Humanism: A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth.
As a field or a principle within a field of study, there is nothing particularly bad about humanism. It is when people associate those ideals within their entire lives and mindsets that I believe is quite unethical. The issue is raised on multiple respects besides religious ones.
Humanitarianism is often considered by humanists to be a prime directive of the perspective, but it is not part of the definition. To be humane is an ethical choice across the spectrum of perspectives and is not unique to humanists as they suggest.
Humanism is merely placing Homo sapiens as the focus of one’s worldview. The Renaissance was a humanist movement, but was still intertwined with religion (which modern humanism severs itself from). Armenian theology places free will and salvation in human hands, and in that sense may be considered humanistic. Anthropology is a humanistic field, but that does not mean its practitioners must be humanists. I find it comical that environmentalists are by definition anti-humanist, yet there are many who passionately associate with both labels.
Humanism is missing huge chunks to be considered a world view. It only considers human activity; that’s its definition. It doesn’t address animal rights, ontology or teleology, or history. Its contemporary proponents have a complete intolerance of any religious opinions. That’s a gigantic branch of human concern they’re just shoving in a corner!!! Worse they attest that they are the proprietors of the only morally correct worldview. That’s just as arrogant as every religion.
The major ethical fallacy is moral realism; that logic can be used as a sieve to deduce moral principles, irrespective of their contexts. This arrogance extends into their attitude toward science. They assume that science is complete, to such extent that pseudosciences have no validity. They are critical of everything they consider to be “superstition”. They are oblivious to the fact that every field of science is dumbfounded by some phenomena. That’s not say that it won’t be discovered, but they don’t give it room.
Humanists have been categorized as a “new atheism” movement, because it no longer holds tolerance as a core value. Rather than remaining within the fields of relativism, perspectivalism, and existentialism (which are by nature paralyzing), they feel the need to force their ideals on others. Overall, I find it a dangerous movement, full of subtle prejudice disguised as logic.