Comments on: James Croft on what Humanism is

By: James Croft

James Croft — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 04:54:37 +0000

Pierce – No idea what you are talking about.

Steve – wise as always.

By: Steve Ahlquist

Steve Ahlquist — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 16:00:22 +0000

Though I get the idea that there are subtle differences in the definitions and understanding of hope versus optimism, I consider the terms to be synonymous enough where I don’t worry too much about it. For the purposes of my work with the Humanists of Rhode Island, I prefer to use the word optimism, because the word Hope is on the state flag, along with the image of an anchor. The symbolism on the flag comes from the New Testament, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, 6:18-19, according to one source, which reads, “Which hope we have is anchor for the soul.”

Given that the historian laureate of Rhode Island has used this fact as proof against the concept of separation of church and state, I think it behooves me for political reasons to talk of optimism rather than hope when speaking about the future and about my groups commitment to social justice.

By: Jason Thibeault

Jason Thibeault — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:36:18 +0000

I think optimism in absence of any evidence is borderline irrational. With even the merest shred of evidence to point to a good conclusion, optimism is warranted.

By: Pierce R. Butler

Pierce R. Butler — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:32:01 +0000

James Croft @ # 3: “Hope is belief in the plausibility of the possible as opposed to the necessity of the probable.”

Even with your elucidation, this comes across to me as word salad.

I’ve been a political activist for over four decades, without any need for hot air as the wind beneath my wings. “The probable” is not necessary for me; perseverance is.

Perhaps the difference in our outlooks has more to do with whether we find validation internally or not.

By: John Morales

John Morales — Sun, 26 Aug 2012 01:42:49 +0000

Jason quotes James thus:

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

This definition excludes theists, who are (definitionally) supernaturalists; therefore, no theist (or even Deist) can be a Humanist.

A short version: a rational mind plus a heart aflame for justice = a Humanist.

That would be the Aztecs. 🙂

(Or the Thuggees at the Temple of Doom, I suppose)

By: michaeld

michaeld — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 22:58:49 +0000

@ sheesh

Grrrr swings a pool noodle at sheesh in agreement! ;p

By: Sheesh

Sheesh — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 21:18:16 +0000

It’s cool. I’m happy to violently agree for a change! We agree!!

By: michaeld

michaeld — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 19:30:22 +0000

@ sheesh nope I figured we more or less agreed I just found it a little amusing and wanted to put some thoughts down. Sorry if it seemed like I was arguing.

By: Sheesh

Sheesh — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 19:09:04 +0000

without the belief in the changeability of the future there would be literally no reason to act on our values, and the rest would be for naught.

Yes, michaeld, I’m agreeing with James Croft (and pretty much everyone else) that we (atheist social justice proponents) aren’t fatalists, no matter what the label. I hope it didn’t seem like I was disagreeing!

By: Jason Thibeault

Jason Thibeault — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 18:47:47 +0000

James: yes, I suspected that’s where the confusion lay with your comment on the Venn diagram post. By virtue of my labels all having initial capitals, I can see why you might have thought I was claiming Humanism was that bubble, as opposed to humanism. I tried to make it clearer here. Glad to see that we disagree less than I thought!