Sentences with phrase «humanism does»

This account of humanism doesn't identify anything which makes it distinct.

Having sampled public opinion as well as having made a more precise legal interpretation, the lawyer concluded that the charge would not hold up in court; Religion evokes worship; secular humanism does not.

If Humanism does not do justice to religion, it certainly does take seriously what we called the spirit of secularism.

Secular Humanism does not claim an ultimate authority as its foundation.

Secular Humanism does not use dogma to justify its position.

Whatever the league tables might look like, faith - based education clearly isn't all about results, and has something to offer that secular humanism does not.

«Humanist Manifesto 2000» does not have a list of signatories anywhere near the status of those who signed the first manifesto in 1933, but Paul Kurtz and his International Academy of Humanism did manage to recruit nine Nobel laureates and comedian Steve Allen.

Christianity and religious conflict had as much if not more to do with what occured during WW I and WW II as humanism did.

Not exact matches

i challenge any christian to show that Humanism, a modern, atheistic ethical system, doesn't hold better values than the bible, a book written when people thought the earth was flat.

Unfortunately most of mankind will willing resist ever embracing the escape of selfish humanism and will not be offered access into God's full presence when they leave their bodies as we all do.

A good dose of secular humanism would do everybody involved the world of good.

Just because most wars are started for non-religious purposes doesn't automatically associate them with atheism or secular humanism.

DO decouple morality from a belief in humanism, in any of its formulations.

Overall you have shown you don't understand Atheism at all, especially when you are basically conflating secular humanism into your definition.

But I do not think we should call this humanism «anthropocentric.»

I do find it puzzling, however, to watch theologians, both conservative and liberal, come to the defense of the human, the rational, objectivity, the «text,» «moral values,» science, and all the other conceits the modern university cherishes in the name of «humanism.»

On one hand God is a behemoth of dirty done deeds against much of humanism's dispositions while on the other hand God shows little to practically no love to all our civilizations» ongoing trials of which we steadily reshape as the needs arise.

As such, it seems to me that it would take about as much faith to believe in Humanism as it does to believe in a spirit world.

It's funny, most people didn't really behave very Christian until humanism and secularism started to emerge in the renaissance

This Christian humanism has important political and economic ramifications, establishing for Röpke the true foundation of political and economic liberty that modern appeals to mere utility do not provide.

These are much better than the biblical commandments and they don't involve an arrogant god demanding worship: TEN COMMANDMENTS FOR A GLOBAL HUMANISM (Dr. Rodrigue TREMBLAY) 1 - Proclaim the natural dignity and inherent worth of all human beings.

Why do you feel secular humanism promotes hopelessness?

I do not deny that, to a degree, Marxist humanism is able to humanize man, but I believe that it does not fully humanize him.

(There are some people who really do practice secular humanism as a religion which does complicate definitions.)

The first question has to do with Marxist humanism or with Marxism as a humanism: how, at the very core of an estranged humanity, are we able to rely on the hope calling us to a fully human future, when this project itself is nothing but the visualization of alienated people?

Although he does not use the term, Loury's argument is driven by what might be described as a Christian humanism.

Chateaubriant, Oradour, the Rue des Saussaies, Tulle, Dachau, and Auschwitz have all demonstrated to us that Evil is not an appearance, that knowing its causes does not dispel it, that it is not opposed to Good as a confused idea is to a clear one, that it is not the effect of passions which might be cured, of a fear which might be overcome, of a passing aberration which might be excused, of an ignorance which might be enlightened, that it can in no way be turned, brought back, reduced, and incorporated into idealistic humanism....

Upon my one hand, I do so Love God's worthwhile natures but on my other hand, I detest God's past desires toward him interfering with our humanism's past ways.

Christian fundamentalists are doing battle against liberalism, humanism, and secularism.

He does believe in humanism.

The well - known advocate of atheistic humanism, Corliss Lamont, was quick to argue that Whitehead's use of «God» in «nonsupernaturalistic ways» was both deceptive and incomprehensible.4 And Max Otto raged at the audacity of Whitehead's attempt to do metaphysics at a time when «the millions» are concerned about human suffering and need a restructuring of society.5

Secular humanism celebrates human reason and philosophical naturalism — the belief that the supernatural does not exist.

religion has done far too much damage to the human race and people are starting to wake - up from the misery and realize humanism definitely outweighs scripture of any kind.

Bart Campolo believes his newly - embraced «godless religion» of humanism allows him to love people better than his Christian faith did.

For this reason, Maritain did not hesitate in Integral Humanism (1936) to imagine possible futures or to suggest new courses of action that would alter the awful European present in the direction of a better — a more humane, more Christian — proximate future.

The religious humanism I endorse does not attack Christian theism with the critical apparatus of rationalism, science or positivism; nor does it seek to make these the foundation for the humanist perspective.

This kind of humanism is, for some of us, a clue to the presence of the Divine; Midgley, as she makes clear again in the last chapter of Science as Salvation, does not subscribe to that view.

They do not stem from enlightenment or from humanism; they are the troubles of our very own, very contemporary, self - generated atheism, the atheism, precisely, of «Why not?»

The idea of God the Creator challenges your desire to be your «own god» which allows you to do whatever you want, whatever «feels» good at the time (which is called humanism).

All religions (Christianity, Islam, Secular Humanism, Evolution, etc.) are all based on faith in things that can not be proven by the scientific method (e.g., God created the universe / where did God come from, we are all the end result of a lightning strike in an ancient mud puddle / where did energy and mass come from, etc..)

Though the world and its» humanists and their humanisms may one day be gone from the Clestial Cosmos, we will not be gone within the framed worings of Fractal Cosmologies every and any where that cosmological Life does ever abound!

April 14, 2012 at 11:00 am Just on the accounts of humanisms» history trees are ladled with the religious being ever so fearful of God's impending wrath should they investigate things does in no way or shape or formula make today's closeted christians alikened to their pruned branches being thown upon the dung heaps!

In this, Romantic modernists did not so much discard the old myths as translate them into the conceptual framework of an agnostic and intuitive humanism.

What does family and nature have to do with Judaism or distinguish it from, say, secular humanism?

But the fact that technological and social revolutions which did have the potential and promise of producing a world community with richer and filler human life for all humanity, resulted in the intensification of mass poverty, social oppression, war and ecological destruction, have led many to consider self - sufficient Secular Humanism as inadequate to understand or deal with the tragic dimensions of the human selfhood and social existence.

Trinity Press International, 206 pages, $ 29.95 A professor of medical ethics at Baylor contends for a version of «secular humanism» that does the work some would assign to «natural law.»

-- to the sacred and to the sacredness of life: In the West, rationalism, deism and naturalism have led to a humanism without God and to a form of atheism which does not exist in non-Western cultures.

It is in relation to the ensuing dialogue about a genuine Indian Humanism that does justice to the mechanical, organic and spiritual dimensions of humanness and social history, that a Christian contribution to Indian philosophy acquires importance.

The fact that the Christian passion for humanity may resemble other forms of humanism which appear to owe nothing to specific Christian origin or inspiration, and that humanists outside the Christian tradition can make a common commitment with Christians to enlarge and enhance the human and humane, does not mean that these individuals» differing sources of humanism are to be treated deprecatingly or indifferently; Christians will see in those sources evidence of the radical freedom and the unpredictable activity of the Logos, to which the Fourth Gospel first gave witness.

I accept these criticisms; but I do not believe the way out is through the kind of humanism proposed by such thinkers as Erich Fromm, or the completely eroticized civilization envisioned by Herbert Marcuse, or through man's assertion of his autonomy without God as in the «Death of God» theologies.