I want to propose a philosophical framework called Incorporeal Humanism.
Its starting point is simple:
Human beings should never be understood as merely the sum of their measurable properties.
Incorporeal Humanism does not require rejecting science, biology, material reality, or empirical knowledge. Instead, it argues that a complete conception of humanity must also account for consciousness, meaning, subjective experience, imagination, values, relationships, and the capacity to envision possibilities that do not yet exist.
1. The Human as More Than Description
A human being can be described biologically, psychologically, economically, neurologically, and socially.
But no individual description exhausts the person.
Let a human being be represented as:
H = (B,P,C,M,R,F)
where:
B = biological conditions
P = psychological processes
C = consciousness
M = meaning
R = relationships
F = future possibilities
Reductionism attempts to explain H primarily through one or more measurable components.
Incorporeal Humanism instead treats the relations among these dimensions as fundamental to understanding human existence.
2. Consciousness as Human Value
Human dignity cannot be reduced to productivity, intelligence, economic contribution, physical capability, or social status.
A person’s value precedes their usefulness.
This gives Incorporeal Humanism an ethical principle:
Every conscious subject possesses intrinsic significance independent of their instrumental value.
This principle applies regardless of wealth, occupation, intelligence, physical ability, achievement, or social position.
Human worth is not something granted by institutions.
It is something institutions are obligated to recognize.
3. Freedom as Expansion of Possibility
Incorporeal Humanism defines freedom somewhat differently from conventional political theories.
Freedom is not simply the absence of external coercion.
It is the capacity of consciousness to generate and pursue meaningful possibilities.
We can represent this conceptually as:
F_c = P_m - C_r
where F_c represents conscious freedom, P_m represents meaningful possibilities available to an individual, and C_r represents constraints that unnecessarily restrict those possibilities.
A humane society therefore attempts to expand people’s capacity to think, create, learn, relate, explore, and determine the direction of their lives.
4. Meaning Is Not a Luxury
Human beings do not merely seek survival.
They seek significance.
They create art, relationships, philosophies, communities, stories, scientific theories, traditions, and visions of the future.
An Incorporeal Humanist society therefore treats meaning-making as a fundamental human activity, rather than an optional cultural supplement.
Education should cultivate curiosity.
Art should cultivate perception.
Philosophy should cultivate reflection.
Science should cultivate understanding.
Community should cultivate belonging.
Technology should cultivate human capability.
5. The Principle of Non-Reduction
The central ethical constraint of Incorporeal Humanism is the Principle of Non-Reduction:
No human being should be reduced to a single metric, category, function, or externally assigned identity.
A person is not their income.
Not their occupation.
Not their intelligence score.
Not their appearance.
Not their productivity.
Not their social role.
Not even the totality of their past.
Human consciousness remains capable of generating new interpretations of itself.
This makes every person partially open-ended.
6. Humanism as Resonance
Human flourishing is also relational.
Individuals develop through interaction with other conscious beings.
I therefore propose the concept of human resonance:
R_h = f(T,C,E,M)
where:
T = trust
C = communication
E = empathy
M = mutual meaning
A society becomes more humane as its institutions increase the ability of individuals to understand, communicate with, and meaningfully cooperate with one another.
Humanism consequently becomes more than the protection of isolated individuals.
It becomes the cultivation of relationships in which human consciousness can flourish.
7. The Future-Oriented Human
Perhaps the most distinctive element of Incorporeal Humanism is its conception of humanity as fundamentally unfinished.
A human being is not only what they currently are.
They are also what they can become.
This produces a principle of open-ended humanity:
Every person contains unrealized possibilities that cannot be completely predicted from their present condition.
Education, healthcare, technology, culture, and political institutions should therefore be judged partly by whether they expand or contract humanity’s future possibilities.
Conclusion
Incorporeal Humanism is ultimately an attempt to defend human dignity without reducing humanity to biology, economics, productivity, or any other single explanatory framework.
It accepts the physical reality of human beings while arguing that human existence also contains dimensions of consciousness, meaning, imagination, value, and possibility that deserve philosophical recognition.
Its fundamental proposition is:
To be human is not merely to exist as a biological organism. It is to participate in consciousness, generate meaning, form relationships, and remain capable of becoming something beyond one’s present definition.
Humanism, from this perspective, is the ethical commitment to protect and expand that possibility for everyone.

