[andrewmcwatters]

I find it widely uninteresting as a philosophy because it’s unequivocally the same as being non-religious without philosophical affiliation to any moral value system.

As far as I’m concerned it’s a formal definition for those without adherence to any moral value system. You don’t need a biblical argument for that, it just is what it is.

You can call people whatever you want, it doesn’t mean they identify with such a group.

I find it to be the same as associating people who treat women with equality with feminism. Could you prescribe such a label? Sure I guess. But feminism is larger than that concept.

I’m not saying it is a misnomer. I am saying that it can be one for the same reason.

And so if you operate by assumption that one has no value system, they’re immoral.

I’m not trying to dice words here. Humans intuitively know what certain qualities of goodness and badness are. That doesn’t mean they actually live them, though.

That’s what’s dangerous. The subtlety of knowing that people know what goodness and badness are, seeing that they can in some or even most situations live accordingly, but not actually internalizing such philosophy to explicitly live it out, other than doing so my mimicry, requirement, or obligation.

[now__what]

A very interesting take, thank you! I have to wonder if Humanists themselves would accept the label you're prescribing for them ;)

I also find it a little funny that you assume Humanists are only living out their philosophy "by mimicry, requirement, or obligation," as that's often how I've seen humanists describe religious moralism. I appreciate you sharing your perspective!

[andrewmcwatters]

Probably not! And I think there's way more than enough room for an academic argument there. In essence, I'm asserting that the same end results are indistinguishable, however. But also yes, you could label religious moral adherence with the same qualities. :)