Humanist Manifesto I
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
FOURTH: Humanism recognizes that man’s religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development. This implies cultural evolution and cultural relativity.
FIFTH: Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values.
SIXTH: We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of “new thought”.
SEVENTH: Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation–all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living.
EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now.
NINTH: In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.
TENTH: It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.
ELEVENTH: Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability.
TWELFTH: Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.
THIRTEENTH: Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life.
FOURTEENTH: The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted.
FIFTEENTH AND LAST: We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few.
Tags
Who is online
77 visitors
Man is the measure of all things for the secular humanist.
As a secular humanist, I disagree with many of these statements because they seem to be falsely made from the position of a theist.
Hi Epistte, Where did you get this "FIRST" in your comment? Is it from Humanist Manifesto I?
If you read your own post it will be obvious where the FIRST came from because I quoted the text of your original statement.
1. You wrote superfluous information. Consequently, I ask.
2. As to your quote:
I am confused about why you disagree with the statements. They are from Humanist Manifesto I.
There are multiple Humanist Manifestos and only the 3rd version that was published in 2003 has been endorsed by the American Humanists.
Why are you attempting to steer this discussion onto a personal track (of American Humanists)? The statement:
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
Is undeniably the 'first' principle in Humanist Manifesto I. It is a cemented fact. Other "endorsed" versions are not the point of this article.
I am a Humanist and I disagree with what this statement says. The universe has not always existed. Statements much change when facts are known.
1. Good 'catch.' The universe does have a beginning.
2. I know the scientific dating for universe; this is not my first brush with the information either.
3. It is well-known that when humanists of various stripes use the phrasing: "the universe [is] self-existing" something more along the lines of continuous universe beginnings is meant.
The concept of a continual universe(s) is being discussed but it has not been proven.
Okay,
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
Is undeniably the 'first' principle in Humanist Manifesto I. True or false?
Is this an extra credit question?
True.
Interested to see where this is going. I suspect this will lead to Humanism being deemed a belief system.
I do believe in logic and the ethic of reciprocity.
We'll need to invent a shrine, a feast day and maybe a scandal or two before we are seen to be a legitimate religious group on par with Christians, Jews and Muslims.
So here you go (from the Manifesto):
'Given you have claimed to be a Humanist, do you believe that nature just came into existence on its own? Where is your evidence that this was not the result of a sentient entity?'
The trigger of the Bing Bang is unknown. There is no evidence to suggest that a grand supernatural sentient being exists or has ever existed.
(did I pass?)
If we are now a religion does that mean that I can write off my library fines and books that I buy at B&N and used bookstores as religious worship?
I was just predicting a question.
Predictable.
Looked into this briefly and found that you have listed the Humanist Manifesto from 1933. Since then there has been a new version - Humanist Manifesto II - published in 1973 and the most resent version - Humanist Manifesto III - was published in 2003.
Each version is stated to supersede its prior version. Thus the Humanist Manifesto III is what characterizes Humanists (according to Humanists). Here is the most recent Manifesto:
I know what Humanist Manifesto I, II, and III say and have known for several years now. My intention was and remains to display this one, as the original relic.
Given you know this relic has been superseded twice, why are you asking epistte about the 1933 version?
Further you state:
It really does not matter what the first Manifesto states since it has been obsolete since 1973 and superseded again in 2003. I suspect contemporary Humanists have no problem stating that they are entirely unconvinced that the universe was created but even so the original language questions are for the Humanists of that era.
You're mistaken, epistte 'contacted' the thread with a comment:
epistte yesterday
As a secular humanist, I disagree with many of these statements because they seem to be falsely made from the position of a theist.
FIRST : Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created. The universe had a beginning and will have an end but it wasn't created by a supreme deity.My question stemmed from a curious modification she made to the original document. Nothing more. The obvious question is this: Why are you addressing me along these lines instead of epistte, for she wrote the comment which drew the question?
And, then there is that! Silence when I ask a question of you, Tig. What about reciprocity? Yes, I observe that I did not connect my comment to yours, but all the same it is telling on it own who between the three of "us" is being addressed.
Maybe I do not respond to avoid getting into a petty argument. Sometimes it is best to be silent and wait for something interesting to show up.
"Maybe." I see now. Yet, you appear to have no qualms or concerns about getting "petty" by steering epistte's comment onto me?
See Cal, look what you are doing. I respond out of courtesy to explain why I chose to bypass this thread and you go ahead and illustrate why I sometimes ignore your comments / questions.
The longer you take to offer a proper explanation, it sends the message you hold expectation you are ABOVE questioning by others!
I want fairness in any discussion I have with you and others on NT. You have any number of examples of this coming from my side of the 'aisle.' You recently accused my of ignoring your questions while being insistent I always take seriously any single question you put "in front" of me.
I repeat:
Why are you addressing me along these lines instead of epistte, for she wrote the comment which drew the question?
Let it be noted, the longer you take to offer a proper explanation, it sends a message that you expect yourself to be ABOVE questioning by others!