Do you differentiate humanism from atheism?

Humanism is a broader worldview, atheism is just a small aspect of it.

Humanism puts the focus of concern on the temporal world and mankind as of prime importance; atheism signifies a disbelief in G-d. There are certainly overlaps but one can be a Christian humanist and one could be an atheistic nihilist (believer in nothing.)

@janbb . . . careful, you’re straying into the d&d alignment system there . . .

For the record, there is no difference, only Zool.

Atheism is only a non-belief in gods. One could be an atheist and still be an utter asshole to all human beings. Definitely two different things.

When speaking in terms of the divine, I do not.

A humanist focuses on the faith that human beings are capable of attaining a society that works.
(Hard to do these days).
An atheist simply does not believe that there is a God. They are both belief systems based on faith, but they are not con-joined. A person can be one or the other, both, or neither.

The same way I differentiate between christianity and conservatism. They’re all separate concepts.

Yes. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. Buddhists, Jains, and Taoists can be atheists without being Humanists or without even having heard of Humanism. Atheism requires no further ideology, let alone any specific one.

Atheism is the conclusion that there is no deity.
Humanism is an idea that humanity is perfectly capable of plotting its own destiny without a deity.
Big difference.

Humanism can be viewed as a human-centered spirituality. Humanism started as a movement among theists and there are still some who consider themselves as secular humanists. However, even among secular humanists, the standards of behavior are based on improving life for humanity without reference to, and in some cases defiance of, prescripts found in religious texts.

This is the manifesto of the American Humanist Society.

How could you compare between the two to begin with?

@manolla Well, many atheists are also Humanists, or at least live by a similar set of principles, so I can see where that overlap might cause some confusion.

One lexicon defines a humanist as someone who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans. But the matter is more complex. I found a very interesting 10 point definition on the web:

1) Humanism believes in a naturalistic metaphysics or attitude toward the universe that considers all forms of the supernatural as myth; and that regards Nature as the totality of being and as a constantly changing system of matter and energy which exists independently of any mind or consciousness.

2) Humanism, drawing especially upon the laws and facts of science, believes that we human beings are an evolutionary product of the Nature of which we are a part; that the mind is indivisibly conjoined with the functioning of the brain; and that as an inseparable unity of body and personality we can have no conscious survival after death.

3) Humanism, having its ultimate faith in humankind, believes that human beings possess the power or potentiality of solving their own problems, through reliance primarily upon reason and scientific method applied with courage and vision.

4) Humanism, in opposition to all theories of universal determinism, fatalism, or predestination, believes that human beings, while conditioned by the past, possess genuine freedom of creative choice and action, and are, within certain objective limits, the shapers of their own destiny.

5) Humanism believes in an ethics or morality that grounds all human values in this-earthly experiences and relationships and that holds as its highest goal the this-worldly happiness, freedom, and progress’ economic, cultural, and ethical of all humankind, irrespective of nation, race, or religion.

6) Humanism believes that the individual attains the good life by harmoniously combining personal satisfactions and continuous self-development with significant work and other activities that contribute to the welfare of the community.

7) Humanism believes in the widest possible development of art and the awareness of beauty, including the appreciation of Nature’s loveliness and splendor, so that the aesthetic experience may become a pervasive reality in the lives of all people.

8) Humanism believes in a far-reaching social program that stands for the establishment throughout the world of democracy, peace, and a high standard of living on the foundations of a flourishing economic order, both national and international.

9) Humanism believes in the complete social implementation of reason and scientific method; and thereby in democratic procedures, and parliamentary government, with full freedom of expression and civil liberties, throughout all areas of economic, political, and cultural life.

10) Humanism, in accordance with the scientific method, believes in the unending questioning of basic assumptions and convictions, including its own. Humanism is not a new dogma, but is a developing philosophy ever open to experimental testing, newly discovered facts, and more rigorous reasoning.

http://www.ihumanism.org/intro/10points.html

I think atheism is a proper subset of this (mathematically speaking), while traditional forms of theism and humanism share at least points number 5 – 7 and more modern forms of theism also share points number 8 – 10 and parts of points 2 – 4 as well, especially the role of science. For example that human beings are an evolutionary product of the Nature based on natural laws. The difference is only related to the explanation of the natural laws (which are either seen as being capable of explaining themselves or not).

