Modern Humanism is based on Christianity of the 18th and 19th centuries. Attempting to divorce Christianity from it create a model that has no justification for it's views.
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
Ethics according to whom? If one wants to put forward Western ethics then that is still Christianity. How does one judge what is for the greater good of humanity? One could claim killing X amount of horrible people is for the benefit of the greater good. One could argue eugenics is for the greater good. That above line is a empty statement.
The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.
Which is merely liberal Christianity without saying it. Changing from god to no-god while retaining 99% of the same model as Christian Humanism only show the evolution from one basis to another while never addressing the conclusions after the basis is changed. Merely invoking reason is a non-answer. It would like rejection a religion by merely asserting "reason" without putting forward any arguments. Grand claims, nothing more Reason is not the end all be all of everything. As I pointed out above people used reason for eugenics. Communism used reason. Do you agree with these conclusion using reason?
Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.
Science led to eugenics. Communism used scientific racialism as did many Western nations. Do you agree with these ideas? Probably not. However at these times this is how science was used and some conclusions inferred by it's developments. Think about eugenic and the greater good. Many mental and physical disabilities are inherited via genetics. It would be for the greater good to prevent these people from breeding as it would help to eliminate these disabilities and reduce not only the amount of people that suffer from these disabilities in the future but also the drain on family and society in order to support these people; time, funding, medical care, etc. Do you agree with this reasoning?
What are "values" based upon beside empty statements.
Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.
This is an assumption only. Also many liberal Christian completely agree with this. In fact it is the majority view of all but the most fundamental forms of Christianity, usually Protestant. People are still prone to wishful thinking, misinformation, etc. Being a humanist does not make someone immune and suddenly rational nor granted the ability to think critically.
Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.
Values that are predominate based on religions. Human needs are subjective outside of food requirements. Human circumstances are predominately influence by religion. Religion is one of the pillars of civilization. All this is doing is looking at humanity from outside a religious scope then declaring not-god/not-religion is the better basis. Yet history shows that when these view were developed into a system it completely failed, aka communism.
By what basis do people have inherent worth? By what basis should people treated with dignity?
Plenty of people have made "informed" choices. The last major one that backfired was the invasion of Iraq.
Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.
Human ideals except religion right? After all reason is a trump card in a blank statement... This removes most human ideals from the selection of what "humanist" interact with. Purpose outside of religion is subjective thus not an object criteria. Religion address every other point with a proper basis, to them, while this article provide zero criteria and is mostly subjective statments.
Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.
Which can never be accomplished unless a majority of people convert away from a religious based ideologies which is not happening any time soon. The other method is enforcement which failed and the above follows.
Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.
More communism while refusing to acknowledge the above was accomplished by the religious and religious organizations not "secular" humanism nor communism
Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.
Which is nothing that religions has not made clear for centuries and actually effected change while this so-called secular humanism has accomplished nothing of note.
All this article does is ignore it's origins in liberal Christianity while embracing both religious and communist ideas without providing a single basis beside invoking "reason" and "science" as it's basis. Both of which have failed repeatedly when employed at the ideological level. As it contains a dose of utopianism which has failed in every case which it was actually used as a system for society and government. There is also the problem in which "secular" humanism is declaring, covertly, other forms of humanism are flawed based on "reason" So this demonstrates that the vast majority of humanity can not even use reason properly yet those that follow a "no-god" basis are suddenly capable of using "reason" properly on the "no-god", "reason" and "science" claims rather than arguments. Since this article provides zero arguments in support of their view that the majority of humanity can not even use reason properly extend to this empty declaration.
Flower words, no substance. Scientism saddled to "reason"
Topic: Arab Humanists