The
sort of answer you get to the
question "What is
humanism?" depends on the
sort of humanist you ask!
The
word "humanism" has a
number of meanings. And because
authors and speakers often don't
clarify which meaning they
intend, those trying to explain
humanism can easily become a
source of confusion.
Fortunately, each meaning of the
word constitutes a different
type of humanism—the different
types being easily separated and
defined by the use of
appropriate adjectives. So it is
relatively easy to summarize the
varieties of humanism in this
way.
Literary
Humanism
is a devotion to the humanities
or literary culture.
Renaissance
Humanism
is the spirit of learning that
developed at the end of the
middle ages with the revival of
classical letters and a renewed
confidence in the ability of
human beings to determine for
themselves truth and falsehood.
Western
Cultural Humanism
is a good name for the rational
and empirical tradition that
originated largely in ancient
Greece and Rome, evolved
throughout European history, and
now constitutes a basic part of
the Western approach to science,
political theory, ethics, and
law.
Philosophical
Humanism
is any outlook or way of life
centered on human need and
interest. Sub-categories of this
type include Christian Humanism
and Modern Humanism.
Christian
Humanism
is defined by Webster's
Third New International
Dictionary as "a
philosophy advocating the
self-fulfillment of man within
the framework of Christian
principles." This more
human-oriented faith is largely
a product of the Renaissance and
is a part of what made up
Renaissance humanism.
Modern
Humanism,
also called Naturalistic
Humanism, Scientific Humanism,
Ethical Humanism, and Democratic
Humanism, is defined by one of
its leading proponents, Corliss
Lamont, as "a naturalistic
philosophy that rejects all
supernaturalism and relies
primarily upon reason and
science, democracy and human
compassion." Modern
Humanism has a dual origin, both
secular and religious, and these
constitute its sub-categories.
Secular
Humanism
is an outgrowth of eighteenth
century enlightenment
rationalism and nineteenth
century freethought. Many
secular groups, such as the
Council for Secular Humanism and
the American Rationalist
Federation, and many otherwise
unaffiliated academic
philosophers and scientists,
advocate this philosophy.
Religious
Humanism
largely emerged out of Ethical
Culture, Unitarianism, and
Universalism. Today, many
Unitarian Universalist
congregations and all Ethical
Culture societies describe
themselves as humanist in the
modern sense.
The
most critical irony in dealing
with Modern Humanism is the
tendency for its advocates to
disagree on whether or not this
worldview is religious. Those
who see it as philosophy are the
Secular Humanists while those
who see it as religion are
Religious Humanists. This
dispute has been going on since
the beginning of the twentieth
century when the secular and
religious traditions converged
and brought Modern Humanism into
existence.
Secular
and Religious Humanists both
share the same worldview and the
same basic principles. This is
made evident by the fact that
both Secular and Religious
Humanists were among the signers
of Humanist Manifesto I in 1933,
Humanist Manifesto II in 1973,
and Humanist Manifesto III in
2003. From the standpoint of
philosophy alone, there is no
difference between the two. It
is only in the definition of
religion and in the practice of
the philosophy that Religious
and Secular Humanists
effectively disagree.
The
definition of religion used by
Religious Humanists is often a
functional one. Religion is that
which serves the personal and
social needs of a group of
people sharing the same
philosophical worldview.
To
serve personal needs, Religious
Humanism offers a basis for
moral values, an inspiring set
of ideals, methods for dealing
with life's harsher realities, a
rationale for living life
joyously, and an overall sense
of purpose.
To
serve social needs humanist
religious communities (such as
Ethical Culture societies and
many Unitarian Universalist
churches) offer a sense of
belonging, an institutional
setting for the moral education
of children, special holidays
shared with like-minded people,
a unique ceremonial life, the
performance of ideologically
consistent rites of passage
(weddings, child welcomings,
coming-of-age celebrations,
memorials, and so forth), an
opportunity for affirmation of
one's philosophy of life, and a
historical context for one's
ideas.
Religious
Humanists often maintain that
most human beings have personal
and social needs that can only
be met by religion (taken in the
functional sense just detailed).
They do not feel that one should
have to make a choice between
meeting these needs in a
traditional faith context versus
not meeting them at all.
Individuals who cannot feel at
home in traditional religion
should be able to find a home in
non-traditional religion.
I
was once asked by a reporter if
this functional definition of
religion didn't amount to taking
away the substance and leaving
only the superficial trappings.
