Can I be a Christian and a humanist?

[SteveH]

I'm a practising anglican Christian, although a very liberal one, but ethically I side most of the time with humanists, and have considered joining the British Humanist Association (I think they're called "Humanists UK" now). I may yet do so. I have just joined a Facebook group called 'Humanists for a better world". Are Christianity and humanism inevitably opposed, or not?

[ProfessorDavey]

I'm a practising anglican Christian, although a very liberal one, but ethically I side most of the time with humanists, and have considered joining the British Humanist Association (I think they're called "Humanists UK" now). I may yet do so. I have just joined a Facebook group called 'Humanists for a better world". Are Christianity and humanism inevitably opposed, or not?

Yes - being a humanism and being religious are not mutually exclusive (despite what Vlad may have you believe).

Humanism is a philosophical and ethical world-view that is based on people as moral agents. As such it doesn't require god, but that isn't the same as requiring humanists to be atheist or non religious.

Indeed there is a very long tradition of humanist thinking aligned with a range of religions.

There are some people on both 'sides' who try to see humanism and religion as enemies, but that isn't really the case. Actually one of the things I like about humanism is its inclusiveness - everyone, regardless of their religious belief of lack thereof can accept the people and humanity exists and that people can (and probably should) act as moral agents. So unlike religions which tend to require belief in a god, which necessarily makes them exclusive, we can all subscribe to humanism at its most basic level as we all surely share a belief in people.

[Nearly Sane]

If himanusm is merely a belief in people, then it's essentially so wide as to be meaningless.

[Shaker]

If himanusm is merely a belief in people, then it's essentially so wide as to be meaningless.

Hmm. I think Prof. Davey's analysis was a bit too ecumenical in scope. For example, the Humanists UK website says:

Bringing non-religious people together to develop their own views and an understanding of the world around them

Humanists are people who shape their own lives in the here and now, because we believe it's the only life we have. We make sense of the world through logic, reason, and evidence, and always seek to treat those around us with warmth, understanding, and respect.[...] Throughout recorded history there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side, and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity [...] Roughly speaking, the word humanist has come to mean someone who trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)

I can't see how that's compatible with adherence to a religious worldview. Without explicitly mentioning the term this is very much secular humanism rather than the small-h humanism ("human welfare and happiness [are] at the centre of their ethical decision making") which can of course be bought into by anyone of any religion - hopefully is, sadly often isn't.

[ProfessorDavey]

If himanusm is merely a belief in people, then it's essentially so wide as to be meaningless.

It isn't - it is a ethical philosophical position that sees people as the key moral agent, thereby negating the need for a deity. The point is that unlike theism, which requires a belief in something (god or gods) that many don't believe in, we can all accept that people exist and therefore anyone can be a humanist while not anyone can ascribe to a theistic moral philosophy.

[ProfessorDavey]

Hmm. I think Prof. Davey's analysis was a bit too ecumenical in scope. For example, the Humanists UK website says:I can't see how that's compatible with adherence to a religious worldview. Without explicitly mentioning the term this is very much secular humanism rather than the small-h humanism ("human welfare and happiness [are] at the centre of their ethical decision making") which can of course be bought into by anyone of any religion - hopefully is, sadly often isn't.

The BHA have taken a view that humanism is necessarily non religious - I don't actually agree with them, and a quick glance at history reveals a rich history of humanism amongst the religious.

The point about humanism is that it doesn't require a deity - that isn't the same as only being applicable to people who don't believe in a deity.

[Shaker]

The BHA have taken a view that humanism is necessarily non religious - I don't actually agree with them, and a quick glance at history reveals a rich history of humanism amongst the religious.

The point about humanism is that it doesn't require a deity - that isn't the same as only being applicable to people who don't believe in a deity.

Certainly what's still standardly known as Renaissance humanism was held by deeply devout people such as Erasmus and what have you; but over time humanism has come to be associated with secular humanism - rightly or wrongly, agree or disagree, but that seems to be the way it's gone.

[Rhiannon]

I find the BHA's insistence on non-religion irritating.

