17 replies to this topic

[somechineseperson]

Thinking of the term "humanism" some people would instantly associate it with atheism. Are humanism and theism really mutually exclusive? I do not think so.

According to A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy, the rise of humanism started in China as early as 1000 BC at the beginning of the Western Zhou dynasty. The concept of moral virtue, or de, and benevolence, or ren, appeared for the first time in the Chinese language. (The logographs de and ren are not found on Shang dynasty Oracle Bones) It was the Zhou Chinese who first had the concept of a great, transcedental and self-existent universal moral law which transcends all tribal boundaries. The Zhou identified this with the Way of Heaven or God. A quasi-mathematical divination system that was much more logical than the divination system used by the Shang was developed. (Yi Jing) From then on "Chinese-ness" would be primarily determined by culture and ideology, not race. From then on technological innovation such as irrigation would replace shamanistic rituals for those who seek to better the condition of man. From then on the Chinese would gradually realise that the pursuit of moral cultivation and knowledge is a surer path to Heaven than mysticism or even shamanism. From then on the great Mandate of Heaven would no longer favor one tribal group over another, but would be completely fair and only favor those with virtue. From then on an ideology based on caring for the people would replace the brutal warfare and human sacrifice of the late Shang. The beginning of the Western Zhou dynasty was perhaps the greatest moment in Chinese antiquity from a philosophical perspective.

However, Zhou humanism is clearly not an atheistic humanism, but an ideology that combined theism with humanism. As the textbook says, Zhou humanism is not an ideology that tries to go against or slights God, but one that tries to integrate belief in Shangdi/Heaven with belief in human moral virtue and technological progress. According to Zhou theology, God is no longer a tribal autocratic dictator who simply acts according to His personal whim, but a constitutional monarch who reigns but placing the entire universe under a transcedental and ultimate universal physical and moral law. In fact, God can be seen as the personification of the transcedental, universal physical and moral law, God is neither above the Law nor below it, God is the Law. God is the personification of Goodness and Truth Itself.

Some people think such a theological position makes God more distant and is going in the direction of deism. I think not. I think such a conception of the Supreme God, as the universal personification of the Supreme Universal Moral Law itself, and as a "constitutional monarch" who reigns in the universe with the universal physical and moral law as the "constitution", is more enlightened and noble than the conception of a tribal God who is above the Law and acts according to His personal whim like an autocratic dictator. In a sense it shows more respect to God by picturing Him in a much more noble light.

Christianity did for Judaism what Zhou religion did for Shang religion. The Christian God was no longer a tribal God like the Jewish God who favors only one group of people, but an universal God who loves everyone and does not favor one group of humans over another. In fact, according to a modern theologian I once read, Christianity shows God's humanism. Jesus, after all, is a 100% human being. According to classical Christian theology, God does things that are good and true, not simply according to His own whim. In fact, it is impossible for God to do something that is opposed to the Moral Law and Logic. In the theology of Eastern Christianity, there is a panentheistic view of God, as the Logos or Spirit of Truth within all humans and the primary and foundational animating Force "behind and within" all things in all of existence. The panentheistic view is such that all of existence is within God and God is also within all of existence. So the Christian God is also like the personification of the Ultimate Transcedental and Universal Law governing all of existence. Christianity in this sense is also a a kind of humanistic theism.

[snowybeagle]

There's many variations of humanism - there's even Christian humanism. It's just an umbrella term.

[LYY]

However, Zhou humanism is clearly not an atheistic humanism, but an ideology that combined theism with humanism. As the textbook says, Zhou humanism is not an ideology that tries to go against or slights God, but one that tries to integrate belief in Shangdi/Heaven with belief in human moral virtue and technological progress. According to Zhou theology, God is no longer a tribal autocratic dictator who simply acts according to His personal whim, but a constitutional monarch who reigns but placing the entire universe under a transcedental and ultimate universal physical and moral law. In fact, God can be seen as the personification of the transcedental, universal physical and moral law, God is neither above the Law nor below it, God is the Law. God is the personification of Goodness and Truth Itself.

indeed it is.

The trinity between the God, the Son and the Holy Spirit has depicted one of the basic universal mechanism by which a life is formed. Because of this Trinity connection (where GOD is found in everyone of us), the living being is connected to one another.

[DaMo]

"In fact, it is impossible for God to do something that is opposed to the Moral Law and Logic."
If God created the universe, then God would have defined everything in it, including what is "good" and "logical". "Universal" moral law would by definition be part of the universe itself, and would therefore be God-made. Therefore, good and logical would be defined as and by everything that God does, and everything that God does would be good and logical.