@mattbrowne Atheism is consistent with the rejection of any and all of those ten points. As such, it cannot be a proper subset of Humanism. Jains would reject most of those points, and the Pessimistic school of philosophers that grew up around the philosophies of Schopenhauer and Cioran—regardless of whether they were faithful to either philosopher’s actual ideas—would reject all ten. The Jains and the Pessimists are still atheists, however.

@SavoirFaire – Proper subset means that there is no additional definition required for atheism which is not included in the definition of humanism. So I don’t see why this isn’t the case. I don’t understand your argument.

Both atheism and modern theism rely on at least one assumption violating scientific principles: the ultimate explanation of natural laws. Atheism relies on circular reasoning (super law explaining all natural laws in a multiverse/universe and also explaining itself) while theism relies on divine authorship of natural laws.

Matt, I do not see any circular reasoning in atheism. The ultimate laws of the Universe (if and when they are found) do not explain themselves. They just are, in the same way that mathematical axioms just are. Saying that the laws are due to God adds no explanatory power, and saying that God can selectively overrule these laws to create miracles unnecessarily injects a degree of chaos.

@mattbrowne No, that is not what a proper subset is. X is a proper subset of Y when X includes only elements of Y, but not all elements of Y. So {1, 3, 5} and {2, 3, 4} are both proper subsets of {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, but {6, 7, 8} and {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} are not (the first because it contains elements not present in the set {1, 2, 3, 4, 5} and the second because it contains all of the elements of that set).

Now, the empty set is a proper subset of every set, but atheism cannot be defined in such terms. Nor is any single element of the ten points you posted sufficient to define atheism. And finally, no collection of nine or fewer elements of the ten points you posted is sufficient to define atheism. Indeed, there are atheists who reject all ten points, so the set of atheists cannot be a proper subset of Humanism.

In terms of a Venn diagram, a proper subset is a circle wholly contained within a larger circle. But a Venn diagram of atheism and Humanism would not have the circle representing atheism wholly contained within the circle representing Humanism (as there are atheists who are not Humanists). Therefore, once again, atheism cannot be a proper subset of Humanism.

As for natural laws, they are human constructions. We observe events in the world, notice there are patterns, study these patterns, and then formulate ways of predicting those patterns that we call “laws.” No further explanation needed. The patterns just are, and they could change tomorrow for all we know.

@LostInParadise – “They just are” is a violation of scientific principles as well. This statement is beyond science. Which is fine of course. I respect people who believe in this. But such an ultimate explanation is not based on a scientific finding. That’s my point. Same for divine authorship of course.

@SavoirFaire – Okay, please name one claim or principle made by atheism that is NOT covered by the principles of humanism.

Matt, not to make an issue of this, but I am not seeing your point. Science tries to come up with the simplest explanation. By necessity, at any stage there will be something left unexplained. There is no violation of science in this. It is a necessary facet.

Physicists are looking for the Theory of Everything. It is hoped that this theory will neatly tie together quantum mechanics and relativity. Once this is done, everyone will be satisfied. There will not be a need for any further explaining.

There are two problems with divine authorship. Firstly, it does not add to what we know form science and secondly it “solves” one problem by creating a bigger one, namely the cause of God. The idea is to explain the complex in terms of the simple, not in terms of the more complex.

@mattbrowne That’s the wrong question. Atheism only makes one claim: there is no God. The naturalist metaphysical views of Humanism are sufficient for this, but not necessary. Thus there could be atheists who are not Humanists. Thus atheism could not be a proper subset of Humanism. Humanism could be a proper subset of atheism, however, and in fact is one (all Humanists are atheists, though not all atheists are Humanists).

@LostInParadise – There will not be a need for any further explaining? You must be kidding. More than 100 years physicists also thought they could explain almost everything, that almost nothing is left to be discovered. One professor actually discouraged Planck from studying physics. What an error of judgment. We will face the same situation when a ToE is established (which will merely unify 4 elementary forces and include quantum gravity). The E is a misnomer. Very misleading. Every answer to a question will always lead to at least two new question. Infinitely.

There are two problems with the “they just are” claim. Firstly, it does not add to what we know form science and secondly it “solves” one problem by creating a bigger one, namely the cause of something “that just is”. Yes, the idea is to explain the complex in terms of the simple, not in terms of the more complex such as “they just are”. Divine authorship is a very simple explanation.

@SavoirFaire – So for the sake of the argument, let’s say atheism is just about the one principle you mentioned. Let’s call it P1 = “there is no God”.