There's a long history of Christian humanism (a google will bring up a lot of scholarly articles on modern Christian humanism) and also liberal Christianity. I have a huge amount of sympathy for the 'radical' Christianity of John Spong and his like. No idea why they describe it as 'radical' when it means something very different than when describing radicals of most beliefs. And it sounds a bit arsey too tbh.

[Shaker]

I have a huge amount of sympathy for the 'radical' Christianity of John Spong and his like.

Me too - I've been reading around it for donkey's years. I don't know whether it really flies as a viable approach, but it's certainly interesting and appealing.

No idea why they describe it as 'radical' when it means something very different than when describing radicals of most beliefs. And it sounds a bit arsey too tbh.

Well, etymologically 'radical' comes from radix or root, so to be radical is to dig down to the roots

[Rhiannon]

Me too - I've been reading around it for donkey's years. I don't know whether it really flies as a viable approach, but it's certainly interesting and appealing.
Well, etymologically 'radical' comes from radix or root, so to be radical is to dig down to the roots

Yeah, it works for them, but for me you get to the point where there's not really much left. Still, there's a clear-eyed honesty to it.

Whatever its root, 'radical' now means 'fundie nutter', which doesn't really apply to Spong.

[ProfessorDavey]

I find the BHA's insistence on non-religion irritating.

There's a long history of Christian humanism (a google will bring up a lot of scholarly articles on modern Christian humanism) and also liberal Christianity. I have a huge amount of sympathy for the 'radical' Christianity of John Spong and his like. No idea why they describe it as 'radical' when it means something very different than when describing radicals of most beliefs. And it sounds a bit arsey too tbh.

That's true and the BHA's particular slant is very much a product of its origins.

For those that are interested the history of modern humanism in the UK is rather interesting - with the South Place Religious Society in London being distinct from the Union of Ethical Societies - from this organisation grew two new movements - the Conway Hall Ethical Society and the BHA. Both still exist today although the BHA is much better know.

Point being at the outset humanism was seen very much as working hand in hand with religion, and certainly not being a philosophy exclusively for the non religious.

[Nearly Sane]

It isn't - it is a ethical philosophical position that sees people as the key moral agent, thereby negating the need for a deity. The point is that unlike theism, which requires a belief in something (god or gods) that many don't believe in, we can all accept that people exist and therefore anyone can be a humanist while not anyone can ascribe to a theistic moral philosophy.

Ah so you have solved the problem of hard solipsism? And again you have reduced the demand for acceptance down to 'belief that people exist' which makes it essentially meaningless. You are trying to do a pas de deux between two of Vlad's polished turds, and on the one side emphasising the universalist property but then on the other slipping in the extra demands as of they were nothing in addition. Given seeing humans as the moral agents is true of many many 'isms', you just end go with it encompassing too much to be meaningful.

As you have noted elsewhere, the Humanists UK position does ignore the development of humanism but that itself is surely part of a theological position in the time of Reformation between those arguing the need for works as well as grace? Even then there is a hint in the writings of those arguing the 'humanist' position that the god they accepted was closer to deist than theist.


Given the question asked by SteveH in the OP, I think though we can both agree that he can, though in my opinion humanism in this wide sense is not that useful. BUT it doesn't seem as he questioned that joining  Humanists UK is an option.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ah so you have solved the problem of hard solipsism? And again you have reduced the demand for acceptance down to 'belief that people exist' which makes it essentially meaningless. You are trying to do a pas de deux between two of Vlad's polished turds, and on the one side emphasising the universalist property but then on the other slipping in the extra demands as of they were nothing in addition. Given seeing humans as the moral agents is true of many many 'isms', you just end go with it encompassing too much to be meaningful.

I think you are missing my point somewhat.

My point is that everyone can be a humanist as the starting point assumptions are pretty well universal - that people/humanity exists and that people are moral agents (i.e. able to do good or bad). Sure, not everyone is a humanist, but everyone can get off the starting blocks of having the fundamental underlying beliefs necessary.

