Can I be a Christian and a humanist?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

Except as already pointed out, tgeaxiom we have started with is that there are humans, if you don't then add on the precepts that are exclusionary for one set of beliefs but do for other beliefs in judging things then you are being inconsistent.

[floo]

NS,

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

That would appear to be the case.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

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

Not on the occasion I mentioned it wouldn't – or at least not unless the theist left his theism at the door.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

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

Prof D was suggesting we start with a position that there are humans, nothing about morality in that.

[Shaker]

Leaving aside any hard solipsists who are excluded by the humans existing idea, then the humanist and theist start in the same place.

That's registering a 10.5 on my 1 to 10 scale of wrongness.

I assume that for the theist the bottom line moral standard is his or her god, who is typically deemed to be the source of all good. The Good itself, let's say. On the other side, the humanist would presumably say that the weal and woe of humans is the ne plus ultra, the gold standard of morality.

There may be overlap in many respects on specifics, but as foundational assumptions these things can't be reconciled.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Not on the occasion I mentioned it wouldn't – or at least not unless the theist left his theism at the door.

And I'm sure a humanist wouldn't have worked for my father's funeral but that doesn't mean that a theist wasn't useful in that circumstance.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Prof D was suggesting we start with a position that there are humans, nothing about morality in that.

From the Prof (Reply 23):

"...the key starting point assumption for humanism is a belief in the existence of other people and that people are moral agents..." (emphasis added).

[Nearly Sane]

That's registering a 10.5 on my 1 to 10 scale of wrongness.

I assume that for the theist the bottom line moral standard is his or her god, who is typically deemed to be the source of all good. The Good itself, let's say. On the other side, the humanist would presumably say that the weal and woe of humans is the ne plus ultra, the gold standard of morality.

There may be overlap in many respects on specifics, but as foundational assumptions these things can't be reconciled.

These don't seem to be the equivalent starting points to Prof D's idea that we start with 'humans exists' note I see he has then adapted this in a later post to which I will reply directly.

[Shaker]

Well, given its central tenet I don't really think any discussion starting from a p.o.v. of solipsism is much of a goer ...

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

From the Prof (Reply 23):

"...the key starting point assumption for humanism is a belief in the existence of other people and that people are moral agents..." (emphasis added).

Which in part is additional to his start of the start being a belief humans exists but will pick him up directly on what I see as the confusion there. However since he is also arguing that the above are universal then these must by definition also apply to theists as well so if they are the base beliefs then at that stage theism isn't exclusionary.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And I'm sure a humanist wouldn't have worked for my father's funeral but that doesn't mean that a theist wasn't useful in that circumstance.

You're straying into Vlad-style straw man territory. All I said was: "Just to note that, while the usefulness of humanism may be debatable, humanists can be very useful."

I made no comment about the usefulness of theists - for those who like that kind of thing, no doubt a theist officiating at a religious funeral would have been just as useful for his audience. Horses for courses and all that.   

[Nearly Sane]

Well, given its central tenet I don't really think any discussion starting from a p.o.v. of solipsism is much of a goer ...

Doesn't mean that in one sense a tenet that disagrees with of isn't exclusionary to that viewpoint. But it's a minor point.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

You're straying into Vlad-style straw man territory. All I said was: "Just to note that, while the usefulness of humanism may be debatable, humanists can be very useful."

I made no comment about the usefulness of theists - for those who like that kind of thing, no doubt a theist officiating at a religious funeral would have been just as useful for his audience. Horses for courses and all that.   

And all I said was that it applied to theists too. I didn't say you had denied that. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Which in part is additional to his start of the start being a belief humans exists but will pick him up directly on what I see as the confusion there. However since he is also arguing that the above are universal then these must by definition also apply to theists as well so if they are the base beliefs then at that stage theism isn't exclusionary.

You’re a bit jumbled this morning. I don’t think humanism is distinguishable from other approaches because it believes that humans exist, but rather because it believes humans rather than gods are the agents of morality. This seems to me to be a meaningful and significant difference, whereas “humans exist” is universally believed I’d have thought.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

. You seem confused, at one and the same time you have said that the key starting point for humanism is universal, and now you are saying that it is exclusionary to theists. Let's first of all deal with the 'existence of humans', I think that leaving aside any solipsist out there we can agree this is universal and that on that level humanists and theists of whatever brands start from the same place as do any non solipsists. Now moving on from that it may be a different oath for different people, but it seems many, if not most, theists would agree that humans are moral agents. Some non solipsists were they to not be compatibilists in a free will sense would disagree. These could either be theists or non theists. So that additional aspect excludes both theists and non theists, so is not universal to either.

[Shaker]

NS,

You’re a bit jumbled this morning. I don’t think humanism is distinguishable from other approaches because it believes that humans exist, but rather because it believes humans rather than gods are the agents of morality. This seems to me to be a meaningful and significant difference, whereas “humans exist” is universally believed I’d have thought.

