Sure. I have some upcoming articles that are relevant to this, such as one on modernism vs postmodernism, and several on transhumanism.

But humanism, as I see it, is a focus on the dignity of human nature due to our potential for progress. Any doubt about the so-called spirit world or about supernatural, theological, magical domains would be implicitly humanistic unless it led to nihilistic despair.

Modern humanism began in the European Renaissance as a reaction against the Catholic doctrine of original sin. The Catholic Church said we should feel guilty about our inclinations to usurp God's role and to become godlike. Human pride was a sin. But early modern thinkers regained respect for such self-confidence, largely because of the influence of ancient naturalistic Greco-Roman documents that the Muslim world preserved.

The connection with Ecclesiastes and with the pragmatic thrust of Judaism is that that religion isn't overtly theological. The Hebrew scriptures humanize God by making him a complex character, but that character is more unpleasant as the troubles of Jewish history carry on, and as Jews became Hellenized. Job and Ecclesiastes present a skeptical perspective that acknowledges the hardships in life and that don't fully absolve God from his responsibility for them.

There are religious forms of humanism, especially deistic ones, but I don't see how our preordained relationship with God would be especially humanistic. We'd be God's servants and would therefore lose our freedom and thus our personhood (like slaves). Maybe if we were equal partners or if we were identified with divinity, as in the Eastern religions or Western mysticism, that would be consistent with humanism.

I don't entirely trust Holland. Have you seen this debate with him and Grayling on the subject?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eSyz3BaVK8&ab_channel=PremierUnbelievable%3F