That isn't the case with a theistic moral philosophy, where the starting point assumption (that there is a god) is far from universally accepted. So not everyone can be an adherent of a theistic moral philosophy, because many people can't get off the starting blocks because they don't believe in god.

[Nearly Sane]

I think you are missing my point somewhat.

My point is that everyone can be a humanist as the starting point assumptions are pretty well universal - that people/humanity exists and that people are moral agents (i.e. able to do good or bad). Sure, not everyone is a humanist, but everyone can get off the starting blocks of having the fundamental underlying beliefs necessary.

That isn't the case with a theistic moral philosophy, where the starting point assumption (that there is a god) is far from universally accepted. So not everyone can be an adherent of a theistic moral philosophy, because many people can't get off the starting blocks because they don't believe in god.

No, I got that. I just think (a) as I pointed out it ignores the problem of hard solipsism and (b) is vacuous in its approach since it isn't all that is required to be a humanist. The definitional parts are the exclusionary parts not the generic ones. To be a theist, I think you can get started by believing that people exist so at that level there is no barrier. That others are added on subsequent to that in both humanism and theism makes no difference to that.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, I got that. I just think (a) as I pointed out it ignores the problem of hard solipsism

I get where you are coming from, but not sure I agree - I don't you need to prove that other people exist, merely believe that they do and act a moral agents. While it is an interesting philosophical 'trolley problem' I don't think there are many people who actively do not believe in the existence of other people.

(b) is vacuous in its approach since it isn't all that is required to be a humanist.

True - hence everyone can be a humanist as the get off the starting blocks, but not everyone will be as they may disagree with the deeper requirements.

The definitional parts are the exclusionary parts not the generic ones. To be a theist, I think you can get started by believing that people exist so at that level there is no barrier. That others are added on subsequent to that in both humanism and theism makes no difference to that.

Sure, but if you are atheist you cannot get as far with a theistic moral philosophy as you fail to get off the starting blocks, unlike the theist who is likely to also believe in the most basic assumptions of humanism.

[floo]

I know nothing about humanism, so I have joined a humanist forum to find out a little more about the topic.

[Nearly Sane]

I get where you are coming from, but not sure I agree - I don't you need to prove that other people exist, merely believe that they do and act a moral agents. While it is an interesting philosophical 'trolley problem' I don't think there are many people who actively do not believe in the existence of other people.
True - hence everyone can be a humanist as the get off the starting blocks, but not everyone will be as they may disagree with the deeper requirements.
Sure, but if you are atheist you cannot get as far with a theistic moral philosophy as you fail to get off the starting blocks, unlike the theist who is likely to also believe in the most basic assumptions of humanism.

But your definition of the starting blocks is useless here, and partial, sin a theist can start at precisely the same place I.e. there are humans, the idea tha t theism is somehow exclusionary and humanism isn't, is wrong. If both can start at the same place but both then add on beliefs that are exclusionary, then both are exclusionary and it would seem to be you special pleading that what YOU can accept is not exclusionary, and what YOU cannot accept is. Everyone can be a theist because they can start from the idea that there are humans.

[ProfessorDavey]

But your definition of the starting blocks is useless here, and partial, sin a theist can start at precisely the same place I.e. there are humans, the idea tha t theism is somehow exclusionary and humanism isn't, is wrong. If both can start at the same place but both then add on beliefs that are exclusionary, then both are exclusionary and it would seem to be you special pleading that what YOU can accept is not exclusionary, and what YOU cannot accept is. Everyone can be a theist because they can start from the idea that there are humans.

I'm not sure this is really worth arguing over.

My point is that the starting point assumptions for humanism are ones that are almost universally inclusive, while the starting point assumptions for a theistic moral philosophy are significantly exclusive.

In both cases as you delve deeper into the layering of belief and morality therein there will be points at which people will say 'I'm out' (in a Dragon's Den kind of way) to either humanism or theistic moral philosophies. The difference being that for humanism pretty well everyone is in at the start (as the basic assumptions are pretty well universal and non controversial). For a theistic moral philosophies many people have already said 'I'm out' at the very first assumption - that there is a god.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Just to note that, while the usefulness of humanism may be debatable, humanists can be very useful. I speak as someone who organised a humanist funeral for my father-in-law a few years ago, and the humanist "celebrant" who officiated was excellent. 

