. Thanks! OldMan 16:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

OldMan, I did not think I was being contentious but providing helpful clarification. Just imagine if you were one of the many readers who typically understands humanism as the larger historical cultural tradition and you happened upon this article which foregrounds a totally different meaning and presents it as the *essential meaning*. Wouldn't it be helpful to have someone say, "I know you think the primary meaning is other than this article presents, and many others do as well, but here we are taking this philosophical usage as the primary meaning"?

Now you want me to put a note within a note to say that the usage as it is conveyed by the Encylopedia Britannica and the OED and numerous other dictionaries indicates that some people use the word humanism to mean something broader than this article highlights? Is this really necessary? I will do this if you wish. But I don't think encyclopedias typically cite dictionaries and encyclopedias for their own primary meanings; they usually just explain the terms. The reference to word usages sources is understood.

On Renaissance humanism and secular aims, see Charles Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist Thought (U of Notre Dame, 1970) and Gary Remer, Humanism and the Rhetoric of Toleration (Penn State UP, 1996). Remer says (4) "the humanists did not accept the rationalism of the Enlightenment; they were deeply religious men who believed in divinely revealed truths." --Wilson Delgado 16:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with the assumptions you make in your first question, therefore your first question is moot: you are the first person I've met in over two decades now who believes "humanism" (even with the lower-case h) and "Renaissance humanism" are necessarily synonymous, so I do not think it very likely that there are "many readers" who share this view. That incorrect assumption aside, this article has sections for the history of humanism stretching all the way back to humanists in ancient Greece, also encapsulating Renaissance humanism, and including discussion of current religious humanism. Therefore, I do not think this article is underrepresenting the history, breadth, and contentiousness of the definition of the term at all.

And no, I do not think it should be necessary to put a note within a note to cite your qualification of the definition of the term. I also agree with you that it should not be so necessary to cite dictionaries and other encyclopedias at each other when there are many scholarly works on the subject of modern humanism, a clear differentiation between modern and historical usage of the term, and a clear consensus everywhere across the web except for here. If you are unable to find a citation for the "factual edit" you added, we can clean up that reference later by deleting both the ^{[citation needed]} note and the errant qualification itself. OldMan 16:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, what would you think to adding a second disambiguation reference to the top of the article along the lines of, "See also the historical reference to Roman literature at Renaissance humanism?" Has that been tried and voted down already? That might be a good way to deal with your conflict over the current use of the term. OldMan 17:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I accept this suggestion, and I would find it quite satisfactory. My one hesitation is that many people use the word with a still broader historical / cultural connotation than just *Renaissance* humanism.

I don't think I'm so alone. Consider Remer's title: Humanism and the Rhetoric of Toleration. If you met Remer, this would be one person who thinks Humanism should be understood as Renaissance Humanism. Then, there are all his readers and the scholarly circle within which he writes...possibly millions of people! --Wilson Delgado 18:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's a reference that will help show my context: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07538b.htm . It is an early 20th century Encyclopedia, granted, but my point is that this understanding lived on beyond this article's appearance and it has informed generations of scholars and thinkers in Academe. It has set up a usage that goes on today. --Wilson Delgado 20:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Remer's title most strongly suggests Renaissance Humanism by associating 'Humanism' with 'Rhetoric'. The early 20th century Catholic Encyclopaedia could at that time only (even now still not uncommon) wave away —and that only if it could not be simply ignored— atheism (simply put, "atheists do not exist, those are really agnosts") and humanism which at that time (and relevant places) was purely secular; secularism was severely fought against by the Catholic Church: In every Catholic country humanists and other freethinkers had to struggle (and are in some countries still struggling) for some secular laws which were and are opposed by Catholic parties as well as by the Pope. Though at that time, Catholicism had a stronger control on many people's press, education and circles, readers of the Catholic Encyclopaedia would not have stayed utterly blind for what was clearly going on in society. — SomeHuman 20 Jan 2007 05:46-06:18 (UTC)

