I was poking around the website that MB had linked in his "7 Ways to Celebrate the National Day of Reason" thread.

http://thehumanist.com/

I'm curious what the secular-minded folks here think (in general) about the articles found there. Do you like the articles? This question can be seen from a writing/stylistic perspective or a content perspective (their choice of topics).

My thoughts below:

Consider today's date.

Heh... What I was reading yesterday is not what is appearing today.

Eh, it's not exactly top flight. It's a quickie news hit outlet aimed at the humanist community, not The Atlantic.

Perhaps link to a few articles in particular?

They seem to cover a fairly wide range, taking up various social/political issues that don't speak to humanism as compared to, say, a religious worldview. I'm not going to read them beyond a quick skim for this thread, but presumably many of their articles (say on nuclear energy, or a movie review of Her) are just kind of irrelevant of the fact that they are a humanist website.

If I was going to a website with the specific title "the humanist" i'm not going to go there to read about stuff I can equally well on many websites unless they just coincidentally at fantastic movie reviewers or whatever. I want discussion of things where being a humanist is a relevant perspective, whether that is a way of tlaking about a political, social, entertainment issue, or what have you. For example, a political issue like the separation of church and state, a social issue like pressures to engage in prayer at a workplace, or an entertainment thing like a movie review of a movie that had interesting conflict between humanist and religious themes. Something like that.

Part of the problem is that humanism itself is often sort of vacuous. If you just take it as "being rational and caring for other humans" well...this doesn't add anything. Effectively every political blog espouses to give a **** about other humans and try to be intelligent about doing so. So if it is just generic social and political commentary, what is the added value?

Here is a "feature" article that "talks" a lot about humanism, so possibly this will give us an example of the added value that a humanist website brings: http://thehumanist.com/magazine/marc...rep-brian-sims

The article claims to describe a humanist, but is the subject actually a humanist?
The article certainly wants to impose that word on him. They admit there is some confusion:
Thankfully, they tell us what it is since apparantly neither the subject of their article of the general public knows:
The bolded parts of this paragraph presumably apply to just about everyone. Is there a single member of this forum that doesn't care about helping other human beings or human rights or judge those human rights based on their race and whatever? So the only thing that seems to be added is to throw in a few comments like "free of the bondage of superstition".

The subject of the article seems to be a great person at advocating for human rights. And he doesn't seem overtly religious. So the article concludes he is in fact a humanist. But has the term actually added anything to our understanding?

The most interesting point in the article is this US vs Japan comparison:

Unfortunately, all the most biting comments against religion come from the article and not the quotes, leaving me to wonder whether Slim actually would endorse such a perspective. Now I have just lost a most basic sense of trust in the writer.




So no, not seeing much value here. The stuff that doesn't seem to be about humanism seems to lack any reason to read it here vs anywhere else. And the stuff that includes humanism in the title and talks about humanism explicitly seems to be rather empty trash.

An excellent review.
I occasionally have a browse to see who's saying what about what but they strike me as trying to find a new way to be nice, and end up looking rather twee. A Readers Digest.

I just clicked around and read articles, and it's not a criticism of any particular article. I was just surprised at how disjointed and undirected the whole site felt given that this is published by the American Humanist Association. Your criticisms are pretty much how I felt reading it.

I've already pointed out that the "7 Ways" article seemed to be of low quality. The suggestions were terrible, and it made the "event" look weak and desperate for ideas.

I thought the article on the Noah movie came across as being whiny and arrogant at the same time, which I suppose is a feat of some type.

http://thehumanist.com/arts_entertai...its-unbiblical

This article still drummed up 80ish comments, but internet comments are internet comments. Because of the demographics of the site, it's a lot of echo-chamber stuff where everyone agrees with each other and they're self-congratulatory about it.

And it was looking at the comments when I wondered what secular-minded people on this site felt about the articles. Was this site good enough that it was driving a lot of general traffic, or is it primarily drawing from die-hard folks like what you would find on a fringe religious or political site? It's initially seeming as though people aren't going there for quality content, but others may eventually chime in to support the site.

To add a little bit to this thought:

As a point of comparison, all sorts of people read "Christianity Today" and not because they always agree with all of the articles. Christians of different backgrounds read it/link to it and debate the content. Non-Christians read it to gain insight into Christians' perspectives on certain issues.

But the Humanist magazine doesn't really seem to be written in a way that it would have a chance of doing any of those things (drawing debate within the Humanist community or drawing in non-Humanists who are looking to understand the Humanist perspective). I'm not even sure if it advances a clear Humanist message (whatever that would be), which would make it even less effective at messaging or branding than extreme left/right political websites.

These are not at all comparable. Christianity Today was founded and edited by one of the most important evangelical theologians of his time (C. F. Henry) and with the imprimatur of one of the most famous Christians in the world (Billy Graham). By contrast, I wouldn't be surprised if I didn't know anyone involved in the humanist magazine.