For info:

https://humanism.org.uk/ceremonies/non-religious-funerals/

[ProfessorDavey]

Just to note that, while the usefulness of humanism may be debatable, humanists can be very useful. I speak as someone who organised a humanist funeral for my father-in-law a few years ago, and the humanist "celebrant" who officiated was excellent. 

For info:

https://humanism.org.uk/ceremonies/non-religious-funerals/

That's true.

I went to a funeral conducted by a humanist celebrant a few weeks ago for a colleague who died tragically young. What stuck me was how sensitive the celebrant was to the range of views in the room. Rather than conduct the funeral in a overtly 'humanist' manner, he provided space to allow each person to reflect as they would wish to.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not sure this is really worth arguing over.

My point is that the starting point assumptions for humanism are ones that are almost universally inclusive, while the starting point assumptions for a theistic moral philosophy are significantly exclusive.

In both cases as you delve deeper into the layering of belief and morality therein there will be points at which people will say 'I'm out' (in a Dragon's Den kind of way) to either humanism or theistic moral philosophies. The difference being that for humanism pretty well everyone is in at the start (as the basic assumptions are pretty well universal and non controversial). For a theistic moral philosophies many people have already said 'I'm out' at the very first assumption - that there is a god.

That's your problem though. You assume the non exclusionary there are humans for humanism, and the exclusionary there us a god for theism. Leaving aside any hard solipsists who are excluded by the humans existing idea, then the humanist and theist start in the same place.

[Nearly Sane]

Just to note that, while the usefulness of humanism may be debatable, humanists can be very useful. I speak as someone who organised a humanist funeral for my father-in-law a few years ago, and the humanist "celebrant" who officiated was excellent. 

For info:

https://humanism.org.uk/ceremonies/non-religious-funerals/

If you replace humanism and humanist there with theists that would be just as valid.

[Shaker]

I'm not sure this is really worth arguing over.

My point is that the starting point assumptions for humanism are ones that are almost universally inclusive, while the starting point assumptions for a theistic moral philosophy are significantly exclusive.

In both cases as you delve deeper into the layering of belief and morality therein there will be points at which people will say 'I'm out' (in a Dragon's Den kind of way) to either humanism or theistic moral philosophies. The difference being that for humanism pretty well everyone is in at the start (as the basic assumptions are pretty well universal and non controversial). For a theistic moral philosophies many people have already said 'I'm out' at the very first assumption - that there is a god.

This is a very good point - unless you have a card-carrying IS member on board then pretty much everyone, theist and atheist alike, can start a dialogue from the same few broad tenets of humanism, whereas if you start with two lots of theists of different brands, or start arguing from a theistic p.o.v. with an atheist, you'll knit sawdust before you reach a consensus.

Richard Holloway, recently mentioned on here, wrote an entire book called Godless Morality about keeping religious assertions and assumptions out of civil discourse on things such as abortion, euthanasia, marriage equality and so forth. It'll never happen of course and he may be thought foolhardy even to float the idea, but he was to me self-evidently right.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's your problem though. You assume the non exclusionary there are humans for humanism, and the exclusionary there us a god for theism. Leaving aside any hard solipsists who are excluded by the humans existing idea, then the humanist and theist start in the same place.

I don't think they do start in the same place - the key starting point assumption for humanism is a belief in the existence of other people and that people are moral agents. The key starting point assumption for a theistic moral philosophy is a belief in the existence of a god or gods. They aren't the same at all.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

That's your problem though. You assume the non exclusionary there are humans for humanism, and the exclusionary there us a god for theism. Leaving aside any hard solipsists who are excluded by the humans existing idea, then the humanist and theist start in the same place.

Doesn't the humanist start with morality coming from us, whereas the theist starts with morality coming from god(s)?