Tribal faith is as irrelevant as universal faith when it comes to humanism. Instead of God being a tribal regent under Judaism, he becomes a universal regent under Christianity. The scope changes, but the role doesn't. That wouldn't make God a humanist.

[jwrevak]

Thinking of the term "humanism" some people would instantly associate it with atheism. Are humanism and theism really mutually exclusive? I do not think so.

I agree. Certainly an enormous number of "humanists" in the West from the Renaissance forward didn't think they were exclusive.

According to A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy,

Like any book, it has to be read critically. When it was first published decades ago, humanism was all the rage. Many philosophers and academic thinkers identified with "humanism" and rationalism at the time. So, it is unsurprising that this book focuses on the "humanist" or rational side of Chinese philosophy to the detriment of the mystical, religious, and irrational aspects of Chinese thinking. Something similar also occurs in Fung's history of Chinese philosophy.

the rise of humanism started in China as early as 1000 BC at the beginning of the Western Zhou dynasty. The concept of moral virtue, or de, and benevolence, or ren, appeared for the first time in the Chinese language. (The logographs de and ren are not found on Shang dynasty Oracle Bones) It was the Zhou Chinese who first had the concept of a great, transcedental and self-existent universal moral law which transcends all tribal boundaries. The Zhou identified this with the Way of Heaven or God. A quasi-mathematical divination system that was much more logical than the divination system used by the Shang was developed. (Yi Jing

The I Ching is far from genuinely logical.

From then on "Chinese-ness" would be primarily determined by culture and ideology, not race. From then on technological innovation such as irrigation would replace shamanistic rituals for those who seek to better the condition of man.

No, many shamanistic and similar rituals and beliefs persisted, inlcuding geomancy. Many Chinese, for example, bitterly opposed things like railroads and telegraph wires as late as the end of the Qing dynasty because they would upset spirits or interfere with the flow of qi.

From then on the Chinese would gradually realise that the pursuit of moral cultivation and knowledge is a surer path to Heaven than mysticism or even shamanism.

A gross simplification for which numerous exceptions exist.

From then on the great Mandate of Heaven would no longer favor one tribal group over another, but would be completely fair and only favor those with virtue.

However, it clearly favored one family (dynasty) over all other families. And "barbrians"? Well, it didn't favor them at all.

From then on an ideology based on caring for the people would replace the brutal warfare and human sacrifice of the late Shang.

Huh? There was plenty of brutal warfare from the Zhou forward. The Zhou even seized power by brutal warfare. It is probably one reason they elevated the notion of the "Mandate of Heaven"; it was an ideology/theology that they used to validate their rule.

The beginning of the Western Zhou dynasty was perhaps the greatest moment in Chinese antiquity from a philosophical perspective.

However, Zhou humanism is clearly not an atheistic humanism, but an ideology that combined theism with humanism.

Probably correct.

As the textbook says, Zhou humanism is not an ideology that tries to go against or slights God, but one that tries to integrate belief in Shangdi/Heaven with belief in human moral virtue and technological progress. According to Zhou theology, God is no longer a tribal autocratic dictator who simply acts according to His personal whim, but a constitutional monarch who reigns but placing the entire universe under a transcedental and ultimate universal physical and moral law. In fact, God can be seen as the personification of the transcedental, universal physical and moral law, God is neither above the Law nor below it, God is the Law. God is the personification of Goodness and Truth Itself.

However, before long, by the late Zhou, few Chinese worshipped or spoke of a personified "God" (actually better called Tian or Heaven).

<snipped for brevity>

Christianity did for Judaism what Zhou religion did for Shang religion. The Christian God was no longer a tribal God like the Jewish God who favors only one group of people, but an universal God who loves everyone and does not favor one group of humans over another.

I'm unconvinced. Heaven (not really "God" by the late Zhou) was far more relevant to and concerned with people of the Middle Kingdom. So in a very practical, realistic way, Heaven (Tian) remained a Chinese concept even after Chinese learned of such distant geographic areas as Europe (which, of course, was peopled only by barbarians in their view). So, Heaven (Tian) was never a genuinely universal concept--let alone a universal deity.

[Yun]

Both humanism and theism can (in the context of Christianity) develop into extremes that are mutually exclusive. Both extremes have often been seen in human history.

Humanism can develop into extreme anthropocentrism, in which only human achievement, virtue, rationality, and ingenuity are glorified. Belief in God is seen as unnecessary, or even detrimental to human 'progress'. It is assumed that the death of religion is an inevitable step in the history of humanity's progress towards greater reason and freedom.

Theism can develop into extreme theocentrism, in which all human achievement that is not expressly devoted to glorifying God is dismissed as illusory and worldly, or the work of the devil. This is a narrow and doctrinaire understanding of what God created humans for. It is assumed that the end of the world is coming soon, and anything that does not contribute to winning more souls for God is worthless.