As it pertains to direction of the content, the comparison is apt. I'm certainly not implying that the reach should necessarily be as broad at this moment in history.

Christianity Today declared that it would attempt to be a bridge between different positions. As is quoted on the wikipedia page (though I've heard it quoted elsewhere before), the aim was to "plant the evangelical flag in the middle-of-the-road, taking the conservative theological position but a definite liberal approach to social problems." It was deliberate in positioning itself in this way. The Humanist magazine does not attempt to do that. As far as I can tell, it's not being a successful bridge between anything.

The alternative approach is to be more "partisan" in the approach, which is how a lot of political websites position themselves. They aren't as interested in drawing in a broader conversation, but they want to draw in a particular crowd to build strength or momentum or whatever to the movement. But here, the magazine fails again, because the content doesn't have a solid centralized message or goal that people can rally behind.

Consider that just over 450 people attended their annual conference last year and that the AHA has a total staff of 19...

It should be fairly easy to guess that most humanists don't join and aren't particularly interested in joining a humanist organization for some of the same reasons most smart people aren't interested in joining Mensa. An additional reason is that we just tend to believe that humanism is growing just fine without us yelling at religious folk that we are secular (and that it damages things to do any yelling). Humanist does not mean "supports humanist organizations." It means "we value humans and not because of a god saying we ought to."

Those humanists who are joiners (think of the difference between devout Christians who don't attend services and those who do) tend to attend Unitarian Universalist churches, not join the AHA. Most of us just volunteer and/or give charitably to whatever particular need we think is most deserving. If what interests me is helping inner city youth learn job skills, I am heading to the YMCA to volunteer, not the local AHA chapter.

Size isn't important to me. This is about clarity of purpose. I don't care that it's a small group. (Though googling "Humanist" leads to the AHA and the magazine coming up in positions 2 and 3, behind only the wikipedia article, so in that sense they're the most relevant humanist organization.)

My criticism is very specific to the type of content that is chosen in the magazine, not to the structure of the group itself.

t I understand that what you were hoping for more.

The problem is that the agenda is pretty simple and at most deserves a pamphlet: We value humans and like when they also value humans. It doesn't lead to much editorial direction all by itself. Current events on who is suffering and where they are suffering and where people are being held back from developing to the extent they wish to is pretty much all we've got. As far as putting forth an evangelical magazine, we just aren't interested. We don't see the need ("of course you will join us eventually; we are nice!"), so you can't have your evangelical magazine because we are simply not interested in offering it!

As far as making it a debate, there is no debate to be had that isn't had elsewhere. We have nothing to add to the "does god exist" thing that is rehashed over and over. It would be a waste of paper. At our best, we might add that you adamant theists and angry atheists might have better lives if you would be nicer to each other, but frankly, you couldn't hear us if we yelled at the top of our lungs.

I think the issue ultimately boils down to structural differences between atheism and religion. Namely, the former is inherently a rejection of a particular worldview but offers no prescription of its own while of course religion has things like the bible which prescribes a particular morality and so on. My atheism doesn't really inform many of my other beliefs; it doesn't tell me what else I should believe.

So what is it that a site upon which atheists aggregate going to do? People who like sports hang out at sports websites which covers sports. So what is the subject matter here? For most atheists, discussions where their atheism is a relevant perspective are usually constrained to discussions that are effectively critiques of religion. Usually this is either religion's role in society (for example w.r.t gay marriage or abortion) or, for those of us geeky enough about the subject to engage in it, rejecting various religious philosophical views. Now I do believe their is value in discussing the nuances of religion's role in society. That is a part of the interest in this forum. I presume there are good websites out there that offer such social criticism on both sides.

The difference between atheism and humanism is that the latter, in the absence of a worldview based on religion, tries to espouse a worldview of its own, premised on the value of human agency without needing that value to be provided by a deity. That's fine, and I suppose I am a humanist in this sense. So if atheism doesn't have much to focus a discussion around outside of critiquing religion, does humanism have a unique discussion of its own?

I think not. The basic issue is that most people, religious and otherwise, accept the value of human agency. It is built into our society, what with our western notions of a rights based society and the like. I can make a compelling case about the value of, say, LGBT "rights", without ever mentioning the words "humanism" or needing to make explicit that I am an atheist. I just appeal to shared ideas accepted broadly in society.

So in this sense I don't really see what a site dedicating to discussing society from a humanist perspective is really adding. A criticism of nuclear energy (as I cited earlier) gains nothing from one being a humanist. They can offer potentially valuable criticism of religion's role in society, but any atheist website can do that and this isn't really helped by them being humanist. And they can espouse humanist principles...but for me at least the principles are LDO and I don't really need to go somewhere to read about them.

