Talk:Humanism

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon atheism.svg

This atheism related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Steelbrain.png

Reason[edit]

I removed a link to our article on "reason" as that merely talks about Reason magazine. It didn't fit with the context of the article. Xalder (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Feminism[edit]

I have cut this from the article: Feminism is humanism applied to both sexes rather than just one. basically because it seems rather weird. Could somebody explain it?--Bobbing up 13:43, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Gloria Steinem,a famous feminist said: "This is no simple reform. It really is a revolution. Sex and race because they are easy and visible differences have been the primary ways of organizing human beings into superior and inferior groups and into the cheap labour in which this system still depends. We are talking about a society in which there will be no roles other than those chosen or those earned. We are really talking about humanism."

That said, to hell with the article, you can do what you want with it. When my edits are rolled back BEFORE any discussion I'm done with them because it reminds me too much of the C.P. Francine 14:07, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

"Good Without God"[edit]

In this article, I explore conceptions of happiness and pleasure among secular humanists in Britain. Based on fieldwork among members of the British Humanist Association, and its associated local groups, I argue that happiness for the humanists is both the promise and demand of enlightenment, of an appeal to reason over and against what they see as the irrationality of religion. For them, happiness and pleasure are subjective experiences, but they are also indices of philosophical and ethical commitments. For the humanists, in short, to be happy is to be secular.

FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 17:55, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Morality[edit]

...humanism is where atheism and agnosticism would turn to for moral guidance, as it can't really get it from a divine source, for example.

I think this claim is too presumptuous, as it assumes that irreligious people as a general category are humanists. Maybe those atheists who identify themselves as belonging to the so-called "atheist movement" identify as humanists, but I don't really think you can say the same for atheists who just so happen to be moral nihilists or relativists. Antares (talk) 11:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

It does seem presumptuous, but not that irreligious people are humanists. It assumes that if irreligious people were looking for moral guidance, they would turn to humanism. This assumption could be removed by changing the word would to could.2A0B:F4C2:1:0:0:0:0:1 (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah. I do think it is implied that humanism is, or should be, the default position of irreligious people, and those who aren't are the exception, though. Antares (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
It kind of depends. I would suggest that very many irreligious individuals would not describe themselves as either atheist or agnostic. They would just be people who are indifferent to religion but have no label beyond that. From when I lived in the UK I remember it being a pretty common attitude.
On the other hand those who explicitly describe themselves as atheist or agnostic are, I think, probably more likely to have given a bit more thought to the issue of whence morality - and I would suggest that there is a fair likelihood that they would consider humanism.
But I would also agree that, even in those cases, it's not going to be inevitable and I agree with the change.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:22, 4 October 2025 (UTC)