I'm not clear that you're engaging in a religious practice. I'm not clear that you are doing anything that someone who studies religion but doesn't practice it would be doing.
The difference is the work on the self to improve the self, rather than just studying to find out what people do to improve themselves.
Because I don't see how Humanianity is more than a rational ethical philosophy.
It is the personal work on arriving at a rational-ethical philosophy that is consistent with the HUEP in the opinion of the person.
I don't see what about humanianity actually binds people together;
Commitment to living rationally and consistently with the HUEP.
instead it seems that people who are bound together by other religions also happen to be humanians.
Yes, that is correct, to the extent that they are being bound together by commitment to living rationally consistently with the HUEP, rather than by obedience to whomever or whatever seems most powerful in their minds.
I can't discern a transcendent principle; it's a humanocentric principle.
So your assumption is, I gather, that unless their guiding principle is a "transcendent principle" (whatever that is), it can't be called "religion." A religion cannot be "humanocentric," I gather you are saying. Religious humanists would disagree with you, I believe.
I don't see what makes it comparable to an existing religion; what religion would you compare it to?
I don't. It specifically says on the website that "Humanianity is not something to replace or compete with any group or group activity. Humanianity is a
personal orientation (a commitment to try to live rationally according to the
HUEP) that any member of any group can decide to have, an orientation that may indeed result in that individual attempting to help his or her group(s) improve in certain ways, such as to become more Humanian."
You don't even appear to congregate for any religious purpose. Did I miss something?
Currently, the only active congregating specifically designated as Humanian is Charlotte Humanianity, but it is barely off the ground. Remember, the specific label of Humanianity is still a newborn.
I found the metaphoric image of worms crawling up a mountain to be inscrutable. I have no idea what the 'mountain' is supposed to represent. I don't know why religions are 'worm-like entities' that are 'growing at the top end and atrophying at the bottom end'. Perhaps you should include a diagram to make the analogy more clear? I have no idea if that will help. All I get from the metaphor is that religions are like worms and Humanianity is better than religion.
Well then it is hard for me to understand why you are having this difficulty with accurately understanding. That is not true, I believe, of everyone. Someone disagreeing with you, it would seem, would be a distant friend on facebook (I don't know the person personally), who wrote:
"I'm astounded by the time, creativity, intellect, and insight that's gone into this. I've gone through much of the site several times and each time I find more to think about, ponder, and measure my life against. I love the challenge it presents. The only thing I don't like... And forgive me because it's shallow... is the crawling worms image! I mean I get it, and it works, but ew, I have trouble with it!
Keep up the excellent work. Much to be very proud of here, Bill."
So what do you think makes such a difference in response to the idea?
So Humanianity is a movement (not a religion)? Okay. I thought I read it all, but if there's something in particular I should notice or understand, feel free to point it out.
It is a movement
within Religion, or within the various religions to a greater or lesser extent, but very early in its development.
Religion often spawns movements. we can even call them religious movements, but we can't always call them religions. I guess Humanianity is aspiring to become a religion eventually... the site says:
'And finally, when and if all of our cultural religious activities have become completely Humanian, then Humanianity can be considered The Religion for Humanity.'
So it isn't actually there yet? I suppose the question is: will it ever get there? You seem inclined to think so.
I think it is possible. But indeed it might not happen. We may destroy ourselves next month. We may make the planet inhospitable for us and many other species. But if no one tries and puts forth the effort, then the chances are much closer to zero. I want to be one of those who tried.
The principle is generic and in keeping with the principle of nicism as far as I can tell. Whether or not nicism has real value is debatable. So I wonder if the HUEP has real value as the core principle of a religion or if it is more along the lines of wishful thinking. The core principle does not appear to be a statement of the trueness of a thing. Instead, it presents itself as a sort of goal that fulfills itself without achieving anything (like nicism). So, it may lack ultimate value.
I simply cannot see how you can be saying the above, if you have actually studied the website in any detail. It appears that you have an unchangeable (so far) belief that there has to be no value in the effort.
Hmm. There seems to be a lot of codifying happening on the Specific Intro page.
What do you mean by "codifying"? And it sounds like you are saying that it is not valuable, though I could be mistaken, especially since I don't know what you mean. Have you actually studied what is there?
You also have a list of undesirable behaviors labeled in obviously negative terms.
I don't understand. Should undesirable behaviors be labeled with positive terms? Should I be trying to say that those undesirable behaviors are actually desirable? It is very difficult to understand your reactions to the website.
I was referencing nicism in relation to the 'HUEP'. I'm not sure on the relevance of the Specific Intro page. Do you mean that 'nice' people don't engage in 'undesirable behaviors'? I would say that's an obvious conclusion from the principle of 'being nice'.
It is you that have introduced the term "nice," which almost sounds derogatory, as for instance if it were behavior that was non-genuine. I don't label people as "nice" or "not nice." I think all of us have our imperfections, our difficulty living up to even our own intentions to be kind, constructive, helpful, understanding, etc. I know that is true of myself.
What are you referring to as the "principle of 'being nice'"? The HUEP? What do you mean by "being nice"?
You may have noble intentions. You may be trying to help people. You may even succeed at helping people. I don't claim to know your intentions or the success you seem to be having. If you believe your experience justifies your actions, then why stop on account of a few criticisms from me?
There is no danger of that. But I try to see in your criticisms if I am overlooking anything, making any mistakes, being unclear, etc. So your criticisms are helping me in my thinking.
I suppose that my recommendation would be to review if you are really justified in claiming to be a religion. Is there some reason that you are attached to the notion of Humanianity being a religion? If so, why?
If you aren't really justified in claiming to be a religion, then you should stop claiming to be one.
The website failed to convince me, so if you decide that you are justified in claiming to be a religion, then you'll have to puzzle out whether to do something about the website or not.
See, when you state that I am claiming to be a religion, that makes me think of how you are labeling Humanianity as "nicism." Portraying me as seeing myself as a religion seems to portray me as grandiose, and therefore not worth paying attention to. I get it that you see no value in what I am attempting to propose, but I do not understand why, or how you can be saying the things you are saying if you have really tried studying the website with a mind open to the possibility that it has value.
So far, I think the website, from right at the beginning, is making clear what the word "religion" means as it is being used on the website. I acknowledge that some people are committed to being against Religion, and accepting my use of the term, with its meaning that I believe to be most accurate (i.e., that applies to all the things that we actually call "religion") will feel like an undermining of their belief in the importance of being against Religion. In fact, there are quite a few obstacles for many people to coming to appreciate and accept the idea of Humanianity, that I have listed in the
CHALLENGE page of the HOME section.
You write, "Is there some reason that you are attached to the notion of Humanianity being a religion? If so, why?" Yes. It is because I consider Religion to be very important to our species, even though it is still quite primitive in some respects, compared to how it may be in the future. Turning against Religion would be, in my mind, an example of tribalism that is ultimately destructive by virtue of preventing our working together as a species to make for a better life for all of us. Religion should be improved, not destroyed. We as a species should improve, rather than destroy ourselves. That is just my value as a Humanian. The following from the website should make it clearer, I think:
https://humanianity.com/humanianity/humhome.php?_menu=2#H2