My answer was that the true
substance of religion is the
role it plays in the lives of
individuals and the life of the
community. Doctrines may differ
from denomination to
denomination, and new doctrines
may replace old ones, but the
purpose religion serves for people
remains the same. If we define
the substance of a thing as that
which is most lasting and
universal, then the function of
religion is the core of it.
Religious
Humanists, in realizing this,
make sure that doctrine is never
allowed to subvert the higher
purpose of meeting human needs
in the here and now. This is why
humanist child welcoming
ceremonies are geared to the
community and humanist wedding
services are tailored to the
specialized needs of the wedding
couple and their families. This
is why humanist memorial
services focus, not on saving
the soul of the dear departed
but on serving the survivors by
giving them a memorable
experience related to how the
deceased was in life. This is
why humanists don't proselytize
people on their death beds. They
find it better to allow them to
die as they have lived,
undisturbed by the agendas of
others.
Finally,
Religious Humanism is
"faith in action." In
his essay "The Faith of a
Humanist," UU Minister
Kenneth Phifer declares -
Humanism
teaches us that it is immoral to
wait for God to act for us. We
must act to stop the wars and
the crimes and the brutality of
this and future ages. We have
powers of a remarkable kind. We
have a high degree of freedom in
choosing what we will do.
Humanism tells us that whatever
our philosophy of the universe
may be, ultimately the
responsibility for the kind of
world in which we live rests
with us.
Now,
while Secular Humanists may
agree with much of what
Religious Humanists do, they
deny that this activity is
properly called
"religious." This
isn't a mere semantic debate.
Secular Humanists maintain that
there is so much in religion
deserving of criticism that the
good name of humanism should not
be tainted by connection with
it.
Secular
Humanists often refer to
Unitarian Universalists as
"humanists not yet out of
the church habit." But
Unitarian Universalists
sometimes counter that a Secular
Humanist is simply an "unchurched
Unitarian."
Probably
the most popular exemplar of the
Secular Humanist world view in
recent years was the
controversial author Salman
Rushdie. Here is what he said on
ABC's Nightline on
February 13, 1989, in regard to
his novel The Satanic Verses.
[My
book says] that there is an old,
old conflict between the secular
view of the world and the
religious view of the world, and
particularly between texts which
claim to be divinely inspired
and texts which are
imaginatively inspired. . . . I
distrust people who claim to
know the whole truth and who
seek to orchestrate the world in
line with that one true truth. I
think that's a very dangerous
position in the world. It needs
to be challenged. It needs to be
challenged constantly in all
sorts of ways, and that's what I
tried to do.
In
the March 2, 1989, edition of
the New York Review, he
explained that, in The
Satanic Verses he -
tried
to give a secular, humanist
vision of the birth of a great
world religion. For this,
apparently, I should be tried. .
. . "Battle lines are being
drawn today," one of my
characters remarks.
"Secular versus religious,
the light verses the dark.
Better you choose which side you
are on."
The
Secular Humanist tradition is in
part a tradition of defiance, a
tradition that dates back to
ancient Greece. One can see,
even in Greek mythology,
humanist themes that are rarely,
if ever, manifested in the
mythologies of other cultures.
And they certainly have not been
repeated by modern religions.
The best example here is the
character Prometheus.
Prometheus
stands out because he was
admired by ancient Greeks as the
one who defied Zeus. He stole
the fire of the gods and brought
it down to earth. For this he
was punished. And yet he
continued his defiance amid his
tortures. This is one source of
the humanist challenge to
authority.
The
next time we see a truly heroic
Promethean character in
mythology it is Lucifer in John
Milton's Paradise Lost.
But now he is the Devil. He is
evil. Whoever would defy God
must be wickedness personified.
That seems to be a given of
traditional religion. But the
ancient Greeks didn't agree. To
them, Zeus, for all his power,
could still be mistaken.
Imagine
how shocked a friend of mine was
when I told her my view of
"God's moral
standards." I said,
"If there were such a god,
and these were indeed his ideal
moral principles, I would be
tolerant. After all, God is
entitled to his own
opinions!"
Only
a humanist is inclined to speak
this way. Only a humanist can
suggest that, even if there be a
god, it is OK to disagree with
him, her, or it. In Plato's Euthyphro,
Socrates shows that God is not
necessarily the source of good,
or even good himself. Socrates
asks if something is good
because God ordains it, or if
God ordains it because it is
already good. Yet, since the
time of the ancient Greeks, no
mainstream religion has
permitted such questioning of
God's will or made a hero out of
a disobedient character. It is
humanists who claim this
tradition.
