Latest post of the previous page:Animist wrote:
(snip) >>For this reason, BTW, I am also not too keen on the concept of spiritual humanism, as advocated by Moller; humanism is ipso facto value-rich, not value-free as he implies, so why do we need to add "spiritual"? - that, IMO, is also potential woo-woo>>
Thank you for this insight. Humanism is indeed value-rich, as you say. However, I am not sure if I suggested that Humanism is value-free. Perhaps I may try to make myself a little clearer on this issue: In my post I referred to the tags folks hang on themselves i.e. secular, religious humanists etc., rather than making a distinction between the exploration of different branches of thinking (philosophies) within Humanism as an all-embracing fact of human existence, and identifying themselves with these tags. My use of the term Spiritual Humanism, could be seen to be one such off-shoot of exploration within Humanism. I, for instance, do not call myself a 'Spiritual Humanist'. By virue of my natural condition i am a humanist, as i pointed out we all are by default. When I add 'spiritual' to the term humanism, I suggest a way of exploring humanism differently, for instance to secular humanism, religious humanism etc.
My use of this term 'Spiritual Humanism' refers to an inner exploration of our innate human qualities towards which thought can only point, but which it can never fully encompass or fathom. To me these are truly 'spiritual' (for lack of a better word, perhaps) as they come from a disposition within our human potential which has transcended conditioned rationality, scientific enquiry and all forms of thought-created inspiration for living. Spiritual Humanism is therefore an exprience not founded upon conditioned thinking, and offers a way of life which is not conditioned by the fragmentary processes of our rational faculty. INO here lies unfathomable potential for value-rich human experience.
animist wrote:Nick wrote:I think the important thing here is "giving credibility" to woo-woo. I did not say he was indulging in it himself. I think this is true in a couple of respects. First of all, by using the word "faith", which I agree, for him could be defined as hope, or confidence, he is creating a rod for his own back, because he will for ever have to explain why the religious cannot have their "faith" too. And their faith is woo-woo!
Secondly, I, personally, have difficulty with treating religious belief as equally legitimate as reason. The original quotation came from a thread about the involvement of humanists with faith groups. I am uncomfortable with reaching an accommodation with religious groups in some areas, especially in education. To do so confers upon them a legitimacy they don't deserve. Dawkins refuses to debate creationists for the same reason.
I appreciate I might not be right, and maybe we humanists should be more involved, but I couldn't do it without constant (and hence destructive) disagreement with them, or, at the very least, holding my nose.
I feel much as you do, and I don't like the word faith (as I said, IMO what has happened is that the same word has unfortunately been used in two rather different ways). In fact, humanism seems to definitely exclude faith in the religious sense, preferring reason plus benevolence/empathy. For this reason, BTW, I am also not too keen on the concept of spiritual humanism, as advocated by Moller; humanism is ipso facto value-rich, not value-free as he implies, so why do we need to add "spiritual"? - that, IMO, is also potential woo-woo!