Secular Humanism And Buddhism
Shoshin
No one in particularNowhere Special Veteran
When it comes to Buddhism, many Atheists seem to have a soft spot compared to the other mainstream religions/belief systems/way of life...(In fact my soft spot for Buddhism spread to the extent that I became a Buddhist Atheist. 
)
The Secular Humanism Society "Statement of Principles" ( Drafted by Paul Kurtz )
• _We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
• We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
• We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life.
• We believe in an open and pluralistic society and that democracy is the best guarantee of protecting human rights from authoritarian elites and repressive majorities.
• We are committed to the principle of the separation of church and state.
• We cultivate the arts of negotiation and compromise as a means of resolving differences and achieving mutual understanding.
• We are concerned with securing justice and fairness in society and with eliminating discrimination and intolerance.
• We believe in supporting the disadvantaged and the handicapped so that they will be able to help themselves.
• We attempt to transcend divisive parochial loyalties based on race, religion, gender, nationality, creed, class, sexual orientation, or ethnicity, and strive to work together for the common good of humanity.
• We want to protect and enhance the earth, to preserve it for future generations, and to avoid inflicting needless suffering on other species.
• We believe in enjoying life here and now and in developing our creative talents to their fullest.
• We believe in the cultivation of moral excellence.
• We respect the right to privacy. Mature adults should be allowed to fulfill their aspirations, to express their sexual preferences, to exercise reproductive freedom, to have access to comprehensive and informed health-care, and to die with dignity.
• We believe in the common moral decencies: altruism, integrity, honesty, truthfulness, responsibility. Humanist ethics is amenable to critical, rational guidance. There are normative standards that we discover together. Moral principles are tested by their consequences.
• We are deeply concerned with the moral education of our children. We want to nourish reason and compassion.
• We are engaged by the arts no less than by the sciences.
• We are citizens of the universe and are excited by discoveries still to be made in the cosmos.
• We are skeptical of untested claims to knowledge, and we are open to novel ideas and seek new departures in our thinking.
• We affirm humanism as a realistic alternative to theologies of despair and ideologies of violence and as a source of rich personal significance and genuine satisfaction in the service to others.
• We believe in optimism rather than pessimism, hope rather than despair, learning in the place of dogma, truth instead of ignorance, joy rather than guilt or sin, tolerance in the place of fear, love instead of hatred, compassion over selfishness, beauty instead of ugliness, and reason rather than blind faith or irrationality.
• We believe in the fullest realization of the best and noblest that we are capable of as human beings.
What do you reckon ? Are they compatible with Buddhist principles ?
I think they are pretty wholesome principles to try to live by ( But I'm not planning on giving up my day job as a Buddhist Practitioner though )
Comments
Seems a healthy approach to me, compared to some of the fantastical aternatives.
I totally agree, I like the secular humanist approach a great deal, and think they are pretty compatible with Buddhism. Some years ago I would have been more secular humanist than Buddhist.
Where I am finding it lacks a little is in the strict adherence to evidence based methodologies in its views on science and the world. While that is very safe from an intellectual point of view, it ends up denying some things that I would consider a wider and more accurate view of the spiritual aspects of the world.
I have a personal experience that I'd like to mention. When my stepmother was dying I had an experience, she was in the room down the hall and suddenly there was this feeling of tremendous peace, like a cloud with a very delicate perfume. My father at the time said, "wow, do you feel that?" And within a few minutes we learned that she had passed, out of sight in the other room. Since then I have been interested in near death experiences, especially shared ones.
These things are hard to verify scientifically in an evidence based manner, given the lack of physical reality and experiential nature. Yet given my personal experience and the preponderance of other testimony I don't think it can be denied that there is more beyond this life.
So how do you go about safely extending a world view that is relatively sober and scientific and evidence based? That has been my journey over the last few years, which has eventually led to Buddhism, which I am finding has its own very colourful nooks and crannies.