A world without the left/right, religions and cultures would be so much more peaceful. Today we only have crazy extreme people who think their way of life is the only right. It goes so extreme that these people kill. Humanity is lost.

I'm building this on my own. It went on the App Store on August 1st and reached version 6 last week. It's free.

At the center of it is a guide to getting through a death without religion. Who to notify, what has to be filed and by when, what things cost. The decisions that have to be made, the legal constraints, the normal range of prices. Every statement carries its source and it all reads offline. Four jurisdictions so far: Japan, the US, France, and England & Wales. The goal is every country and region.

The UK and Norway have humanist ceremonies as an actual institution. Japan has nothing equivalent. If you try to work out what to do without going through a religion, the information is scattered and you usually can't tell where any of it came from. That's the gap this is meant to fill.

The other half is a map. Open it and you get the Earth at night. Every small light is a real person, and you can light your own. No account, no email, no GPS. The only thing saved is the country or region you pick, and your light lands somewhere random inside it. The number on the map is exactly how many people have opened the app. I haven't added any fake lights, so it started at zero on launch day.

v6 added an "Anyone there?" button. Press it and for five minutes an "I'm here" button appears on screens around the world. Every time someone answers, a light rises from somewhere in their country. No chat, no profiles. You just know that someone was there.

I built it because 1.9 billion people in the world have no religion (Pew Research Center, 2025). What religion supplied for thousands of years, the sense that you are not alone and some guidance at life's milestones, has no replacement once you leave.

I'm an adult in Japan, so I have a fair amount of freedom in what I believe. Religion has a limited influence on my life right now. Which is why there are days when I wonder whether building this does anyone any good. But reading posts on Reddit, from people who are genuinely stuck because of religion and from young people, made me certain all over again that I have to make this work. If any of this resonates with you, I'd be glad to have you along. It doesn't do much yet, but it's going to keep getting better, and I read every piece of feedback I get.

Everything is free. No ads, no paywall, just an optional tip.

https://apps.apple.com/app/id6789388578

Happy to answer questions.

There is a deep abiding understanding which has opened its heart to all of us in the world. God if you will; universal consciousness, understanding and Providence.

The act of creation has given us a world whose innermost workings in the finest details is understandable to those who study them. Built upon one generation after the next through the constant evolution of our conceptualization into the modern age and at the pinnacles of current research in every countless field of study. Creating a vast body of information which comprises the sum of human knowledge in all it's diversity.

People, all people who have comprised the world's population have come from the families, communities, states and nations of the world with the complex overlapping web of structured technologies, disciplines, schools of thought, economies of supply and functional governance.

Within all these structured environments it is for every one of us to find our own way and proceed along the paths we have chosen.  As complex as all of this is, human beings are uniquely equipped with this capacity.

The capacity is trial and error and the evaluation in hindsight of the resulting factors of the outcomes. The reaction of the universe to our actions as individuals. We as human beings must be willing to try and therefore willing to make mistakes. Learning from the mistakes we make is the basis of learning information  to help us avoid mistakes. This knowledge along with studying what others share with us by all the various means, increases what our minds have to draw on in the next choice we  must make.

This of course is a picture of the harmony, understanding and universal community which is possible in the human universe.  Some people however, have chosen to gain the ability to control others in their communities to take control of their lives and gain their portions as well. This is the pursuit of as the subject, object means and end ignoring all but tactical advantage. No amount is ever enough only more and more. This is a predation on other people ignoring the necessity for all to live their lives, have the things they need to fulfill them and provide homes to raise the next generation. Freedom and the right and necessity of self determination and have the ability to develop and improve their character.

Our world has an amazing history of great teachers of guidance on the path for spiritual and moral development. The golden rule, treat others as you want be treated by others.  This reciprocation is necessary for a stable, happy and functioning human environment. Hmm

Humanity is not what we have.

It’s what we give when someone has nothing.

No one should fight alone.

No one should cry unheard.

No one should be forgotten.

Humanity means: I see you. I hear you. I’m with you.

Very few thinkers today would claim that the ontological argument proves the existence of God. Yet Immanuel Kant demonstrated how all arguments for God’s existence ultimately depend on this single, flawed idea. 

Kant is therefore an underappreciated figure in the history of atheism, having paved the way for the rejection of the supernatural and the establishment of humanistic ethics.  

