I would concur; I tend to use “humanist” in the classical sense, someone who subscribes to “a system of thought that centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth”. Such a system doesn’t preclude the existence of God or the validity of spiritual thought. I speak of men like Da Vinci who was without a doubt a believer. But I understand it is a loaded term.
Yet theists feel most threatened by a scientific worldview, particularly those who accept a literal interpretation of their holy books. It seems to me such men reject humanism because they believe men have no worth apart from God. Reason may supplement faith but reason must remain subservient. When reason in the form of scientific inquiry contradicts revealed truth, science must be rejected. Thus they often cite the failures of materialism, with an emphasis on the atrocities of Communists and Fascists. Reason without religious guidance leads to disaster, as men are too intrinsically corrupt to be reasonable. Thus evolution is a product of men’s desire to sin rather than the fruits of his intellectual labors. The terms humanist and theist are not entirely accurate but do denote what I believe is the essence of the conflicting worldviews – the intrinsic worth of human beings.
I may be in error, but I've been under the impression that humanism generaly involves atheism and socialism. That's not my position at all, and it's not at all what is represented by the evolution side of our typical debates.
There are some die hard atheists who have represented the evolution side on Freerepublic in the last several years. Lazamataz comes to mind. I myself consider the issues separate and do not consider myself an atheist. Yet I think that accepting evolution as an accurate account of our origins precludes a literal interpretation of the Bible.
I see two problems during the Dark Ages: (1) the lack of separation between church and state, which gave religion way too much coercive power; and (2) the absence of what we now call a scientific worldview to supliment the theistic worldview and to enhance the human condition. And I think that points 1 and 2 are what are really at stake in the evolution-creationism debates.
You speak of separation and supplementation but do you really believe that such disparate world views can co-exist? I have my doubts. If two men are driving a car approaching a cliff and one wishes to turn right while the other left, can they compromise and continue moving forward?
The culture war is important because I don’t believe these two worldviews can co-exist. One will eventually become supplemental and perhaps that’s the first step to becoming vestigial. Which one will prevail? I believe that issue will be decided by the needs of the audience rather than the actors in our little play. Time will tell.
"Aye, there's the rub." It's only the fundies who really challenge evolution. Everyone else is content to regard Genesis as metaphorical.
You speak of separation [of church and state] and supplementation [of theism by reason] but do you really believe that such disparate world views can co-exist? I have my doubts. If two men are driving a car approaching a cliff and one wishes to turn right while the other left, can they compromise and continue moving forward?
Yes, they can co-exist. But they can't both solve the same problem at the same time. You have to select the proper intellectual tool. Want to fix your computer? Use reason, not prayer. Want to get to heaven? Prayer, not reason. The problem arises when theism tries to bully its way into the domain of science. Can't be done.
I don’t believe these two worldviews can co-exist. One will eventually become supplemental and perhaps that’s the first step to becoming vestigial. Which one will prevail? I believe that issue will be decided by the needs of the audience rather than the actors in our little play. Time will tell.
As I said, they can co-exist; but it must be recognized that each his its proper sphere of action. If either one becomes dogmatically imperialistic (intellectually speaking) there will be clashes.