Allow me comment on your poetic mood: I can understand someone thinking humanism should be understood as Renaissance Humanism; I do not assume even a Gary Remer in 1996 to have thought it actually does mean only, or for the larger world even mainly, that — but I did not meet him, no. — SomeHuman 20 Jan 2007 06:42 (UTC)

But the point is that the word Humanism / humanism is de facto used in certain circles with a primary meaning of "Renaissance humanism" -- (and possibly also the tradition that derived from it). That is the usage of Remer's book, and the usage of thousands and thousands of other published academic pieces. They will go on talking about humanism and humanists without *any* implication of the meaning suggested by, say, the BHA. For *these* groups, there is another default meaning for the word, though it can also be specified by modifiers like Renaissance. The word Humanismus was first used in the early 1800's by a German educationist (Niethammer) to describe an education based upon the classical curriculum. It does not matter that another group now promotes a more specialized meaning of the term if the traditions of the earlier usages still continue, are vital, are widespread among scholars and intellectual circles. The Catholic Encyclopedia's complete re-write in the 1960's has another excellent article on Humanism, with the same general understanding of the first version. If major reference works are taking the word Humanism and writing articles with this understanding of the term, shouldn't Wikipedia avoid disregard for this long-established, still-continuing usage when it tries to describe the "default" meaning of the term? Please note that I fully agree that the default meaning is different in other circles. I am not at all disputing that. That is why I favor more precise disambiguation on the page. --Wilson Delgado 13:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Remer uses the term in clear context, does "Rethoric" not ring a bell? (The classics, and especially the revival of it during the Renaissance). And usage in academic circles is not what is most common usage as Wikipedia guidelines prescribe. Original meanings of terms do not necessarily, or even usually, remain the prevalent meaning. Proof: just look up the etymology of a random set of terms, some old meanings are obsolete but others still survive but are nowadays not the most common. As stated before, usually the adjective is used with the substantive when Renaissance Humanism is meant, unless such is clear by context. There simply is no such coined association with another adjective, because it is not needed, as it is the default. An appropriate adjective like 'secular' only occurs when someone started talking about 'religious humanism', for the same reason: secular humanism being the default — today.
Never use a source's ignoring of a topic to prove something about that topic while that source is known to have a strong bias, the CE is approved by the Catholic Church which most strongly opposes (secular) humanism. — Bluntly: they don't wanna talk about it.
In case some inaccurately linked 'humanism' should by context have linked to 'Renaissance Humanism', in the first place it should be corrected like [[Renaissance Humanism|humanism]]. I'm sure soon enough someone following the inaccurate link will see what is wrong about it, and the present article does mention the 'Renaissance Humanism' article so it won't take much effort to make the correction. If on the contrary someone found the term 'humanism' somewhere and looked it up in Wikipedia, then the most common usage of 'humanism' today is what stands most chance of being the right place to arrive. In the less likely event of R. H. being the context, if one had to look up the term (it will not be an academic), one will have to read so as to possibly find out what could be appropriate: a simple link 'see also Renaissance Humanism' would not give a clue at all.
In case this once more cannot convince you, please find other contributors to support your view and deliver some new arguments; this has taken too much energy and you stay utterly alone. — SomeHuman 21 Jan 2007 06:28-06:45 (UTC)

How can I be alone when other major reference sources support me? That is, OED, Encyc Brit, Cath Encyc, and I'll add now the Free Dictionary at http://www.thefreedictionary.com/humanism . NONE of these articles or definitions implies that the *essential* meaning is the religion-resistant version of secular, philosophical humanism that the article now proposes as the essential meaning. None of them proves that the *most common* meaning today is what you want to make the most common meaning. All of my sources allow for the Renaissance Humanism meaning for the word by itself. Wikipedia's article on Humanism therefore stands alone when compared with other standard authorities of the day.

The time spent on this discussion is worth it if it helps to clarify a major concept in what aims at being a truly useful encyclopedia.

The fact that Remer uses the word in a clear context does not negate the use of the word humanism as a shorthand for Renaissance humanism. People come to use the word and frequently assume that the context is understood. *Rhetoric* alone in Remer's title does not say *Renaissance*; the secular humanists use the *rhetoric of toleration* frequently as well, I would assume. The context for the title is the general usage of Humanism to sometimes mean Renaissance Humanism.