Bertrand Russell once wrote that he received a lengthy, detailed and utterly muddled letter from a lady mounting a staunch defence of solipsism - that only her mind truly and actually existed.

He said that he was most amused by the fact that she went to such lengths to write a letter to him about it.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

You’re a bit jumbled this morning. I don’t think humanism is distinguishable from other approaches because it believes that humans exist, but rather because it believes humans rather than gods are the agents of morality. This seems to me to be a meaningful and significant difference, whereas “humans exist” is universally believed I’d have thought.

No, it"s Prof D who introduced the idea of humans existing as being the starting point,he also talks about the idea as humans as moral agents as well and this being universal. If it is universal then it's a starting point for theists too. Any jumbling is due to his confusion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

And all I said was that it applied to theists too. I didn't say you had denied that.

The it seems unecessary to tell me, "...but that doesn't mean that a theist wasn't useful in that circumstance" I'd have thought but ok.

[ProfessorDavey]

NS,

You’re a bit jumbled this morning. I don’t think humanism is distinguishable from other approaches because it believes that humans exist, but rather because it believes humans rather than gods are the agents of morality. This seems to me to be a meaningful and significant difference, whereas “humans exist” is universally believed I’d have thought.

Hence my use of the assumption that people are moral agents.

But that, of itself, doesn't preclude god and those that believe in god. So there is a strong history of theistic humanism that accepts that humans are moral agents, but thinks this is due to a belief that humans are made in the image of god.

So the only group (beyond the hardest of hard solipsists) would be people who think that god is a moral agent, but humans aren't. I think this is a rather unusual view, even within theism.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, it"s Prof D who introduced the idea of humans existing as being the starting point,he also talks about the idea as humans as moral agents as well and this being universal. If it is universal then it's a starting point for theists too. Any jumbling is due to his confusion.

You are getting confused about my starting point.

My starting point is the basic assumptions required by the philosophy, NOT the basic assumptions required by the individual.

Humanism and theistic moral philosophies have different starting point assumptions - the former that humans exist and are moral agents, the latter that god or god exists (and is/are moral agents I guess).

The former is inclusive, the latter much more exclusive.

[Nearly Sane]

Hence my use of the assumption that people are moral agents.

But that, of itself, doesn't preclude god and those that believe in god. So there is a strong history of theistic humanism that accepts that humans are moral agents, but thinks this is due to a belief that humans are made in the image of god.

So the only group (beyond the hardest of hard solipsists) would be people who think that'd is a moral agent, but humans aren't. I think this is a rather unusual view, even within theism.

Pretty much agree with this. I think there are others who might not see humans as moral agents, such as people who see humans as lacking any definition of free will.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

No, it"s Prof D who introduced the idea of humans existing as being the starting point…

But not as a distinguishing feature of humanism I’d have thought.

…he also talks about the idea as humans as moral agents as well and this being universal. If it is universal then it's a starting point for theists too.

That’s not how I read “moral agents”: rather it seemed to me he was saying that humanists think morality comes from people, whereas theists think it comes from deities. That seems like a useful differentiator to me.
 

Any jumbling is due to his confusion.

I meant your use of language rather than the thought you intended – it lacked your usual fluidity.

[Nearly Sane]

You are getting confused about my starting point.

My starting point is the basic assumptions required by the philosophy, NOT the basic assumptions required by the individual.

Humanism and theistic moral philosophies have different starting point assumptions - the former that humans exist and are moral agents, the latter that god or god exists (and is/are moral agents I guess).

The former is inclusive, the latter much more exclusive.

I think part of the problem here is that you are comparing apples and oranges, and secondly treating them entirely differently. Since the two tenets of humanism you put up are universal (or universal enough for us to ignore the few that disagree for the purposes of argument), then it seems to me they form the base of any set of beliefs that they are incorporated into. Note I think at that level, and not the additional areas highlighted by Shaker in Humanists UK, we are talking about what base axioms you include and in themselves they are not a philosophy.

You then compare that to the exclusionary aspects of theism which in itself is not a philosophy but a position on one thing, theoretically factual.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

But not as a distinguishing feature of humanism I’d have thought.

That’s not how I read “moral agents”: rather it seemed to me he was saying that humanists think morality comes from people, whereas theists think it comes from deities. That seems like a useful differentiator to me.
 
I meant your use of language rather than the thought you intended – it lacked your usual fluidity.

To be distinguishing , it would need to be something true surely of humanism and not other views. I think humans exist and am not a humanist. Ergo it isn't a distinguishing feature. Indeed Prof D thinks it is universal so how could it be 'distinguishing'?

I will leave Prof D to expand on what he meant by moral agents but if it is as you define it, then that then seems to be exclusionary of a belief in  a god as you point out so therefore cannot be universal as Prof D claimed.

[ProfessorDavey]

You then compare that to the exclusionary aspects of theism which in itself is not a philosophy but a position on one thing, theoretically factual.

I didn't compare humanism with theism, I compared it with theistic moral philosophy - I'm sure you recognise the difference.