It takes wisdom to avoid both extremes, but I believe that if a balance is achieved, one can be a Christian humanist.

Jesus, after all, is a 100% human being.

According to Christian theology, he was both 100% human and 100% divine when on earth, but now is in Heaven and no longer has the human nature, only the divine nature.

According to A Sourcebook in Chinese Philosophy, the rise of humanism started in China as early as 1000 BC at the beginning of the Western Zhou dynasty.

Chan Wing-tsit says in that chapter that in the early Zhou people started to believe that "man, through his moral deeds, could now control his own destiny". I find this to be overstating the case. More balanced and reflective of reality would be Chan's comment on p. 78:

In ancient China there were five theories about destiny or the Mandate of Heaven. The first was fatalism: the Mandate of Heaven is fixed and unchangeable. The second was moral determinism: Heaven encourages virtue and punishes evil; therefore, man can determine his reward and punishment through moral deeds. The third was anti-fatalism, advocated by the Mohist school. The fourth was naturalistic fatalism, which means that destiny is not controlled by Heaven in the sense of an anthropomorphic God but by Nature, and works automatically. Lastly, there was the Confucian theory of "waiting for destiny." According to this doctrine, man should exert his utmost in moral endeavour and leave whatever is beyond our control to fate. It frankly admits tha there are things beyond our control but that is no reason why one should relax in his moral endeavour. The tendency was definitely one of moralism and humanism. The Confucian theory represents the conviction of enlightened Chinese in general.

[Bao Pu]

Both humanism and theism can (in the context of Christianity) develop into extremes that are mutually exclusive. Both extremes have often been seen in human history.

Humanism can develop into extreme anthropocentrism, in which only human achievement, virtue, rationality, and ingenuity are glorified. Belief in God is seen as unnecessary, or even detrimental to human 'progress'. It is assumed that the death of religion is an inevitable step in the history of humanity's progress towards greater reason and freedom.

Theism can develop into extreme theocentrism, in which all human achievement that is not expressly devoted to glorifying God is dismissed as illusory and worldly, or the work of the devil. This is a narrow and doctrinaire understanding of what God created humans for. It is assumed that the end of the world is coming soon, and anything that does not contribute to winning more souls for God is worthless.

Great points. Just last night a TV show revolved around letting God do the healing and not bother with doctors. This is where Humanists are right to shake their heads. There's a common saying: God helps those who help themselves. Humanism dressed up in theistic clothing!

[Yun]

There's a common saying: God helps those who help themselves.

That saying can be misleadingly cynical because God also helps the helpless, but yes - God does not withhold help from people who try to solve their problems while also asking him for help. In other words, self-imposed helplessness does not work better in getting favour from God.

[DaMo]

God does not withhold help from people who try to solve their problems while also asking him for help.

People who help themselves and ask help from God aren't bound to succeed. People who help themselves and don't ask help from God aren't bound to fail (take me, for example). Why not just leave it to God's will in the first place then, since God knows what's best anyway, and will do it whether or not you ask?

[Yun]

Why not just leave it to God's will in the first place then, since God knows what's best anyway, and will do it whether or not you ask?

In my case, and that of many other Christians, I pray because the Bible tells me I should ask God for help when I need it, and that prayer often does make a difference. It is a mystery to me whether I myself choose when to pray or what to pray, or God guides me to do it so that he can be seen to do his will in answer to my prayer. But I have perceived my prayers to be answered before, in very difficult situations, and so I continue to pray about most things in my life.

It's true many people succeed without asking God for help. Christianity is ultimately not focused on success in life - that is why 'prosperity theology' messages that make material blessings directly proportional to the amount of faith in God do not convince many people who see that good Christians are not all rich and successful (at least in material terms). But that would be an issue for another thread altogether.

[MengTzu]

According to Christian theology, he was both 100% human and 100% divine when on earth, but now is in Heaven and no longer has the human nature, only the divine nature.

No, that is not orthodox Christian theology, although you are almost right. Orthodox Chrisitan theology (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, traditional Protestant, etc.) believe that Jesus is fully Divine and fully human, as you have noted correctly. However, they also believe that both Jesus' Divine and Human Natures persist from his time on earth until eternity in Heaven. According to orthodox theology, Jesus is eternally Divine, and since his adopting human nature, he is eternally human as well.

[somechineseperson]

The I Ching is far from genuinely logical.

Define "genuinely logical". There are different systems of logic. For instance analytic logic and associative logic. Yi Jing logic largely belongs to the latter.