After
all, much of human progress has
been in defiance of religion or
of the apparent natural order.
When we deflect lightning or
evacuate a town before a tornado
strikes, we lessen the effects
of so called "acts of
God." When we land on the
Moon we defy the Earth's
gravitational pull. When we seek
a solution to the AIDS crisis,
we, as the late Reverend Jerry
Falwell argued, thwart
"God's punishment of
homosexuals."
Politically,
the defiance of religious and
secular authority has led to
democracy, human rights, and the
protection of the environment.
Humanists make no apologies for
this. Humanists twist no
biblical doctrine to justify
such actions. They recognize the
Promethean defiance of their
response and take pride in it.
For this is part of the
tradition.
Another
aspect of the Secular Humanist
tradition is skepticism.
Skepticism's historical exemplar
is Socrates. Why Socrates?
Because after all this time he
still stands alone among all the
famous saints and sages from
antiquity to the present. Every
religion has its sage. Judaism
has Moses, Zoroastrianism has
Zarathustra, Buddhism has the
Buddha, Christianity has Jesus,
Islam has Mohammad, Mormonism
has Joseph Smith, and Bahai has
Baha-u-lah. Every one of these
individuals claimed to know the
absolute truth. It is Socrates,
alone among famous sages, who
claimed to know nothing.
Each devised a set of rules or
laws, save Socrates. Instead,
Socrates gave us a method—a
method of questioning the rules
of others, of cross-examination.
And Socrates didn't die for
truth; he died for rights and
the rule of law. For these
reasons Socrates is the
quintessential skeptical
humanist. He stands as a symbol,
both of Greek rationalism and
the humanist tradition that grew
out of it. And no equally
recognized saint or sage has
joined his company since his
death.
Because
of the strong Secular Humanist
identity with the images of
Prometheus and Socrates, and
equally strong rejection of
traditional religion, the
Secular Humanist actually agrees
with Tertullian who said:
"What has Jerusalem to do
with Athens?"
That
is, Secular Humanists identify
more closely with the rational
heritage symbolized by ancient
Athens than with the faith
heritage epitomized by ancient
Jerusalem.
But
don't assume from this that
Secular Humanism is only
negative. The positive side is
liberation, best expressed in
these words of American agnostic
Robert G. Ingersoll:
When
I became convinced that the
universe is natural, that all
the ghosts and gods are myths,
there entered into my brain,
into my soul, into every drop of
my blood the sense, the feeling,
the joy of freedom. The walls of
my prison crumbled and fell. The
dungeon was flooded with light
and all the bolts and bars and
manacles became dust. I was no
longer a servant, a serf, or a
slave. There was for me no
master in all the wide world,
not even in infinite space. I
was free-free to think, to
express my thoughts-free to live
my own ideal, free to live for
myself and those I loved, free
to use all my faculties, all my
senses, free to spread
imagination's wings, free to
investigate, to guess and dream
and hope, free to judge and
determine for myself . . . I was
free! I stood erect and
fearlessly, joyously faced all
worlds.
Enough
to make a Secular Humanist shout
"hallelujah!"
The
fact that humanism can at once
be both religious and secular
presents a paradox of course,
but not the only such paradox.
Another is that both Religious
and Secular Humanism place
reason above faith, usually to
the point of eschewing faith
altogether. The dichotomy
between reason and faith is
often given emphasis in
humanism, with humanists taking
their stand on the side of
reason. Because of this,
Religious Humanism should not be
seen as an alternative faith,
but rather as an alternative way
of being religious.
These
paradoxical features not only
require a unique treatment of
Religious Humanism in the study
of world religions but also help
explain the continuing
disagreement, both inside and
outside the humanist movement,
over whether humanism is a
religion at all.
The
paradoxes don't end here.
Religious Humanism is without a
god, without a belief in the
supernatural, without a belief
in an afterlife, and without a
belief in a "higher"
source of moral values. Some
adherents would even go so far
as to suggest that it is a
religion without
"belief" of any
kind—knowledge based on
evidence being considered
preferable. Furthermore, the
common notion of "religious
knowledge" as knowledge
gathered through nonscientific
means is not accepted in
Religious Humanist epistemology.
Because
both Religious and Secular
Humanism are identified so
closely with Cultural Humanism,
they readily embrace modern
science, democratic principles,
human rights, and free inquiry.
