Of course a fellow philosopher would ask me a tough question 😅
Christian humanism is basically humanism with some Christian language. So, it's really humanist first, and Christian second. I contend that it would have to be in that order, as if it were Christian first, it couldn't be humanist. This is because humanism in all its forms holds that humans can find self-fulfillment. It essentially makes the human the pinnacle and goal of existence; the human person becomes the god figure (which sure seems like the opposite of God taking on human form in the person of Jesus Christ).
For a more formalized definition, I'll go with what this American Humanist Association article says, including its citing of Webster's Dictionary:
> Christian Humanism is defined by Webster’s Third New International Dictionary as “a philosophy advocating the self-fulfillment of man within the framework of Christian principles.” This more human-oriented faith is largely a product of the Renaissance and is a part of what made up Renaissance humanism. (https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/edwords-what-is-humanism/)
Humanism, if its concept of the human person involves an innate worth (dignity) and natural human rights, can present highly ethical behavior socially. But like I wrote in the article, my faith -- my assent to what I believe to be God -- is in something more than humanism, as in, more than *self*-fulfillment with the human self as the goal and pinnacle.
Thanks for the detailed response. Makes sense with renaissance humanism. I can see a Christianity in which ‘the human’ slides into insignificance- all for the glory of God, that sort of thing. Sort of from the inside, speaking as a human 🥸, I’m not sure we have much choice but to seek out fulfillment. For instance, I think of aquinas as a sort of humanist following Aristotle, but he isn’t usually called that.
> Sort of from the inside, speaking as a human 🥸, I’m not sure we have much choice but to seek out fulfillment.
I think everyone seeks fulfillment; the question is, what is pursued that one expects will fulfill? For me, it's not the limited *self.*
This doesn't mean I'm somehow hostile to being human nor that I think the humanness we have is evil; I'm not in the camp that holds anything material to be evil and only the spiritual to be good. As I wrote in my book: "For God to create the human condition and then take human form and submit to the limits of human life, there must be something beautiful and worthy about being human." (more here: https://goodneighborbadcitizen.substack.com/p/there-must-be-something-beautiful)
> I think of aquinas as a sort of humanist following Aristotle, but he isn’t usually called that.
I have some problems with Aquinas, starting with his approval of killing heretics. I'm not sure what I'd call him. Christendom is an embarrassment.
I love that urban legend. Back when I was teaching high school, I ended the year with a unit on urban legend. This was one of the favorites and it works so much better with cell phones.
Ah, excellent essay!
I’d like to read more about what you mean by and think of ‘Christian humanism,’ a label I rather like.
Of course a fellow philosopher would ask me a tough question 😅
Christian humanism is basically humanism with some Christian language. So, it's really humanist first, and Christian second. I contend that it would have to be in that order, as if it were Christian first, it couldn't be humanist. This is because humanism in all its forms holds that humans can find self-fulfillment. It essentially makes the human the pinnacle and goal of existence; the human person becomes the god figure (which sure seems like the opposite of God taking on human form in the person of Jesus Christ).
For a more formalized definition, I'll go with what this American Humanist Association article says, including its citing of Webster's Dictionary:
> Christian Humanism is defined by Webster’s Third New International Dictionary as “a philosophy advocating the self-fulfillment of man within the framework of Christian principles.” This more human-oriented faith is largely a product of the Renaissance and is a part of what made up Renaissance humanism. (https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/edwords-what-is-humanism/)
Humanism, if its concept of the human person involves an innate worth (dignity) and natural human rights, can present highly ethical behavior socially. But like I wrote in the article, my faith -- my assent to what I believe to be God -- is in something more than humanism, as in, more than *self*-fulfillment with the human self as the goal and pinnacle.
Thanks for the detailed response. Makes sense with renaissance humanism. I can see a Christianity in which ‘the human’ slides into insignificance- all for the glory of God, that sort of thing. Sort of from the inside, speaking as a human 🥸, I’m not sure we have much choice but to seek out fulfillment. For instance, I think of aquinas as a sort of humanist following Aristotle, but he isn’t usually called that.
> Sort of from the inside, speaking as a human 🥸, I’m not sure we have much choice but to seek out fulfillment.
I think everyone seeks fulfillment; the question is, what is pursued that one expects will fulfill? For me, it's not the limited *self.*
This doesn't mean I'm somehow hostile to being human nor that I think the humanness we have is evil; I'm not in the camp that holds anything material to be evil and only the spiritual to be good. As I wrote in my book: "For God to create the human condition and then take human form and submit to the limits of human life, there must be something beautiful and worthy about being human." (more here: https://goodneighborbadcitizen.substack.com/p/there-must-be-something-beautiful)
> I think of aquinas as a sort of humanist following Aristotle, but he isn’t usually called that.
I have some problems with Aquinas, starting with his approval of killing heretics. I'm not sure what I'd call him. Christendom is an embarrassment.
Thanks for response again.
I love that urban legend. Back when I was teaching high school, I ended the year with a unit on urban legend. This was one of the favorites and it works so much better with cell phones.
How did your students respond to the lesson?