The Catholic Encyclopedia can not be fairly charged with not trying to be objective and authoritative. You imply they don't want to talk about secular humanism just because they don't like it or agree with it. If that is true, then I wonder why they have a lengthy article on Atheism. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02040a.htm. No, the editors of the Cath Encyc were operating with an established meaning of the word Humanism, and that is the main reason the article was written as it was.

I do wish other contributors would express themselves, or that truly neutral arbiters would decide. I wonder how many of my possible allies have long ago given up on this article. Problems have been raised by others before, as you can read on the talk page. One fellow said that this article sounds like propaganda to him, for example. Please take the hint from such readers as this. --Wilson Delgado 16:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Has this entry ever been put up for arbitration or mediation? If not, why not? --Dialecticas 17:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Given: this article's own reference list already cites more than a half-dozen reference works that already explicitly reject supernatural inclusions of humanism. See reference 2: "...seeking, without religion, the best in, and for, human beings." Chambers Pocket Dictionary; "...a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values; especially: a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason." Merriam Webster Dictionary; "...a non-religious philosophy, based on liberal human values." Little Oxford Dictionary; "...an appeal to reason in contrast to revelation or religious authority as a means of finding out about the natural world and destiny of man, and also giving a grounding for morality... Humanist ethics is also distinguished by placing the end of moral action in the welfare of humanity rather than in fulfilling the will of God." Oxford Companion to Philosophy; "The rejection of religion in favor of the advancement of humanity by its own efforts." Collins Concise Dictionary; "That which is characteristically human, not supernatural, that which belongs to man and not to external nature, that which raises man to his greatest height or gives him, as man, his greatest satisfaction." Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences; "A system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth." American Heritage Dictionary...

Given: those sources that use "humanism" as a synonym for "Renaissance humanism" and implying that religiosity/supernaturality/faith are not mutually exclusive with humanism refer to a movement several centuries now past

Given: that Wilson Delgado thinks OED's definition 4 is still so widely used that it is a strong contender for description in this article vs. definitions 3 or 5

I believe: we must now defer to Wikipedia:Disambiguation by adding a "disambiguation link" to the top of this page. Fortunately, as of 1800 hours on 2007-01-19, Wilson Delgado has agreed to this technique for disambiguation. I have now added this disambiguation link as a replacement for the clumsy wording in the first, defining paragraph of this article.

I further assert: the faith-inclusive definition of the term "humanist" is now wholly and adequately represented in this article by 1. the disambiguation link at the top of the page, 2. the definition and disambiguation link in Reference 1, 3. the complete subsection on religious humanism that occupies the position immediately following the introductory paragraph, 4. the complete subsection on religious humanism complete that contains yet a third link to the Renaissance humanism article, 5. yet another subsection on religious humanism under the heading of "Modern Humanist Philosophies," and 6. a template with still more links to various kinds of religious humanism, and a fourth link to the Renaissance humanism article! Frankly, I'm not sure the current state of humanist thought actually warrants all six of these concessions to faith-compatible humanism, yet there they are, as a compromise.

So I respectfully request: if there is to be any further editing of this article to increase the visibility of faith-compatible humanism, please do so only after establishing a clear, unquestionable consensus herein (and please, it would be nice to see more than one person asserting that it is in fact necessary). Thank you! OldMan 21:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I accept OldMan's disambiguation as a good compromise. Thank you for your work and your well-presented rationale. --Wilson Delgado 00:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits January 8 thru 10

I reverted the edits as they was no basis or discussion. The article on Dante Alighieri has no mention of religion or humanism. statsone 07:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You might bear in mind that reverting should be mainly used against vandalism which these edits seemed not to be. Help:Revert#When to revert There is no requirement for "basis or discussion" before editing. Perhaps it would have been better to build on the edits rather than revert them :) Abtract 08:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The edits may not have been outright vandalism, but changes were made that changed the POV. Also, error were placed into the article. statsone 13:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Link