I think there’s more to it, otherwise there would be no need for dozens of pages in a Wikipedia article. Just the section

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Philosophical_concepts

is huge.

Alright, so let’s use the ten principles mentioned in my earlier post and call them H1-H10, then we can argue that humanism is based on a set of 10 principles

H = {H1, H2, ... , H10}

Now we need linguistics and semantics. I would argue P1 and H1 have the same meaning, i.e.

“There is no God” and “naturalistic metaphysics or attitude toward the universe that considers all forms of the supernatural as myth”.

I interpreted myth as “non existent” and “God” is one form of the “supernatural”.

This is the reason I was talking about a proper subset:

Atheism = {H1}
Humanism = {H1, H2, ... , H10}

I think Matt is right, though I first thought otherwise.
proper subset: one that is strictly contained within a larger class and excludes some of its members.

An example for this exclusion would be principle H8. Atheism does not cover topics such as achieving democracy, peace, and a high standard of living on the foundations of a flourishing economic order. Which doesn’t mean atheists don’t agree with this. Today many atheists are in fact also humanists. Lenin and Stalin were not. They were atheists, but not humanists. They committed crimes in the name of communism, not atheism.

It is also interesting to note that modern liberal believers share significantly more principles with humanists than with ultra-conservative Christians in the US.

When we look at the “Charter for Compassion”, an initiative by Karen Armstrong who won the TED Prize in 2008 ( http://www.tedprize.org/karen-armstrong/ ) I’d say the following parts clearly intersect with principles of humanism as described above:

1) Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the center of our world and put another there, and to honor the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.

2) It is also necessary in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain.

3) To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others—even our enemies—is a denial of our common humanity.

4) We need to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures

5) We encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity

6) We cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings—even those regarded as enemies.

7) We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world.

8) Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries.

9) Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity.

10) It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community.

Do you agree?

Matt, the difference between scientific explanation and divine explanation is that divine explanation gives a name to our ignorance and that name is God. There is no god other than the God of the Gaps. As there will always remain something unexplained, there will always be the God of the Gaps, but he has been in serious retreat for the last 600 years or so. He has gone from mover of the planets to ultimate cause of the laws of physics. He is the cause of more and more of simpler and simpler, and becomes less and less relevant.

The “they just are” explanation gives a name to our ignorance too and that name is “we don’t know”. A non-divine Concept of the Gaps, so to speak. I don’t see much of a difference. Both forms of ignorance are acceptable to me. And God does certainly not become less relevant, he just becomes less meddling with something so impressive and perfect as our wonderful universe. Simplicity doesn’t correlate with relevance. E=mc^2 is a very simple, but very relevant formula. I do enjoy simple sunshine. What about you? Weather forecast looks very promising for southern Germany this weekend :-)

There is no Concept of the Gaps. There is no need to give a name to what we currently can’t explain. It is simply the residue left over from what we are able to explain. There are no laws of the unknown. Religion focuses on what we do not know. It induces fear and trembling before the unknown and has been a potent instrument of the State.

I like simple sunshine too. The weather in Pennsylvania has been sunny, comfortably cool and low humidity. Spring flowers are out in force. Best time of the year.

@mattbrowne The main point is that P1 and H1 do not, in fact, have the same meaning. Jains are atheists but not naturalists. They accept P1 but not H1. Thus H1 rules out a form of atheism, which P1 cannot do (by definition). It’s very simple: if there are atheists who are not also Humanists, then atheism cannot be a proper subset of Humanism. So which of the following theses do you reject:

(1) Jains are (or at least can be) atheists.
(2) Jains are not naturalists.

If you accept both, then you must reject the thesis that atheism is a proper subset of Humanism.

As for the point about Wikipedia, that looks to be a massive red herring. You are confusing the fact that there are many ways to be an atheist—thus complicating the taxonomy of atheism—with the fact of what unites atheists qua atheists. I did not deny the first part. Indeed, it is central to the point I’ve been making. But that doesn’t mean there is more to atheism—qua atheism—than what I have suggested.

@augustlan Ah, but that’s my definition of proper subset. And that’s why @mattbrowne is incorrect. His definition was “no additional definition required for x which is not included in the definition of y.” Atheism is not a proper subset of Humanism precisely because atheism fails the “strictly contained” clause of the definition: there are atheists who are not Humanists. Thus in fact the reverse of @mattbrowne‘s contention is true: Humanism is a proper subset of atheism because there are no Humanists who are not atheists (strict containment) but there are atheists who are not Humanists (member exclusion).