While I'd say Humanism is compatible with many schools of thought I wonder why the added "secular" in the title. Anything pluralistic is already implied as non-dogmatic or conformative.
I'm sure it's just me but when I hear the label "secular" it implies a shoulder with a chip on it.
@David you might find this of interest "Secularism" and how many Secularist see themselves and their beliefs/approach to life...
Does Secular Humanism have anything as profound as the Path of the Advanced Practitioner found in the Lamrim eg. equalising and exchanging self and other, the six far reaching practices, the tantric path?
That is what I love about the Buddhist path that I don't think humanism could ever give me.
@Bunks with the way Western science is beginning to unravel the mysteries/benefits of ancient Buddhist psychology who knows.....it could be only a matter of time before this comes to light...Bearing in mind Secular Humanism is open to scientific discoveries ...
"• We believe that scientific discovery and technology can contribute to the betterment of human life."
I am of a like mind and I notice he was concerned more about organized religion affecting political coexistence than negating the spiritual side of life.
I just wonder what the real difference is between Humanism and Secular Humanism. I thought Humanism was already science driven, pluralistic and promoted the separation of church and state.
Just so many little sub-labels...
Everyone wants their own sect.
It is done to distinguish it from religious humanism.
Silliness.
True...Just like Buddhism
Well, sort of.
Humanism and Buddhism are not in the same category so it's hard to compare them or anything.
Humanism can certainly work with Buddhism but it's a political position, not a belief system.
It's just weird how sub labels go and I'm just as much at fault as anyone. To pigeon hole me is to say I'm an omnitheistic leaning agnostic Buddhist taking the secular approach to Humanistic and democratic socialism.
Or something like that.
I could be just having one of those days but it just seems contradictory to keep dividing a pluralistic political stance.
Maybe, but since religious folks have the bad habit of claiming all good things as their own, it is quite understandable.
And there's the chip. I knew it was there somewhere. Having pluralistic qualities already leaves no room for any one religion to impose it's dogma on society.
Having all these sub groups within Humanism rather defeats it's own purpose and only inflates the illusion of us vs. "them".
I must say that as given above secular humanism transcends a political position by becoming a life philosophy. It does contain a basic political position but only in regards to system (democracy) rather than leaning (socialist vs capitalist). As such I think perhaps it encompasses Buddhism, which is a religion with some life philosophy elements.
Whether you identify as Buddhist first or secular humanist first surely does not matter that much, compared to the larger questions such as 'who or what am I'?
The idea of sub dividing groups feels to me like it is driven by a desire for exactitude, people trying to describe exactly what they are in a breath, which feels futile to me given the difficulty of anything to hang that label on. But I do think a humanist label in general is useful. It's a rallying cry around which a certain group can gather and make a philosophical stand.
ting political coexistence than negating the spiritual side of life.
Secular humanists don't go to church. It's quite possible to be a humanist and still practice a religion. That's all. Unitarian Universalists are religious humanists in that they've turned humanism into a type of religion in itself. A "meta-religion" actually, where they attempt to honor all world religions and religion itself while maintaining that humanity and human achievements are the proper focus.
Religious humanism has its roots in religion, whereas secular humanism has its roots in progressive, rational thought. The word 'humanism' is not enough to connect them. Let's say I call myself a Christian humanist. I may believe in charity, but I may also believe in banning gay marriages. Am I still a humanist in the eyes of a secular humanist?
So the point is, these distinctions are there for a reason. No point in using a generic word like 'humanism' when there are different strands of the same, religious or otherwise.
Politics is simply how we co-exist or treat one another. It would be hard to find a political stance that isn't a life philosophy.
Those questions do not plague me much.
The problem with forming these little groups in order to belong is that in reality there is only one group, every aspect of that group is unique and nobody can help but belong.
Humanists can accept pluralism because it necessarily means that no one religion can dictate public policy which guarantees a separation of church and state.
