Author Topic: Humanism vs nationalism  (Read 1325 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5092
Re: Humanism vs nationalism
« Reply #30 on: November 18, 2018, 11:04:03 AM »
Maybe the better question is, if/when a world government were created, would something replace nationalism just like nationalism replaced religion?

Nationalism has not replaced religion. Nationalism has nearly always existed side by side with religion, with religion often being used to prop up nationalism.


Or is it just that faith and sovereign identity are the two fundamental sources of tribalism?

They are two of the largest sources of tribalism, but they're far from the only ones.

Offline haudace

  • Not Enough Spare Time
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • Reality under scrutiny
Re: Humanism vs nationalism
« Reply #31 on: November 18, 2018, 12:29:49 PM »
Why are you hinging the success or failure of humanism on how effectively it replaces nationalism?

Success / failure is a pretty good gauge whether or not something is worth the effort in my humble opinion.

John wasn't questioning that. He was questioning why replacement of nationalism was considered to be the criterion for success. Why that, and not something else?

Ah okay, I totally misunderstood then. Sorry, John! I have actually been asking myself the same thing. Globalism seems like a better candidate to weeding out nationalism.

Why are you hinging the success or failure of humanism on how effectively it replaces nationalism?

The implied premise of [secular] humanism is that religion is the biggest creator of division. In today's more secular world, that premise seems to be outdated. Nationalism is the new sectarianism. If humanism has no realistic answer for nationalism, then its premise that humanity can be united/unified is not realistic (or not sensible, based on human nature).

I think I disagree.  The premise of humanism is that the humanist themselves doesn't create divisions based on religion, nationalism, or anything else.  I don't think humanism requires humanists to go out into the world and force humans to unite with each other.

Agreed. Secularism is the belief that religion should not be allowed to meddle in the workings of government. Humanism is the morality of treating all humans as worthy of dignity, respect, and care.

Secular humanists needn't be explicitly anti-religion.

My issue is that people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris etc probably describe themselves as secularists. Even if they don't, it's very easy to associate them with secular humanism (like I am doing right now). I understand their messaging to be very antitheist - they are so quick to vilify religions. This has the unfortunate consequence of putting the religious into defense mode after attack on their religious identity. And that's how the seed of division gets planted.

Not saying it is a bad idea to criticize religions, but I do not know how to do it and avoid tribal BS.

Offline arthwollipot

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7831
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Humanism vs nationalism
« Reply #32 on: November 18, 2018, 05:07:26 PM »
It's possible to be a humanist and also an antitheist. Earlier versions of the Humanist Manifesto were more explicitly anti-religious in content, but HMIII doesn't say much about religion at all. In my opinion the two philosophies are more or less compatible, though personally I find that antitheism conflicts slightly with how I interpret the message of diversity. I recognise that others may disagree with this interpretation.

Quote
Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views.
« Last Edit: November 18, 2018, 05:12:15 PM by arthwollipot »
Self-described nerd

Online John Albert

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5092
Re: Humanism vs nationalism
« Reply #33 on: November 18, 2018, 08:12:53 PM »
My issue is that people like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris etc probably describe themselves as secularists. Even if they don't, it's very easy to associate them with secular humanism (like I am doing right now). I understand their messaging to be very antitheist - they are so quick to vilify religions. This has the unfortunate consequence of putting the religious into defense mode after attack on their religious identity. And that's how the seed of division gets planted.

Not saying it is a bad idea to criticize religions, but I do not know how to do it and avoid tribal BS.

That's a good point. By stepping outside the tribalism of religion, one automatically places themselves into a different tribe altogether (from the point of view of the religious tribalists). The religious right have long argued that secular humanism is nothing less than an anti-christian religion. In 1981, Jerry Falwell warned "Secular humanism has become the religion of America."

It's a tough situation because a common trope of Christianity is to always portray itself as a morally righteous but persecuted outgroup, even when it's clearly the culturally dominant majority. So one must expect that criticizing religion will automatically cause most Christians to perceive you as some kind of satanic villain by default.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2018, 09:49:39 AM by John Albert »

 

personate-rain