@LostInParadise If “we don’t know, they just are” is not a gap, then I don’t know what is. In addition, the concept of a God of the Gaps is not related to the ultimate explanation, but to missing explanations in between. For example, there is thunder, because God is angry. Or, we know about the big bang, but don’t know how life got started on Earth, so God did it. Modern believers don’t believe in such a God of the Gaps, because they know than unexplained does not necessarily mean inexplicable.

@SavoirFaire – You are a philosopher, I’m a computer scientist/mathematician. Funny, we can’t agree on proper subsets.

You said, there are atheists who are not humanists. That’s what I’m saying too. Stalin was an atheist, but not a humanist (because he supported communism, not democracy). All full-fledged humanists are also atheists (because of H1). Therefore I’m saying that the one principal of atheism is a proper subset of the principals of humanism.

Now, you mentioned the Jains and that they accept P1 but not H1 while I argued that P1 and H1 are basically the same. Now if this is our real disagreement, then it does influence the statement about the proper subset. I argued that P1 and H1 have the same meaning, i.e. “There is no God” and “naturalistic metaphysics or attitude toward the universe that considers all forms of the supernatural as myth”. I understand you disagree with this. Okay.

Matt, You are trying to make something out of nothing, literally. Giving a name to an absence does not turn it into an object. There are no properties of donut holes. Cut the donut in half and the hole disappears. Similarly, knowledge gaps are not entities. The gaps do not need to be accounted for. They disappear when new knowledge is acquired.

If God is not God of the Gaps, then what exactly is it that God does?

Why would God need a daily job with a job description? He is not a physical being. I’m fine with him being responsible for all natural laws. To me revelations have a symbolic meaning, not a physical one. God did not put his Y chromosome into Jesus. Myths are an ancient form of human psychology and psychoanalysis, not accounts of historical events. But I don’t want to turn this into yet another religious debate. Let’s give it a rest, shall we? I totally respect your views. They do make sense too. We don’t need one absolute truth. I can live with several.

Perhaps I should have asked your view of God in the first place. Your belief resembles deism, which was popular among America’s founders and which says in effect that God created the Universe and then let it run on its own.

@mattbrowne It seems to me that “the one principle of atheism is a proper subset of the principles of humanism” is different from saying “atheism is a proper subset of Humanism.” The first can be true even when the second is false. If I am to take you as offering a clarification of what you originally meant to say, however, then I could accept that—under that interpretation—the statement is correct.

Yet it seems the talk of proper subsets is a bit inappropriate in such a case. It would be far more natural to say “all Humanists are atheists” or “atheism is one of the commitments/principles of Humanism.” Speaking in terms of proper subsets is apt to create exactly the sort of confusion that came about in the above exchange.

It is still definitely the case, however, that P1 ≠ H1. Naturalists may be committed to atheism, but that is not their only commitment (qua naturalists). As you note, they reject all things supernatural (e.g., souls). Jains reject the existence of a God, but they do not reject the existence of souls. Thus they do not reject all things supernatural. Thus they are not naturalists. But as they are still atheists, it must be the case that P1 ≠ H1. As such, the set of all atheists is not a proper subset of the set of the set of all Humanists and the set of all forms of atheism is not a subset of Humanism (qua ideology).

This, it seems, is something to which both of us can agree.

@SavoirFaire – Last night I couldn’t help thinking about our discussion here. And I had similar thoughts as those expressed in your last post.

In my first post I said: I think atheism is a proper subset of humanism (mathematically speaking). What this means is that the set of (main) principles of atheism is a proper subset of the (main) principles of humanism. You were talking about atheists and humanists, i.e. actual people. And this means that humanists are a subset of atheists. Let’s say there are 1000 atheists and among them are 700 humanists. Among the remaining 300 are people like Stalin.

So in essence we are saying the same thing. Now if we get more specific and look at the principles in detail it is possible to argue that P1 ≠ H1 as you did above (taking Jainism into account for example).

Yes, this is something to which both of us can agree.

Thank you for this stimulating debate.

@LostInParadise – Yes, it resembles deism, but I also believe that our universe has a purpose and a meaning, that we all are part of something bigger than ourselves. Deism is not concerned with these questions. Religions are. My form of Christianity (very common among intellectuals in Europe) embraces secularism and freedom of thought and science and the Age of Enlightenment and it also values compassion and rituals and spiritual intelligence.