In practice, that is...
I know self-identified secular humanists often say that their philosophy entails much more than atheism (for example, Stephen Law's outline), but it's hard to see that in practice.
Look at these blogposts about the future of humanism. When you read them, they are all about the future of athiesm or irreligion (in the US). Or take a look at the main theme of the current issue of Free Inquiry (which is published by the Council for Secular Humanism). This is what is directed to their target audience, and it is about how young Americans are becoming less religious.
That collection of blogposts could just as well have been called "the future of atheism" and Free Inquiry could just as well have been dedicated to atheism than secular humanism. Nobody would have noticed any difference compared to now.
If secular humanism is an euphemism for atheism (which in practice it seems to be) then why use that term at all? Why not simply say atheism? "Atheism" is an enormously more widely understood term than "secular humanism". Ask a sample of say 1000 persons in Los Angeles. My very strong gut feeling is that many of them will have an idea of what an atheist is. By contrast, very few of them will be familiar with, or having heard of, "secular humanism".
If I'm missing some detail or nuance or very important issue here, please tell. But I don't see Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Hindus define themselves by what they are against, which secular humanists seem to do.
I know self-identified secular humanists often say that their philosophy entails much more than atheism (for example, Stephen Law's outline), but it's hard to see that in practice.
Look at these blogposts about the future of humanism. When you read them, they are all about the future of athiesm or irreligion (in the US). Or take a look at the main theme of the current issue of Free Inquiry (which is published by the Council for Secular Humanism). This is what is directed to their target audience, and it is about how young Americans are becoming less religious.
That collection of blogposts could just as well have been called "the future of atheism" and Free Inquiry could just as well have been dedicated to atheism than secular humanism. Nobody would have noticed any difference compared to now.
If secular humanism is an euphemism for atheism (which in practice it seems to be) then why use that term at all? Why not simply say atheism? "Atheism" is an enormously more widely understood term than "secular humanism". Ask a sample of say 1000 persons in Los Angeles. My very strong gut feeling is that many of them will have an idea of what an atheist is. By contrast, very few of them will be familiar with, or having heard of, "secular humanism".
If I'm missing some detail or nuance or very important issue here, please tell. But I don't see Christians, Muslims, Jews, or Hindus define themselves by what they are against, which secular humanists seem to do.
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1q6kHct
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire