tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post7558016971697765157..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Humanism book introduction, 2nd draft, for comments...Stephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-47495482880160300122009-11-28T20:39:10.967+00:002009-11-28T20:39:10.967+00:00With regard to the fourth thing you don't need...With regard to the fourth thing you don't need to accept to be a humanist, I'd say that generally humanists are naturalists of some description, but naturalists aren't all physicalists. I'd say someone like Armstrong is a perfect example of a naturalist who accepts some form of abstracta: namely, immanent universals. Similarly, Michael Martin (of "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification" fame) is a "pluralist naturalist" as opposed to a physicalist, in that he believes in non-physical abstracta.<br /><br />Good response on the animal rights/Peter Singer front.Tom Morrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01501992143175537053noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-18877698708609533552009-11-28T11:58:50.639+00:002009-11-28T11:58:50.639+00:00Oh, I might have some qualms about point five as w...Oh, I might have some qualms about point five as well... I think we get a lot of our 'moral sense' from our upbringing, which could be classed as 'external' (though perhaps not an 'external authority') <br /><br />GifGifordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-89791602068631853302009-11-27T09:22:55.592+00:002009-11-27T09:22:55.592+00:00Ah, so I *am* a humanist. I thought I probably wa...Ah, so I *am* a humanist. I thought I probably was :) And thanks for some good answers to the question of what humanism is *for*. <br /><br />I have only one major comment on this: <br /><br />>Take, for example, a mathematician who believes that mathematics describes a non-natural, mathematical reality. <br /><br />I'm not sure 'non-natural' is the right word here. 'Non-natural' would imply to me 'designed' or 'created' - I would suggest perhaps 'non-physical' or even 'metaphysical'. <br /><br />And because I'm a pedant, here are a couple of nitpicks: <br /><br />>While religion typically also addresses such questions, they are clearly not the unique preserve of religion. Such questions also belong to philosophy, and were being addressed in a rational, non-religious way before the appearance of Christianity. <br /><br />Possible conflation of 'religion' with 'Christianity'? Suggest 'any modern religion' (provided that's still true). <br /><br />>A significant number religious people... <br /><br />A significant number *of* religious people... <br /><br />GifGifordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-13615931251146814062009-11-25T23:01:15.142+00:002009-11-25T23:01:15.142+00:00Theresa is still there, but she doesn't deserv...Theresa is still there, but she doesn't deserve to be.Marc Alan Di Martinohttp://marcalandimartino.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-13853466522978095012009-11-24T16:23:36.386+00:002009-11-24T16:23:36.386+00:00Thanks very much for this! I watched the whole de...Thanks very much for this! I watched the whole debate (made work easier this afternoon) and I relished the results of the audience!<br /><br />I'd love to see a debate base it's question on something like "Is Humanism a Force of Good in The World"? I reckon the more we focus on Humanism the less credit we give to these belligerent religious institutions. After all, Humanism has been with us for a while, it needs no introduction, just more appeal to those undecided!<br /><br />Rinamarinarealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01453387083038328991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43636010105945406732009-11-24T14:56:41.701+00:002009-11-24T14:56:41.701+00:00ok theresa's gone!ok theresa's gone!Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-60996827190834327412009-11-24T14:18:27.957+00:002009-11-24T14:18:27.957+00:00I second Flea's objection to praising that gha...I second Flea's objection to praising that ghastly sacred cow Mother Teresa. Her life was rich in ostentatious poverty while she gladly hobnobbed with wealthy tyrants. She was significant in her primitive denial of adequate medical care to the dying poor of Calcutta because she believed prayer was more effective than science. She was only meaningful as a dire object lesson of the humbug and hypocrisy which characterises the Roman Catholic Church.anticanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18135207107619114891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-20031361375156399932009-11-24T09:29:31.976+00:002009-11-24T09:29:31.976+00:00a) which would show that I have a problem with UK ...a) which would show that I have a problem with UK humanist's conventional way of using the term. <br /><br />b) I didn't mean to deny that religious people cannot be humanists, rather than to suggest that it is not a... how can I put it... natural, or easily-aligned-with-religion, position for anyone religious to take.Kosh3https://www.blogger.com/profile/12311933575987511650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-705378586195703602009-11-24T09:16:26.206+00:002009-11-24T09:16:26.206+00:00Timmo