The #2 link in the refernce notes appears broken. http://humaniststudies.org/humphil.html 2ct7 13:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It not only worked fine at retrieval, but also now. You probably encountered either a momentarily connection problem at your side or tried accessing the source while its server ran a maintenance routine or was excessively used, as happens with Wikipedia at times. — SomeHuman 19 Jan 2007 01:23 (UTC)

[edit] Accidental revert

I was adding in references and accidentally reverted to to two week old version, sorry. Accusations of "highly deceptive 'edits'" does not assume good faith on my part. Also editors of this page should keep in mind and abide by WP:OWN.2ct7 17:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The latter is my point exactly. You can see my and other editors' discussions on this talk page, often before we make a change and then while trying to keep in mind the remarks made by the others. I do not see you here except in the non-discussion in the above section and now here where you appear as the pot unjustly blaming the kettle.

You had not merely replaced a source with a newer one and added one reference, as your two edit comments on the history page show, but in fact 2ct7 did this — which in fact was reverting to a version that existed dozens of edits ago and was meanwhile largely improved by numerous editors: compare here 2ct7's latest version and that of 14 January 2007 by IP-user 24.68.228.50. After my reverting [including some minor remaining childish vandalism that had occured shortly before 2ct7's mentioned edits and were overlooked by Wilson Delgado], 2ct7 replaced the older reference from Collins with the more recent one from OED, which appears appropriate. Now again you tried to get your POV in finding support by a source that is the basis of Humanism (life stance), an entirely different article on a far more narrow topic than the humanism of the article at hand. Please understand that maintaining an attitude of assuming good faith becomes hard under such circumstances. (I mean, how does one get dozens of versions back! Never mind, I know that funny things can happen.) I'm not going to be able to respond in the next hours, but I beg you to forget being bold when editing a page like this 'humanism' that is the result of a terribly long archived talk page and the current one, at which so many people have worked and to which they largely (and not always easily) found a consensus. — SomeHuman 24 Jan 2007 18:11 (UTC)

SomeHuman I don't think you read the WP:OWN page in full, please take the time to read it again. Telling me not to be bold is exactly what the page addresses. Yes as I said I accidentally reverted to early version instead of editing the current version. My mistake, as I said in my previous post. Instead of repeatedly accusing me of bad faith and reverting my edits you should correct the mistake and incorporate the information I entered. Again it looks like I made a mistake when adding my references in and accidentally cut off the end of the paragraph instead of making a minor wording change and adding two more references, sorry. This article needs more references and I am adding them. If I make a mistake fix it, don't revert my addition and accuse me of bad faith. Yes the article is the result of a long archived talk page, I know I talked on it as well. Many editors have contributed to it, and that includes me, SomeHuman, as large sections of the article in its current form were written by me. That doesn't mean I own it or what I have written cannot be changed to be improved. In fact no one owns it, including who ever came to a consensus over it. The article needs improvement and you, SomeHuman, are not the only one who is allowed to edit it.2ct7 20:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I never accused you of bad faith. And you should know better because an article I had nominated for Afd for very good reasons but which you wished to keep, was actually by one other editor and largely by myself brought to reasonable standards (sources, rewrite) so as to be able to offer a 'weak keep'; despite repeated calls upon you to offer references, you never provided any assistance and its existence is still (if it's not yet deleted, I'll check later) on discussion for WP:N. I did not revert edits to the article 'Humanism' but reverted your terrible mistake; again, I'm not calling you terrible but the mistake was that; just as I did not state that you deceived anyone, but your edits were highly deceptive regardless whether these were intended as such or not. You on the other hand cannot make or answer a comment without addressing new and erroneous accusations towards me and yes, that bothers me. I clearly stated for which kind of articles it is not wise to be bold and referred to numerous editors that had not easily come to some consensus, which demonstrates that WP:OWN cannot be a relevant issue. If you think that all these editors do not own the article, I agree; but if you think that all these editors must then let you have your way with it, or having the right to scold anyone reverting your bold edits, you are dead wrong. That reverting is what WP:BOLD states is likely to happen to bold edits under such circumstances. Again your talk does not reflect facts: I reverted your terrible mistake as any author is required to do, you put one of your dozens of changes back in and that was fine as I stated in my comment here above. Then you put in another change with a reference that does not prove what you apparently thought, since you did not spot the difference between Humanism, the life stance, and humanism, the school of philosophies. Thus I reverted the consequently false rendering of humanism, the broad philosophical range. In case you would have bothered to verify the already provided references, you should have realized that your change contradicted several reliable sources. — SomeHuman 24 Jan 2007 21:38-21:47 (UTC)

