Talk:Paul Kurtz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-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.) |
|
Contents |
[edit] Jesus
Hey,Modemac! What happened to John Allegro and his mushrooms? See Jesus History and Myth CSICOP Conference 1984 at the University of Michigan. (They never spoke about what is history or what is myth) Where's What Jesus Really Said and Did? (He must have a time machine.)
Jesus?! Hell, Paul Kurtz is a REPTILIAN!
Paragraph removed from the article:
- Though Paul Kurtz claims to support skepticism and reason, he seriously believes that the "historical" Jesus has already, or will be found soon. See such theologians as Gerd Luedemann and John Allegro. Kurtz is an easy mark for religious and ancient historical quackery disguised as skepticism, even though Kurtz is ardently antireligious himself.
As is, this appears to be nothing but a POV attack on Kurtz. -- The Anome 18:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] books
I removed a couple of books not written by Kurtz from the list, since a list of every tome touching on topics Kurtz has discussed would stretch from here to the next server and back. - DavidWBrooks 18:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
[edit] “Humanism”
Removed from article:
- "According to some accounts Kurtz was largely responsible for the secularization of Humanism. Before Kurtz embraced the term "Secular Humanism," which was coined by fundementalist Christians in the 1980s, Humanism was more widely percieved as a religion that did not include the supernatural. Kurtz used the publicity generated by fundementalist preachers to grow the membership of the Council of Secular Humanism, and remove the religious aspects found in the original Humanist movement.
- A former co-president of International Humanist and Ethical Union, Kurtz became disillusioned with its policies and leadership. His dream project is the Center for Inquiry International, which he hopes will become a center of secular study."
The lead in sentance is acceptable but is little more than a set up to cheerlead that POV. As other Wikipedia articles show, use of the term "Secular Humanism" was clearly in use and understood during the 1960s and 1970s. The categorization of "Humanism" as a religion, or religious belief, was highly debated before the 1980s and still is a topic of intense debate. There is no indication in this writing to distinguish what these so-called "religious aspects" might have been nor what constitutes the "original Humanist movement". This also lacked any internal wiki linking as would be appropriate for such terms as "Humanist" and the "Center for Inquiry".
It is also worth noting the contradiction between the assertions of this article and the notably dogmatic & evangelical stance of the Center for Inquiry.
Vassyana 00:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Instead of simply stripping information out of this entry I have addressed the concerns of Vassyana:
-"Secular Humanism" was not coined by fundementalist, just widely popularized.
-The religious aspects of humanism are easily seen in the original Manifesto and Charles and Clara Potter's book Humanism: A New Religion.
-The "original Humanist movement" would clearly the based on the orignal Manifesto, as opposed to the Manifesto II which Kurtz contributed to.
Since this is a intensly debated subject it most definitely should be included here as Kurtz is a major player in the shift in the direction of humanism. To ignore it or simply delete it out significantly lessens the value of this article and obscures Kurtz's contributions.
Finally to delete information from an entry because it "lacked any internal wiki linking" is a lame excuse for promoting a specific POV.
2ct7 18:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think this is likely to be the stumbling block: "According to some accounts Kurtz was largely responsible for the secularization of Humanism." ... because there's no support in the article for a very sweeping ("largely responsible") statement. If you want it to stay, you need to put in some scaffolding: What accounts? Can you link to any? What exactly did Kurtz do - give speeches? Rewrite manifestos? Harangue on street corners? Didn't anybody else do anything, too - if so, how come we say he's the prime driver? - DavidWBrooks 19:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
"Largely responsible for the secularization of Humanism" seems pretty self evident - as the Humanist Manifesto article states the "second manifesto was written in 1973 by Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson" and "its rejection of religion" was a major departure from the original Manifesto which "referred to humanism as a religious movement." In addition that article states "the Council for Secular Humanism, founded by Paul Kurtz, which is typically more secular in its outlook than the AHA..." Are there more definitive events that illustrate the shift to secular than the Manifesto II and the formation of the Council for Secular Humanism? If you know of any let me know because I cannot find any.
Since this article already mentions Kurtz's connection to both of these points it would seem redundant to repeat them in this paragraph.
A little "scafolding" might make this smoother, but that's a justification for an edit of the wording not a complete excise of the paragraph. 2ct7 00:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Planetary Ethics?
could this be mentioned somewhere in the article
Planetary Ethics
--voodoom 02:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge from Eupraxsophy
I have suggested that the contents of the article Eupraxsophy be merged here. The word is a neologism coined by Kurtz, and is not in commmon currency even among the secular humanists that it is supposed to help categorize. Though I started the article, I believe it ought to be merged with the biographical article for this reason. Rohirok 15:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Un-merged the Eupraxsophy since numerous other pages about Humanism and secular humanism refer to the term. While I understand your thinking that since it was/is a neologism coined by Kurtz and is not widely used, that relevant information about the term, what it means, etc. is buried within the Kurtz article and thus not a useful or relevant to the many pages that refer to the term itself. Lestatdelc 22:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- I concur with Rohirok. The Eupraxsophy article is a stub that only makes sense within this article. —Cesar Tort 06:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- No merge two separate issues. The other will be expanded. FGT2 08:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Lestatdelc, and it is more widely used than you think among the academic sect in which it is used. Thorne N. Melcher 00:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. Having eupraxsophy redirect to a long biography would be very confusing, and the word *is* used in academia. I'm going to remove the merge tags, unless there are strong objections. Gsnixon 22:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