Humanism's rejection of the
notions of sin and guilt,
especially in relation to sexual
ethics, puts it in harmony with
contemporary sexology and sex
education as well as aspects of
humanistic psychology. And
humanism's historic advocacy of
the secular state makes it
another voice in the defense of
church-state separation.
All
these features led to the old
charge that people are teaching
"the religion of secular
humanism" in the public
schools.
The
most obvious point to clarify in
this context is that some
religions hold to doctrines that
place their adherents at odds
with certain features of the
modern world. Other religions do
not. For example, many
Evangelical Christians,
especially those filling the
ranks of the "religious
right," reject the theory
of evolution. Therefore, they
see the teaching of evolution in
a science course as an affront
to their religious
sensibilities. In defending
their beliefs from exposure to
ideas inconsistent with them,
such believers label evolution
as "humanism" and
maintain that exclusive teaching
of it in the science classroom
constitutes a breech in the
Jeffersonian wall of separation
between church and state.
It
is indeed true that Religious
Humanists, in embracing modern
science, embrace evolution in
the bargain. But individuals
within mainline Protestantism,
Catholicism, and Judaism also
embrace modern science—and
hence evolution. Evolution
happens to be the state of the
art in science today and is
appropriately taught in science
courses. That evolution has come
to be identified with Religious
Humanism but not with mainline
Christianity or Judaism is a
curious quirk of politics in
North America. But this is a
typical feature of the whole
controversy over humanism in the
schools.
Other
courses of study have come to be
identified with humanism as
well, including sex education,
values education, global
education, and even creative
writing. There are Christian
fundamentalists who would have
us believe that "situation
ethics" was invented by
1974 Humanist of the Year Joseph
Fletcher. But situational
considerations have been an
element of Western jurisprudence
for at least 2,000 years! Again,
Secular and Religious Humanists,
being in harmony with current
trends, are quite comfortable
with all of this, as are
adherents of most major
religions. There is no
justification for seeing these
ideas as the exclusive legacy of
humanism. Furthermore, there are
independent secular reasons why
schools offer the curriculum
that they do. A bias in favor of
"the religion of secular
humanism" has never been a
factor in their development and
implementation.
The
charge of humanist infiltration
into the public schools seems to
be the product of a confusion of
Cultural Humanism and Religious
Humanism. Though Religious
Humanism embraces Cultural
Humanism, this is no
justification for separating out
Cultural Humanism, labeling it
as the exclusive legacy of a
nontheistic and naturalistic
religion called Religious
Humanism, and declaring it
alien. To do so would be to turn
one's back on a significant part
of one's culture and enthrone
the standards of Christian
fundamentalism as the arbiter of
what is and is not religious. A
deeper understanding of Western
culture would go a long way in
clarifying the issues
surrounding the controversy over
humanism in the public schools.
Once
we leave the areas of confusion,
it is possible to explain, in
straightforward terms, exactly
what the Modern Humanist
philosophy is about. It is easy
to summarize the basic ideas
held in common by both Religious
and Secular Humanists. These
ideas are as follows:
1.
Humanism is one of those
philosophies for people who
think for themselves. There is
no area of thought that a
Humanist is afraid to challenge
and explore.
2.
Humanism is a philosophy
focused upon human means for
comprehending reality. Humanists
make no claims to possess or
have access to supposed
transcendent knowledge.
3.
Humanism is a philosophy
of reason and science in the
pursuit of knowledge. Therefore,
when it comes to the question of
the most valid means for
acquiring knowledge of the
world, Humanists reject
arbitrary faith, authority,
revelation, and altered states
of consciousness.
4.
Humanism is a philosophy
of imagination. Humanists
recognize that intuitive
feelings, hunches, speculation,
flashes of inspiration, emotion,
altered states of consciousness,
and even religious experience,
while not valid means to acquire
knowledge, remain useful sources
of ideas that can lead us to new
ways of looking at the world.
These ideas, after they have
been assessed rationally for
their usefulness, can then be
put to work, often as
alternative approaches for
solving problems.
5.
Humanism is a philosophy
for the here and now. Humanists
regard human values as making
sense only in the context of
human life rather than in the
promise of a supposed life after
death.
6.
Humanism is a philosophy
of compassion. Humanist ethics
is solely concerned with meeting
human needs and answering human
problems-for both the individual
and society-and devotes no
attention to the satisfaction of
the desires of supposed
theological entities.
7.