Singer describes himself as a humanist, I b...Timmo<br /><br />Singer describes himself as a humanist, I believe. he just objects to certain definitions. But not mine, I think.<br /><br />Kosh 3. My way of using humanism is the way used in UK by humanist organizations and as defined in books on humanism such as Peter Cave's, Jim Herrick's etc. It is an established use. In the US, such humanists qualify "humanism" with "secular" or whatever but not here.<br /><br />re para 1. Notice I said central importance. Not primary. That was deliberate. More than one thing can be of central importance. Hence a religious person can be a humanist in the weak sense outlined in para 1. And surely most are.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-22549224806571536912009-11-23T21:21:19.134+00:002009-11-23T21:21:19.134+00:00I have great difficulties with your way of using t...I have great difficulties with your way of using the word humanism. You tie it so integrally to atheism and agnosticism that it basically becomes a synonym for 'atheistic humanist' or 'agnostic humanist'. <br /><br />The 16th century Italian humanists, for example, were (on your defn) not humanists. Practically nobody in the Enlightenment was a humanist. Something is wrong with such a definition if it excludes that much. You say right at the start that the other way of talking about humanism is so broad that virtually everyone is included: but on religious worldviews, its not human values and needs that have primary consideration, it is god's values and demands. I don't see then that it is so broad as you suggest.Kosh3https://www.blogger.com/profile/12311933575987511650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-80838993645758904262009-11-23T19:46:36.566+00:002009-11-23T19:46:36.566+00:00I think the Theos example needs tweaking. "Ju...I think the Theos example needs tweaking. "Just this week" is more blog terminology than book terminology. "At the time of writing"?Tony Lloydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03740295390214409286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-23470599959686519932009-11-23T17:56:12.141+00:002009-11-23T17:56:12.141+00:00"The lives of Pablo Picasso, Florence Nightin..."The lives of Pablo Picasso, Florence Nightingale, Mother Theresa and Einstein were all rich, significant and meaningful, whether there is a God or not."<br />Do you really think Mother T deserves to be in this list?<br />I know, may people will like it, but...<br />(Hitchen's take: http://www.slate.com/id/2090083/)Fleanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-79259894294311841192009-11-23T12:56:37.980+00:002009-11-23T12:56:37.980+00:00Hello Stephen,
I will repeat my previous objectio...Hello Stephen,<br /><br />I will repeat my previous objection to donning 'humanism' as a philosophical/ethical vision: as the very <i>term</i> 'humanism' implies, it does not go beyond the morally degenerate views it critiques, as Peter Singers <a href="http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/200410--.htm" rel="nofollow">notes</a>.<br /><br />Stephen, if you want to take a stand for animals, you have to drop the word 'humanism.'Timmohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04095596090336782085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-16898770221027843072009-11-23T12:41:31.291+00:002009-11-23T12:41:31.291+00:00Hi Stephen,
It is really great article! I found gr...Hi Stephen,<br />It is really great article! I found great information on your blog about humanism, I really support your all thoughts and idea.<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />-----------------<br /><a href="http://www.hendlinbooks.com.au/store/" rel="nofollow">Online Bookstore</a>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16576042770153808188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-85347639029269771512009-11-23T10:25:42.388+00:002009-11-23T10:25:42.388+00:00I don't think all five of the uses of the word...I don't think all five of the uses of the word 'humanism' in your first two paras should be in quote marks. In a phrase like <i>the word "humanism"</i> you need them. Otherwise, I'm not so sure.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16802918328975492093noreply@blogger.com