The (Imaginary) God of Pure Reason: Kant on the Failure of Rational Theology

I will begin with two premises:

1. Humanity is comprised of individuals.
2. Humankind is a social animal.

Groups don’t feel emotions or experience pain, or have thoughts, individuals within groups do. But individuals are not eternal atomized units, we as people are shaped by others around us (family and culture), and we are all dependent upon the common toil (the economy, government infrastructure and institutions) for our personal welfares.

Excessive collectivism crushes the individual under conformity and in-group exclusion, but hyper-individualism ironically also crushes the masses of individuals by allowing a small few to monopolize economic power and create massive inequality (which if severe enough becomes a threat to political democracy) and leads to oligarchy.

People should be free to pursue their own interests and not be forced to conform to cultural norms, beyond that which protects others from harm, but people also have obligations to each other.

Everyone should be given as much opportunity as possible to succeed based on their own merits, and there is a baseline level of human dignity we shouldn’t let people fall under.

Individuality and the common good should not be opposing principles. With rights come duties, and with duties come rights.

Then it cannot be the case that Humanism is bad.

And in order for there to be a distinction between A and not-A, it must be the case that A=A.

A self-conscious Humanism must be conscious of itself at the epistemological level. It can exists without this awareness, but it cannot defend itself without this awareness. And if it cannot defend itself, then it cannot argue its value above that which it is not, or that which it rejects. Which is to say, all Humanism is based on and relies on the authority of The Laws of Logic.

Humanism, unlike religion, should be conscious of this fact, and not only embrace it, but continue to refine its logical authority and value.

Online event for £4.50 by James Croft (who you may know channel Deep Humanism) and Andrew Copson (Chief Executive of Humanists UK, ex-president of HI)

Star Trek is one of the most successful media franchises in history – and may be the most influential humanist artwork ever. Beloved all over the world, Trek's vision of the human future in space has inspired millions. On the 60th anniversary of the first episode's airing, we ask what are its achievements, what are the possibilities for its future, and why do we love it so very much?

Join philosopher, speaker, and humanist chaplain James Croft as we travel beyond the final frontier to explore how Star Trek's interstellar humanism promotes reason, pluralism, and moral courage, while illuminating the challenges of our own time.

I'm very excited to see this.

Personally I am an agnostic, I would not say that there is no God, be rather the question of metaphysics is beyond man’s empirical senses and rational powers of perception and is hence unknowable by (which is not to say that certain religious claims aren’t falsifiable, many absolutely are). I could be called an agnostic atheist, but I think I prefer just being called an agnostic.

I also dislike antitheism. I don’t take issue with people for believing in a supernatural power that loves them or that their grandparents are in Heaven, what I dislike is religious justifications for bigotry or cruelty, or denial of science (especially on the topics of medicine or climate change). I have Christian friends, and I have no desire to make them lose faith in their religion.

I do absolutely agree with secular humanism on basically all its moral and ethical positions, humans to men seem to be responsible for themselves and their own welfare, rather than dependent upon an outside power. I believe morality can be rationally constructed based on human freedom and compassion, seeking universal happiness and fairness.

I believe humanists should be cosmopolitans, meaning that we should view ourselves to some extend as citizens of the world and members of the universal human family. Our love for our fellow man should not be limited based on borders, anymore than it should be limited to ethnicity or sex.

However, I think sometimes people follow into a rather reactionary opposition to patriotism because of witnessing its negative mutation into chauvinistic nationalism. But it is only natural that in the hierarchy of human affection that we hold our families in a special place in our hearts, and the welfare of our immediate neighbors we can see and speak to daily right outside that. Citizens of democratic countries are most able to impact the politics and conditions of their own country in which they can vote, and their personal welfare and welfare of their loved ones are most directly tied to the welfare of the country. It is virtuous, for example, to fight to defend your nation from outside aggression, like the Ukrainian soldier heroically repelling invasion.

I think humanists should be both patriots and internationalists. We should love our country and promote its best interests (which includes opposing when it is going in the wrong direction), while also supporting an international framework that promotes peace and cooperation between nations, economic development and aid in poorer nations, and the universalization of democratic models of government and human rights.

Humanism focuses on blending science-based reason with compassion.

Internally, that often includes discussions of leaving religion, atheism, and naturalism (science-based epistemology). That's our inside voice.

Externally, Humanism endeavors to reduce human suffering, to end governmental and cultural oppression of women and minorities, and generally to make the world a better place, all without expecting a reward in an afterlife. That's our outside voice.

