Humanism, but no dolphinism, whaleism, or chimpanzeeism?

I have to say I agree with all of the statements of secular humanism with one minor objection: it’s species-discriminatory.  I think there’s inherit worth in most living things, and there are enough signs of intelligence in dolphins, whales, and chimpanzees (among other species) that deserve recognition.  And potentially all life has a certain worth to it, so why even discriminate to higher mammals?

The term Bright was coined in a similar vain to imply a naturalistic worldview that was moral and ethical.  But it’s unlikely to take off since the word bright can be seen as egotistical (and especially since religious people are unlikely to start calling themselves ‘supers’ in contrast – as it just sounds kinda ridiculous).  Nevertheless, Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett still support this movement.

I did find through a friend the term ‘eupraxsophy‘ which implies ‘good practice and wisdom’ and is meant as a naturalistic worldview that emphasizes an ethical and exuberant life.  It also focuses on science, logic, and reason.  This is championed by Paul Kurtz, founder of the Center for Inquiry and a lifelong sceptic.  Unfortunately, this term is a bit less known, and was meant by Kurtz to simply “describe” secular humanism.

For now I’ll call myself an atheist, freethinker, (follower of the ideas of) secular humanist, expraxsopher, naturalist, Bright, or any number of other things, just so long as you get the idea.

One last thing: none of the above groups represent a religion, at best they are “world views” or philosophies.  I’ll deal later with the difference between the two.