One of my lecturers did a comparison of Chinese Yi Jing logic and Greek Euclidean logic. Yi Jing logic takes all the phenomena in the universe and try to describe it using a few generalised symbolic principles, while Euclidean logic starts from a few self-evident axioms and try to deduce other things from those.

No, many shamanistic and similar rituals and beliefs persisted, inlcuding geomancy. Many Chinese, for example, bitterly opposed things like railroads and telegraph wires as late as the end of the Qing dynasty because they would upset spirits or interfere with the flow of qi.

Note I never said they didn't persist and was simply *gone*. In fact, even in today's America, many people still believe in these kinds of things.

However, the important thing for this thread is that from the Western Zhou dynasty onwards, one starts to have people in China who no longer rely on those things. This was absent during the Shang.

As for the late Qing example, what is the point of bringing up such an extreme example? I could say bring up similar superstitious activities from Europe's past. I hope you are not trying to suggest that in the 19th century the vast majority of Europeans no longer believed in superstitions?

The scenario you brought up is the combination of the xenophobic attitudes of officials and the superstitious tendencies of the populace.

A gross simplification for which numerous exceptions exist.

I never said "there are no exceptions". You again have missed my point. My point was that from the Zhou dynasty onwards, some Chinese people started to put their trust in moral cultivation and knowledge instead of shamanism.

However, it clearly favored one family (dynasty) over all other families. And "barbrians"? Well, it didn't favor them at all.

I was describing the ideology itself, not political realities. The fact is that the ideal Confucian government rarely existed in history.

The post-Renaissance Europeans also had the ethical values of liberty and equality, but apparently they never applied to black slaves.

Huh? There was plenty of brutal warfare from the Zhou forward. The Zhou even seized power by brutal warfare. It is probably one reason they elevated the notion of the "Mandate of Heaven"; it was an ideology/theology that they used to validate their rule.

But the political ideal of caring for the people began during the Western Zhou. (See e.g. Shangshu) Of course it was not often put into actual practice. That was not my point.

I'm unconvinced. Heaven (not really "God" by the late Zhou) was far more relevant to and concerned with people of the Middle Kingdom. So in a very practical, realistic way, Heaven (Tian) remained a Chinese concept even after Chinese learned of such distant geographic areas as Europe (which, of course, was peopled only by barbarians in their view). So, Heaven (Tian) was never a genuinely universal concept--let alone a universal deity.

But "Chinese-ness" was primarily determined by culture and ideology, not race. As the Chinese saying goes: 夏入夷则夷，夷入夏则夏.

[MengTzu]

Define "genuinely logical". There are different systems of logic. For instance analytic logic and associative logic. Yi Jing logic largely belongs to the latter.

One of my lecturers did a comparison of Chinese Yi Jing logic and Greek Euclidean logic. Yi Jing logic takes all the phenomena in the universe and try to describe it using a few generalised symbolic principles, while Euclidean logic starts from a few self-evident axioms and try to deduce other things from those.

Very well said.

[MengTzu]

I agree. Certainly an enormous number of "humanists" in the West from the Renaissance forward didn't think they were exclusive.

Sorry to budge in here with another topic, but I have not been able to locate you through PMs and e-mails. Have you received my PMs about Lionel Jensen's book? Please respond when you have time, plus I have more question(s). Thank you.

[DaMo]

In my case, and that of many other Christians, I pray because the Bible tells me I should ask God for help when I need it, and that prayer often does make a difference. It is a mystery to me whether I myself choose when to pray or what to pray, or God guides me to do it so that he can be seen to do his will in answer to my prayer. But I have perceived my prayers to be answered before, in very difficult situations, and so I continue to pray about most things in my life.

It's true many people succeed without asking God for help. Christianity is ultimately not focused on success in life - that is why 'prosperity theology' messages that make material blessings directly proportional to the amount of faith in God do not convince many people who see that good Christians are not all rich and successful (at least in material terms). But that would be an issue for another thread altogether.

Well, you must admit that even within the context of a religious framework, prayer does not seem rational. In fact, it can even appear arrogant.

Take the example of praying for the souls of the dead. In order to make a perfect judgement, you need infinite knowledge, infinite experience and infinite intelligence, all of which God has, and none of which humans have. God has seen every detail of the dead person's life, seen the universe from the beginning, and was intelligent enough to create the universe itself. If a person deserves to go to hell or heaven, God will know, and more significantly, God will certainly not send a person who deserves heaven into hell just because no one prayed or prayed enough for him/her. So if a person is going to hell, then that person must deserve it, and if a person is going heaven, there is no point praying for him/her. Yet, humans presume to petition God for their fate all the same, as they could even come close to being better judges of character than God.