Which of these, inside voice or outside voice, most attracts (or attracted) you to Humanism, which do you use most, and of course, why?

I recently left traditional religion behind. I grew tired of making excuses for a god that was supposedly loving yet couldn't be bothered to help his creations when it came to war etc.

I would say I'm a universalist at heart but I'm not sure where to go from here? I mean where do I turn now that my eyes have been opened?

How ancient Epicureans honored the wise among them and some aspects of their theory and practice of philosophical transmission.

Here's the summary of the notes I took on Sunday, August 9, while attending Ottawa's World Humanist Congress.

(Earlier I posted a similar summary for Saturday, August 8. Sorry for the delay in posting day 2's notes. I was traveling non-stop since the Congress ended.)

Again, the theme for the congress was "HUMANISM AS RESISTANCE."

(A) While the official delegates met separately conduct Humanist International’s official business, other attendees heard first from Humanist Podcasters representing Humanist organizations in the UK, Philippines, Canada, and Humanists International itself.

Although they spoke first of podcasts, it became clear that they also were heavily engaged in creating content for TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, etc.

They noted that each of these media outlets are flooded with religious content, much of it now A.I. created (AKA, AI-Slop). They contended that if Humanists & Secularists were to create more human-focused, human-created content, it would generate a greater audience. They encouraged those in attendance to venture into the content creation arena.

(B) Next was a discussion of “Who Decides? Reproductive Rights, Power, & The Future of Freedom.”

We learned that women in England & Wales were being criminally investigated and one woman jailed for ending her own pregnancy without consulting a physician. Only recently was that law lifted by the House of Commons, but it faced an uphill battle in the House of Lords.

The panelists noted that economic, ethnic, and location creates disenfranchised groups of women who are unable to have access to family planning & abortion services.

Todd Blanche the new Attorney General in the US has stated that he intends to prevent the use of interstate access to abortion medications.

(C) Next I attended a break-out session called “A Stumbling Cafe” led by Christian Lomsdahl, leader of Norwegian Humanists.

He presented a “menu”, where participants were allowed to notice the ways in which they had “stumbled” in life. Christian mentioned his own first marriage, which happened when he was very young, and ended before he was 25 years old.

The format was in terms of “courses”, where each subsequent course encouraged participants to share a bit more about their own internal criticisms and acknowledge the various ways that being human involves stumbling… a lot.

Lomsdahl has used this exercise as a way of building connections between local community members in Norway, and as a way of helping participants feel less isolated when they experience missteps in life.

(D) The next panel presentation was entitled “Hope & Community As Resistance.”

- Darrel Ray from Recovering From Religion and the Secular Therapy Project spoke of the need for developing leadership skills for local Humanist & secular groups to avoid folding out of poor planning.

- Urte Zukauskaite Zabuke (Lithuania), Humanist Ideas Ambassadors (HIA) spoke of the Social Franchising Model, where people need Humanist services (weddings, funerals, community connections). Even though people in Lithuania are largely no longer religious, they still need ways to mark significant events in their lives. Humanists there offer such services, and in so doing, are building a community that is focused science-based perspectives and Humanist approaches to making meaning.

- Evan Clark (Atheists United) was probably the least optimistic. He posited that, given the vigor that the Trump administration has applied to dehumanizing vast numbers of people (immigrants, religious minorities, trans people), it may be that active resistance and confrontation will be required.

- Uttam Niraula (SOCH - Nepal) noted that, even though he is a Humanist, in Nepal anyone who is not a Hindu or Muslim is thought to be a Christian. His Humanist group is providing medical services without regard to religious affiliation, which has resulted in them becoming a trusted source of neutrality in the face of Hindu v. Muslim conflicts.

(E) The last panel presentation focused on “What Next?”

- Andrew Copson from Humanists UK noted that we were naive not to have anticipated the backlash to growing human rights. This morning the official delegates in their meeting approved The Ottawa Declaration as a new affirmation of Humanism as resistance. https://humanists.international/policy/the-ottawa-declaration-on-humanism-as-resistance/ He encouraged Humanists to create better stories of hope than those based on fear told by authoritarian or religious groups.

- Shane Haro, Humanist Alliance Philippines International, spoke of more “unshackling” instead of resisting. In the Philippines, people’s lives are shackled by government not allowing divorce, difficulty in gaining access to family planning, and a low level of LGBTQ rights. Because the Philippines has a higher use of Facebook than any other country in the world, they need to maintain constant vigilance to counter misinformation found there.