As to the other article which you had speedy deleted without discussion, I have provided sources and reference that are listed on the page. You did state that I was deceptive, calling my edit deceptive is the same as calling me deceptive and you did it again. The Humanism Life Stance article is about secular humanism. This main article on Humanism must include the fact that Humanism is considered a religion by many as I referenced. To not include this information gives incorrect coverage of the subject. There are many, many references that Humanism is considered a religion. To maintain NPOV this information must be included prominently in the article.2ct7 21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are most' wrong:

• I did not speedily delete any article. Not with or not without discussion. I had put an article up as normal Article for deletion, but an administrator had not awaited discussion since he found such article needed to be deleted immediately and so the admin did. Then you recreated that article and as it was still not of proper Wikipedia standards, I again proposed it as WP:Afd but instead of you improving the article (for which you had a lot of time, that you unfortunately used for continuously making false accusations on my address), another contributor and I improved it and I switched my vote (as nominator!) from 'Delete' to 'Weak keep' and defended that in comments. And what I find most annoying, is that you know all this by former discussions and by my notifying you on your own talk page to once more have a look at the Afd because the situation had significantly changed; how do you rhyme that knowledge with your above false accusation?
• If you make a mistake, and thus create something that misleads people in such manner as these to become deceived, than that something is deceptive and it can and must be said. That does not yet make you a deceptive person, and saying the latter would be wrong (unless it were proven to have been an intention instead of a mistake). Hence, I only did the right thing.
• The topic being 'humanism' does not require a promininent mentioning of 'religious humanism' any more than the article on 'Christianity' to require a prominent mentioning of the existence of Christian sects with ideas most people do not immediately associate with Christianity.
• "There are many, many references" reminds me of Commandant Lassard of the Police Academy films, who was not particularly noted for making well argumented statements. Please note that many, many reputable sources have been accepted by many, many contributors to establish the currently dominant meaning of 'humanism' to be the philosophical school, and this to be secular. There are rather recent attempts to bring religion and humanism into one line, and such concepts are by a minority called 'humanism' as well, but the large majority still calls it 'religious humanism'; without the adjective, people think of the established secular meaning. Humanism with capital "H" is just one particular strain of the much broader secular humanist philosophy. It is the strain promoted by the IHEU as a way of life. This is not a religion in the sense of believing in the supernatural, in fact it is most secular, but because as a way of life based on a philosophical school of thought, it is very similar to a religion as how it is influencing thought and behaviour of its adherers. Because in many countries, laws have provided protection of freedom of religion before the Humanist life stance became widespread, many laws explicitly use the term 'religion'. In those countries, it has been decided by courts that the Humanist life stance has to be regarded as is meant by the term 'religion' in the Law and hence Humanism is in some countries officially recognized as a religion. This is totally different from the concept of 'religious humanism'; strains of the latter are not even generally called 'religion's. The above-mentioned article that is up to become deleted, 'Church of Spiritual Humanism' (mentioning the term 'Spiritual Humanism' to be a trademark of that Church), describes one sample of an attempt to integrate religion with humanism, and this (officially recognized) Church clearly emphasizes that the scientifical method and other principles normally associated with secular humanism, are held above religious motives as far as determination of Truth is concerned. In as much as making me hesitate between calling the philosophical thoughts of this Church a sample of 'religious humanism' or 'secular humanism'. On the other hand, in line with the referenced article by a Chicago Tribune columnist, what this Church appears to promote might be even too vague and broad for being generally recognized as 'humanism'.