Perhaps if it was the case that most atheists were really lost and had no idea what to believe in, then a centralizing message of humanism that could provide something to believe in would be useful. As it turns out, most atheists seem to function in society just fine, thank you very much.

The "debate" I was referring to was more about internal debate than external. That is, when I refer to the debate of Christianity Today articles, I'm talking about a diversity of views within Christianity that are butting heads with each other. Do you believe that humanists are essentially uniform in their beliefs? If not, then there's room for that type of debate within the humanist community.

You might think not, and you might be right.

But the American Humanist Association exists for some reason. They have some purpose that they're trying to accomplish. But what's clear is that their purpose doesn't shine through in the articles that they're posting.

FWIW, here's what the AHA says about themselves:

http://americanhumanist.org/What_We_Do

The bolded paragraph is a restatement of something that sounds like a mission statement that they've posted elsewhere:

http://americanhumanist.org/AHA

The underlined suggests that they believe there's something specific to be gained by declaring a humanist perspective (complete with some specific set of commitments, and commitments that they believe need to be pursued and refined).

What sort of internal debate do you think we should be having?

"Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality." - International Humanist and Ethical Union

Some secular humanists enjoy working to make sure that people are allowed to be secular humanists.

It's up to them.

Most of the debates on this type of matter have to do with the gap between the theory and the application. If the AHA believes that they are working towards a particular goal, do you anticipate that they all agree 100% on how to bring about that goal? (Or maybe you don't actually believe that statement is a "goal.")

To go back to Christianity Today, there's a sense in which Christians are uniform in their belief that humans have some sort of role to play in this particular element of the Lord's prayer: "Your Kingdom come, Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven." But when you ask Christians to try to apply that unifying belief in practice, you find a diversity of opinion about how it should be done.

Okay... But you're clearly not reading the words.

It's not about the protection of a humanist worldview (that people should merely be allowed to be secular humanists), but the advancement of it. That is, they want to push this forward, expand it, and so forth.

What I gave was a description of the humanist viewpoint.

Humanists generally hang around the correct places to play our roles in making the world better for people. Those interested in education will hang around a different place than those who are interested in hunger will hang around a different place than those interested in the environment.

The correct places will be in the appropriate scientific, social and governmental organizations, not in a secular humanist group.

Yes, the secular humanist organizations are filled with humanists who are interested in advancing secular humanism. That doesn't describe most humanists.

Even though I thought it was entirely obvious in the context of this thread, maybe I need to be explicit. I'm not talking about humanists in general, but the efforts of a specific humanist organization, including the contents of a specific humanist publication.

For the purposes of this thread, I don't care about humanists in general, in the exact same way that the size of the humanist organization doesn't matter to me with regards to my criticism of their choices of articles to publish.

Ah, well there isn't really much for them to debate on the whole "let's grow humanism" front. Work to keep church and state separate and keep telling people that we aren't the devil.

Here is what they say the magazine is for: "TheHumanist.com serves as a general-interest website for humanists, atheists, freethinkers, secularists, religious progressives, and the nonreligious" and "This is the AHA's award-winning bimonthly magazine of critical inquiry and social concern that applies humanism to the major issues of today. "

Perhaps you were looking for this instead: http://www.essaysinhumanism.org/

Wow, you really suck at making relevant observations.

The AHA has a mission that it's trying to accomplish. I'm arguing that their magazine doesn't appear to be doing it.

If this is the particular target for the website, they seem to be failing to make themselves attractive to their intended audience, probably for the reasons that uke has pointed out.

Again, this type of "application" is probably where internal debates can be had.

As an aside, I spent some time looking to see what awards they've won. And all I found were awards that they've given. I'm a little curious what they're referring to. Awards for individual articles, perhaps?

No, I'm not looking for essays. Your failure at reading comprehension at this point is fully apparent.

I'm specifically saying that this internal debate that you wish to see just don't exist in an organization like the AHA. The people who would join such an organization are all in agreement. That is why they would join such an organization.

Is anyone saying otherwise? I'm a humanist and didn't even know that they had a magazine.

I'm not really sure what your point is. They are a small and relatively unsuccessful, unneeded organization. Who cares?

I agreed with his take on the article he picked out. I'd add that most humanists couldn't find anything attractive with a magazine intended for general humanist readership.

The reason for this is because we already have science and philosophy to do our reasoning (as opposed to fideism) in, and we don't mind sharing such things with religious folk.

The AHA is not the appropriate place for such debates.

We debate climate change in climate change journals, we debate education in education journals, we debate the best way to reduce poverty in social science journals.

Humanism isn't like a religion where we sit down and discuss how "we humanists" should proceed.

You are wanting to see internal debates like you'd find in the Christian magazine that you mentioned. You seem to think that the AHA should be providing that sort of thing in their magazine. They aren't; they can't; they won't.

If you'd like to see humanists debate try picking up any philosophy, social science, education or physical science journal. All are filled to the brim with humanists debating such things.