You wouldn't be a Humanist at all. Humanism came about in response to right leaning Christianity and its imposing dogma.
The reason is self defeating. Humanism is already about scientific discovery, reason, spirituality, the right to religion as well as a separation of church and state.
1) Exactly. I wouldn't be a humanist, according to secular humanists. But religious humanists will have no problem calling me a humanist.
2) Religious humanists will disagree.
This is why distinctions are made.
Yes they would because you would be imposing one religions will in a pluralistic system.
No they wouldn't because to be a Humanist is to be pluralistic. If it were not so then Secular Humanists care more about the diversity of religion than religious Humanists and religious Humanists would have to split even further... Christian Humanists and Hundu Humanists... And each of those I mean, come on... Pentacostal Humanists squaring off against Krishna Humanists on which hats are ok on Tuesdays.
A Humanist that wants to impose their religious views on the public is not a Humanist in the original sense of the word.
Humanists can be religious, spiritual, agnostic or atheist and any variation in between but in the end scientific discovery and reason win the day because everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.
1) According to you. But not according to religious humanists who subscribe to similar view.
2) According to secular humanists. Religious humanists may say, "I dont care about science or rationalism. I am a humanist because Jesus (or insert any favorite deity) was humanist."
Such as who? Can you give me the name of someone that identifies as a religious Humanist that would force their religious views on the public?
Humanists let people believe what they want but it won't be taught in school.
If it isn't both secular and tolerant of religious views it isn't Humanism.
A Christian humanist, for instance, believes in god and christ. A secular humanist does not.
Not so. A Christian can easily be a secular Humanist but they would understand they cannot teach belief as fact. This protects them from other people teaching contrary beliefs as facts.
My neighbours, (married) when I lived in Bedfordshire described themselves as 'secular Humanists' and they believed in God/JC. So I'm not sure the distinction either stands or even exists, @techie.....
A christian can be a humanist, yes. A secularist can also be a humanist. No problem there. But a christian humanist's humanism is defined by his christianity (else why call himself a christian humanist)? Likewise, a secular humanist's humanist is defined and influenced by secularism alone, not any religious principles.
So even though both of them are humanists, their humanism has roots in very different principles. I am only emphasizing this point just to show that not all distinctions are arbitrary. Sometimes distinctions may help us perceive subtle differences in ideologies.
Not just you. But I freely admit I think that because my ex husband identifies as secular humanist and the chip on his shoulder is the size of Texas. (And yes I realise that is entirely unrelated to secular humanism).
_ /\ _
No - everyone just like to have a label for themselves is more accurate.
Wow you HAVE been busy. Traversing the globe and casting judgement on every single religious person in the world would have knackered you out. Log off, go have a Bex and a good lie down.
I was referring to history.
At the end of the day... regardless of where ones humaneness comes from (be it with a big rewarding carrot at the end-or just from sound judgement and reasoning) as long as it is truly humane ie coming from the heartmind .....the end result of ones actions and commitment should amounts to a better society for all to live in,,,,,
After all ...It's ones actions and not the label that's important....(Oowooo unless that is it's a 'designer' label ...now that's a different story...."I" want one and "I" want one NOW...
)
You might want to state that next time when making sweeping statements...............
Ok, let's come at this from a different angle... What do you suppose is the difference between a Christian that is not Humanist and a Christian that is Humanist?
I ask because it sounds like you're talking about humanitarianism and not Humanism.
It was pretty obvious to intelligent people.
Actually, I count myself as being pretty intelligent, and I thought it was quite a sweeping statement, too.
Furthermore, given that your original statement was made in the present tense, ("Have the bad habit...") and not the past tense (ie, Historic' as you claim) I think it was an understandable assumption
So please don't take it that you have the liberty to respond in such a manner as to belittle people by making remarks of that kind.
OK?
Thanks.
Not really. And even so it's still a non-distinction and makes no difference.
Just a reminder
So what do you reckon ? Are they compatible with Buddhist principles ?