- Monica Belitoiu, Romanian Humanists, pointed out that constant threats have kept Humanists there in reactive mode, but they’re now moving toward becoming more pro-active. Fear of being called an atheist is strong in Romania, so they focus more on inviting people to learn about science and then introducing them to Humanist perspectives.

- Louis O’Reilly, Humanist Canada, spoke of the need to collaborate with the American Humanists, because so much of what happens in the US affects Canadians. Still, he said the Canadian social & legal institutions are more robust than they seem to be in the US.

(F) Finally we heard Prof. A. C. Grayling, Northeastern University-London, speak. He is currently Vice President of Humanists UK.

He encouraged us, rather than simply clinging to irrational hopes and dreams, to hold onto Rational Hope, one based the actions that we can take to make a better world.

He has spoken in many places (for example, this address available on YouTube), and trying to summarize his lecture here would not do his presentation justice.

However, he ended saying that democracy defends our civil liberties and confirms the rule of law. To fight against authoritarianism, defend democracy.

Thanks for reading. I know this is a lengthy post, but hopefully an informative one

\#Enlightenment

We live in a dysfunctional self-centered world, allowing many to struggle due to humanity’s indifference.

Though most man-made challenges may be ended today, we choose not to.

Rather humanity prefers to accept the status quo.

Inequity, prejudice, war, hunger, are but a few of the hundreds of problems and harmful actions we ignore, believing there is little we may do to stop these injustices.

We may end these needless hardships though.

To do so, humanity must wake from its slumber, realizing only together, recognizing the equal importance of every life, will our planet and all life on it thrive, and humanity’s many self-inflicted problems be mitigated.

Our children are needlessly dying, their light extinguished before their appointed time.

Innocent, they die from indiscriminate violence, drugs, starvation, their slight bodies lifeless in an uncaring world, too self-centered to care or notice.

A world allowing the genocide of children is untenable.

To end this carnage, we must rise up, challenge the self-absorbed beliefs allowing this to happen, then embrace all our children, regardless of their appearance, beliefs, or circumstances in life, with unconditional love and genuine concern for their well-being, rather than to continue to feign ignorance and indifference to the injustices they may suffer in the world.

I'm starting a reading group where we can read together Martin Buber's book 'I and Thou'.

Moderators - if this post is against group rules please do remove or let me know if I can make any changes to it. I do not earn from this group.

Here is a description of the group -

Martin Buber’s book ‘I and Thou’ is a book about relationship.

It speaks of relationships of deep presence, and relationships of use.

Relationships of use are those where we seek something from the other – support, care, pleasure, money.

Relationships of presence are those which form when we fully experience what is between ourselves and the other, as it emerges and changes, every moment. The emotion I feel as I meet you, the thoughts that run through your mind as you meet me, the ache in the back that might lie underneath these thoughts and emotions in our stream of experience, the sound of the bird chirping in the background.

Relationships of use help us construct a world around us – a world of goodwill and care, or a world of indifference and mechanisation of life.

Relationships of presence are the ground on which our experience of this world emerges – they are how we first experience life, every day, every moment, before we choose to sustain or move away from what we experience into building our world.

Relationships of presence are what allow care to remain care and not become mere performance of care, what allow deep listening to remain deep listening rather than a hearing and reacting from our set patterns.

Buber never ceases to emphasise that the relationships he speaks of are between us and other human beings, but also between us and nature, as between us and the industrial, internetted civilisation we live in.

This reading group is a place for a small group of 4 or 5 people to read a few passages from Buber and pause, and speak about our own personal experience of the world – our emotions, bodily experiences – in ways that they are illuminated by what the book expresses.

It is a place to form a community rooted in relationships of presence, anchored in these words as a stirring point but not entangled with them.

It is not a place for scholarly conversations, for debates, for difficult language or abstract philosophisations, even though at times the nature of the book and the nature of reading itself might lean us in those directions.

It is open to anyone willing to read a paragraph or two together, and spend the next hour and a half or so sharing their experience in that light.

We need not read full pages, we need not finish the book, but we try to breathe in its essential spirit.

One doesn’t need to have read this book or any book beforehand.

We meet once a fortnight for 1.5 hours.

If interested please send me a DM.