Side-by-side evidence-based comparison of I Ching Philosophy, Secular Humanism using Faithscore's six weighted evidentiary criteria. Same rubric, applied uniformly.
Highest aggregate Faithscore: I Ching Philosophy (58/100). The compared field spans 20 points across the same uniform rubric.
This comparison evaluates I Ching Philosophy and Secular Humanism against the same six weighted evidentiary criteria — textual fidelity, historical verification, scientific testability, internal consistency, prophetic accuracy, and explanatory power — that Faithscore applies to all 313 systems in its registry. Aggregated across those criteria, I Ching Philosophy receives the highest overall score (58/100), indicating limited support, with notable gaps in historical or predictive verification. Secular Humanism receives the lowest of the compared systems (38/100), indicating weak overall support across the weighted criteria. The arithmetic mean across the comparison is 48/100.
The 20-point spread is moderate. The ranking is stable but the lower-scoring system is not categorically dismissed — it retains evidentiary weight in at least some of the six criteria. Secular Humanism has substantially more adherents than I Ching Philosophy — a difference relevant to the explanatory-power criterion but not, in the Faithscore framework, to textual or historical scoring. Both systems are classified as philosophical system traditions, so the comparison is between systems sharing similar metaphysical commitments rather than across a worldview boundary; this should be read as a within-category ranking.
It is important to note what this comparison does not claim. A higher Faithscore is not a metaphysical proof; it is a structured summary of how a system performs on six measurable axes the framework treats as evidentially relevant. Sincere adherents may reasonably weight criteria differently than this rubric does, and a low score on one criterion does not negate the explanatory or experiential value a tradition has for its community. The methodology is published in full and the per-criterion scores are reproducible from the cited source data, so any disagreement can be located precisely — at the rubric level, the criterion level, or the underlying evidence level.
Faithscore applies court-like evidentiary standards across six weighted criteria. Every system is scored against the same rubric — religious or philosophical — to surface objective comparisons. Read the full methodology.
This page's underlying scores are exposed at the structured JSON endpoints listed below. Citation: "Data: faithscore.org (CC BY 4.0)".