— SomeHuman 26 Jan 2007 10:17-10:48 (UTC)

No you are most wrong:

• I did not say you speedy deleted the article I said you had the article speedy deleted. Your actions caused the article to be deleted without discussion. You did not start a discussion on the talk page for the article asking for improvement before nominating it for WP:Afd. You nominated and shortly there after without discussion it was deleted.
• Wishy-washy semantics do not change the fact that your intent and tone accused me of deceptive edits and not editing in good faith. You often play on the line of being insulting and then when called on it you retreat and claim that's not what you meant at all. But your statements about me ARE insulting and derogatory.
• When you claim to be an authority on what most people associate with upon hearing the word humanism I assume you have some references to back this up. What are they?
• The humanism life stance article deals with the IHEU's definition of humanism. This is not the only commonly accepted definition of humanism as a religion. Are you saying that Eric Zorn is an expert on what is humanism and what is not?

2ct7 17:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Your saying "You had the article speedily deleted" means I did something in order to have it speedily deleted and thus you put me responsible for the unilateral action of an administrator. That is like saying you are responsible yourself for having contributed to the article, which caused me to put it up for normal Afd, which caused an admin to delete speedily. Stop blaming people.

Your second point is only applicable to yourself (see once more your first point and my reply here above). The edit was deceptive, and I never retreated nor claimed I did not mean what I stated: only your interpretation of statements are incorrect and then you blame me for what I did not state. I resent you holding your assumed insight of my intent above the intent I clearly expressed to have had, and you thereby breach WP:AGF in a grotesque way; such is not WP:CIVIL but a clear WP:PA.

Your imagination is galloping wildly: where did I claim to be an authority? How many sentences can you write without false accusations? References? You do not have to assume, check the intro of the article and actually read the references that are there for quite a while, in particular the one at the end of the lead has a section 'Definitions of humanism' quoting 7 dictionaries. Can dictionaries no longer be assumed to give at least the meaning most people associate with the topic?

Your fourth point does not make sense at all in the context of my earlier reply: First calm down and then read my former reply from Please note onwards with just a little more attention.

— SomeHuman 28 Jan 2007 01:20 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I've removed this section simply because there is nothing controversial about the claim that humanism is not a 'god-centered' view like monotheistic religions are. That would be like adding a criticism section to the Christianity article & having a Muslim theologian criticise it for not being a 'Muhammad centered' view. Also, it was added by an anonymous ip who also added a 'criticism of humanism education' subsection and then left it with no info, which to me just seems to be an attempt to 'smear' the article rather than provide quality info. Spellcast 16:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparing Humanism to the foremost world religion: Ronnie-ism

if matter cannot be created nor destroyed, then how did the universe and all of its mass come into existence within the boundaries of a closed system independent of any external force? it appears as though this would be a staggering logical contradiction. no matter what name you give it (or don't give it), we must not disassociate ourselves from that creative/destructive force. the human mind cannot comprehend it, so we should just throw it into the intellectual waste bin? i'm afraid i cannot understand this egotistical point of view. it sounds, upon first inspection, like a reactionary stance based on hypocritical Christian upbringing. it's okay, i had the same kind of childhood - but with more church camp, domestic violence, racism, drug abuse, and alcoholism. all things (in this universe) are born of the corporeal. the corporeal is born of the Incorporeal. sounds completely logical to me. just because we can't name it or understand it doesn't mean that we shouldn't respect it. i see no case for humanism, and i think we should just shrug it out of our heads like greek mythology, fundamental christianity, and that new age reincarnation bullshit, as all of these are quite simply the perversion of a metaphor used to describe the indescribable from which all things describable have originated. and that benevolent force, my friends, is none other than myself. so i propose a new philosophy to which all peoples of the world will soon adhere (or perish): Ronnie-ism. Join now (or perish)!

Guy who killed Jesus: "Oh no, I killed Jesus!" Jesus: "It's cool, brother. No hard feelings." Blueddha 17:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)