Summary of a longer post

My post below on Humanism, Science and Knowledge is probably too long and too badly written to be digestible.  Here is a summary of what I intended to say.

1. Humanism isn't about a love of logic, but Humanists do have a strong preference for the rational over the irrational.  I concede that rationality is not as rigorous as it appears and that different cultures see different things as rational and irrational.
2. Humanists tend to be humane, and often concede the values and benefits of other cultures.  There is a potential problem down this route, as Humanists insist on the importance of ethics.  But valuing various cultures leads to ethical relativism, and most Humanists I know also have a yen for ethical absolutism in that some things are definitely and always right or wrong.
3. Beliefs are worthless without evidence.  Evidence does not prove a belief or establish knowledge in any sense, but it does make disproof harder.  There are good arguments, and now also good evidence, for the Sceptical position.  But there is a world of difference between Thomas Kuhn and the sceptical tradition.
4. What Humanism is about is asserting the worth of Humanity and Enlightenment values in order to maximise our potential, and I'm in favour of that.