Humanism is a realistic
philosophy. Humanists recognize
the existence of moral dilemmas
and the need for careful
consideration of immediate and
future consequences in moral
decision making.
8.
Humanism is in tune with
the science of today. Humanists
therefore recognize that we live
in a natural universe of great
size and age, that we evolved on
this planet over a long period
of time, that there is no
compelling evidence for a
separable "soul," and
that human beings have certain
built-in needs that effectively
form the basis for any
human-oriented value system.
9.
Humanism is in tune with
today's enlightened social
thought. Humanists are committed
to civil liberties, human
rights, church-state separation,
the extension of participatory
democracy not only in government
but in the workplace and
education, an expansion of
global consciousness and
exchange of products and ideas
internationally, and an
open-ended approach to solving
social problems, an approach
that allows for the testing of
new alternatives.
10.
Humanism is in tune with
new technological developments.
Humanists are willing to take
part in emerging scientific and
technological discoveries in
order to exercise their moral
influence on these revolutions
as they come about, especially
in the interest of protecting
the environment.
11. Humanism is, in sum, a philosophy for those in love with life. Humanists take responsibility for their own lives and relish the adventure of being part of new discoveries, seeking new knowledge, exploring new options. Instead of finding solace in prefabricated answers to the great questions of life, humanists enjoy the open-endedness of a quest and the freedom of discovery that this entails.
Though
there are some who would suggest
that this philosophy has always
had a limited and eccentric
following, the facts of history
show otherwise. Among the modern
adherents of humanism have been
Margaret Sanger, founder of
Planned Parenthood and 1957
Humanist of the Year of the
American Humanist Association;
humanistic psychology pioneers
Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow,
also Humanists of the Year;
Albert Einstein, who identified
with humanism in the 1930's;
Bertrand Russell, who joined the
American Humanist Association in
the 1960s; civil rights pioneer
A. Philip Randoph, who was the
1970 Humanist of the Year; and
futurist R. Buckminister Fuller,
Humanist of the Year in 1969.
The
United Nations is a specific
example of humanism at work. The
first Director General of
UNESCO, the UN organization
promoting education, science,
and culture, was the 1962
Humanist of the Year Julian
Huxley, who practically drafted
UNESCO'S charter by himself. The
first Director-General of the
World Health Organization was
the 1959 Humanist of the Year
Brock Chisholm. One of this
organization's greatest
accomplishments has been the
wiping of smallpox from the face
of the earth. And the first
Director-General of the Food and
Agricultural Organization was
British Humanist John Boyd Orr.
Meanwhile,
humanists like 1980 Humanist of
the Year Andrei Sakharov stood
up for human rights wherever
such rights were suppressed.
Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem
fought for women's rights,
Mathilde Krim battled the AIDS
epidemic, and Margaret Atwood
remains one of the world's most
outspoken advocates of literary
freedom—humanists all.
The
list of scientists is legion:
Stephen Jay Gould, Donald
Johanson, Richard Leakey, E.O.
Wilson, Francis Crick, Jonas
Salk, Steven Weinberg, Carolyn
Porco, and many others—all
members of the American Humanist
Association, whose president in
the 1980s was the late scientist
and author Isaac Asimov.
The
membership lists of humanist
organizations, both religious
and secular, read like Who's
Who. Through these people,
and many more of less reknown,
the humanist philosophy has an
impact on our world far out of
proportion to the number of its
adherents. That tells us
something about the power of
ideas that work.
It
may have been what led
philosopher George Santayana to
declare humanism to be "an
accomplishment, not a
doctrine."
So,
with modern humanism one finds a
lifestance or worldview that is
in tune with modern knowledge;
is inspiring, socially
conscious, and personally
meaningful. It is not only the
thinking person's outlook but
that of the feeling person as
well, for it has inspired the
arts as much as it has the
sciences; philanthropy as much
as critique. And even in
critique it is tolerant,
defending the rights of all
people to choose other ways, to
speak and to write freely, to
live their lives according to
their own lights.
So
the choice is yours. Are you a
humanist?
You
needn't answer "yes"
or "no." For it isn't
an either-or proposition.
Humanism is yours—to adopt or
to simply draw from. You may
take a little or a lot, sip from
the cup or drink it to the
dregs.
It's
up to you.
This
is the text of a talk that has
been presented to various
audiences over the years.
©
Copyright 1989 and 2008 by Fred
Edwords
posted by Brian Worley Ex-Minister.org