Differnce between atheist, humanist and realist?

Question

Hi. I was wondering what the specific philosophical differences are between atheists, humanists and realists.

I am putting it here instead of R & S because I really just want the facts and not the pros and cons of these three schools of though VS. any religion.

Are the three of them pretty much the same or are there significant differences?


Thank you all so much for your thoughtful answers.

Sorry about mis-spelling "difference", and forgetting to add a"T" onto "though"...should be "thought". THX. I am still waking up!

Answer 1

Atheism by itself is a very complicated ball of wax. Since reading the "Cambridge Companion to Atheism" (which I recommend, by the way) I have become enamoured of the definitions they outline in the introduction. A thumbnail sketch follows:

Originally, the meaning of 'atheism' was its literal one - a person was an atheist if they did not follow any particular god. Even then it was often bandied about as a slur. Some social outsiders also chose to take it as a badge of honor to make a much harder affirmation - not just that they didn't follow a god, but that there was no god to follow.

To distinguish between these types of atheism we will need more terms. Atheism that asserts that there is no good reason to believe in a god (or a good reason to not believe in a god which may exist) is SOFT atheism. Athiesm that asserts that there is a good reason to believe there is NO god is HARD atheism (hard atheism necessarily implies the ideas of soft atheism as well). Further, atheism directed against just one KIND of god is NARROW atheism (many atheist don't believe in the Abrahamic omnipotent, omniscient god, but are open to other kinds). Atheism directed against many or all gods is BROAD atheism (which again necessarily implies narrow atheism).

Agnostics, by these definitions, might therefore be called broad soft atheists - they don't claim there are no gods, just none that they believe in.

Realism isn't any one viewpoint because it depends on WHAT the realist finds real. Some people who call themselves 'realists' really mean that they're 'empericists' - they believe reproducible evidence and little else. Thus a so-called realist might say he doesn't believe in god or the supernatural because he's never seen it nor can it be produced for him. But if someone COULD provide a ghost or a god and set it on a table for him somewhere, such a person would then presumably wholeheartedly believe in it.

Some people who call themselves 'realists' may also mean that they're 'skeptics'. Depending on the type of skepticism, a skeptic believes that some things CANNOT be known. These are people who often argue that a god is the unknown itself, or that the human mind is incapable of grasping it, or that it is necessarily beyond human experience.

Humanism, on the other hand, suggests a focus entirely centered on humans and human affairs. The supernatural, then, is not necessarily accepted or rejected but is just denoted as almost entirely unimportant. Demands of gods are of no more significance than the demands of ants.

So to compare them... humanists are often atheists, but many have undemanding brands of theology (such as deism) as well. Humanism is optimistic enough to reject extreme kinds of skepticism (which suggest you can't know much of anything) but look pretty favourably on empiricism and science as whole. But again, a humanist doesn't necessarily have one particular viewpoint in that regard, and many skeptics and empiricists would question the humanist assumption of significance as a kind of anti-Copernicanism.

The views have some points in common, and are certainly close enough that it is possible for a person to have all three points of view at once. Probably the 'realists' and the humanists are the farthest apart... but even that difference is nothing compared to many religious outlooks.

Answer 2

Realism, in philosophy, means something very specific. It means someone who believes that every object discovered by the senses has an exact location in the world that corresponds, point by point with the object of sensation. There are definite problems with this point of view.

An Atheist declares that the evidence on a specific god is in and that the evidence proves that the god does not exist. Atheists will depend heavily upon contradictions when weighing the evidence. It could be said that everyone who does not accept Zeus is an atheist as far as the ancient Greeks were concerned and you could be put to death for not believing. There must be some gods you don't believe in and you are atheistic about those gods. The conventional meaning that the person is not a "Christian", is not very useful and doesn't tell you enough about what the person believes.

Humanists, come in every shape and size. Every religion has some humanists in them. Humanism simply says that whatever else may be important, fellow human beings are more important than dogmas or individual values.

Answer 3

Well believe it or not humanism is defined as a religion. In simple terms atheism and humanism both deny a spiritual explanation for the world. A realist acknowledges the spiritual. But is practical and seeks down to earth answers to resolve problems.

Answer 4

Atheists can be anything. Objectivists are almost all atheists, but humanists and realists are not objectivists, atheist or not.

Answer 5

a genuine ,

humanist = who sees the emotional part

realist = who sees the intellectual part

atheist = who misses the final part

Answer 6

An atheist is not necessarily someone who says there is no god/gods; it is simply someone who does not have a belief in god/gods. So, a person who says they don't know if there is/are god/gods is an atheist (and an agnostic, for that matter).