Copyright and Edited
by Arthur M. Jackson, 1998, 2011
1. NEW BOTTLES FOR NEW WINE, by Sir Julian Huxley
2. "AGAINST 'RELIGION' LABEL," by Tom Ferrick
3. RESPONSE
4. TOM'S RESPONSE TO ART
5. REACTION TO TOM FERRICK, by Bob Eddy
6. RESPONSE
7. HUMANIST COUNSELORS, AHA & THE RELIGION OF HUMANISM
8. WHY DOES IT MATTER THAT HUMANISM IS A RELIGION?
9. HUMANISM: DON'T CALL IT A RELIGION, by Frank Mortyn
10. RESPONSE
11. BAD THINGS & RATIONAL JESUITS
12. HUMANISM -- CALL IT A RELIGION, IF YOU WISH, by C.L. Hubbell
13. HUMANISM: A RELIGION? IS IT A SEMANTIC ISSUE?
14. HOW DO HUMANISTS DISCOVER TRUTH?
15. WHAT IS HUMANISM?
16. WHY THE "I" CANNOT TRANSCEND DEATH (or puberty!)
17. ATHEISM IS NOT HUMANISM
18. HUMANISM VS. ATHEISM, by Phil Mass
19. RESPONSE
20. OUR ANSWER IS HUMANITY, by C.L. Hubbell
21. HUMANISM AND ANIMAL RIGHTS, by Tad Clements
22. HUMANISTS IN QUANDARY ABOUT RELIGION
23. RELIGIOUS QUANDARY? NOT ME!, by Donnafred M. Hoff
24. RESPONSE
25. MY MOTIVATIONS, by Donnafred Hoff
26. RESPONSE
27. HUMANISM IS A PHILOSOPHY, by Chas Dixon
28. RESPONSE
29. HUMANISTS OF SEATTLE RESPOND, by Barbara F. Dority
30. RESPONSE
31. FAILURES OF FREETHOUGHT, by Arthur B. Hewson
32. HUMANISM: A LIGHT, NOT A CLUB!
33. THE COURTS DEFINE HUMANISM AS A RELIGION
34. RELIGION: THE DEBATE GOES ON
Below are some of the early writings that helped lay the basis for Science of Religion. This material is from: The Humanist Chapter of the Future and the FUTURE OF HUMANISM, Arthur M. Jackson, Humanist Community, San Jose, CA, 1988. [For a statement putting this into the current perspective click here.] All material that is not attributed, was written by the editor.
This material provides background relative to the RELIGION! issue that has side-tracked everyone who has worked to extract themselves from a folk religion -- both those who oppose use of the word "religion," and those who are distracted by the persons so opposed. This material provides documentation of the difficulty of conducting a rational dialogue on the issue of religion among Humanists.
There is sufficient information here to allow anyone who reads it carefully with an open mind to understand the dynamics of religion among "non-believers." If you are successful in wading through this material, I hope you will want to help develop a Science of Religion and a Religion of Wisdom. Should this happen please get in touch.
Some of the brightest stars in the Humanist firmament take the position that Humanism is not a religion -- Paul Kurtz and Corliss Lamont are two names that come immediately to mind. This is a position also shared by many of the rank and file members of the American Humanist Association. Many of these Humanists take the position that AHA's religious classification must go. I think, this would be a calamity. [Was it?] These individuals may not like what religious institutions have done and are doing, but regardless of this, it is important to realize that religion plays a vital role in every society. It is not going to disappear because of the tears and wailing of a few Humanists.
If AHA had leaders of sufficient understanding, imagination and vision we might be able to follow the path that Julian Huxley laid out for us. (See following excerpt from NEW BOTTLES FOR NEW WINE.) Then we could help religion become an institution worthy of our support and involvement. That is the only hope that a Humanist can have. If any Humanist lacks that hope, then they would do better to, "eat, drink and be merry" for their dreams will surely perish with them!
It is clear...that twentieth-century people need a new organ for dealing with destiny, a new system of beliefs and attitudes adapted to the situation in which they and their societies now have to exist and thus an organ for the better orientation of the human species as a whole -- in other words a new religion.
Like all other new religions, and indeed all other new movements of ideas, it will at the outset be expressed and spread by a small minority: but it will in due time tend to become universal, not only potentially in theory, but actually and in practice. The properties of human psycho-social nature make this inevitable. Individuals cannot avoid the process of convergence which makes for the integration of divergent or hostile groups into a single organic world society and culture. And an integrated world society cannot operate effectively without an integrated pool of thought and body of ideas. Thought and practice interact; but in the modern world thought is likely to move the faster. And so a universalist system of ideas, if firmly based in reality, can be expected to play an important part in effecting the process of practical and institutional integration.
Science, as a system of discovering, organizing and applying mutual knowledge, is already unified and universal in principle, though its efficiency as an organ of the human species could still be much increased. It remains for people to unify and universalize their religion. How that religion will take form -- what rituals or celebrations it might practice, whether it will equip itself with any sort of professional body or priesthood, what buildings it will erect, what symbols it will adopt -- that is something no one can prophecy....Let me return to where I began -- the change in our attitude to the cosmic process since my grandfather's time, the reformulation which the march of knowledge in those sixty years has made imperative. Today, we must say that the ethical progress of society, indeed human progress in all its aspects, consists not in combating the cosmic process but in wrestling with it....and finding out what we can do to direct it. And this depends on our understanding of it, and our learning how to discharge our role of leadership in it. If T.H. Huxley were alive today, I believe he would agree with this formulation...and that he would accept the general way of thinking about humanity's destiny which I have called Evolutionary Humanism....the concept of evolutionary humanism has helped me to see how, in principle at least, science and religion can be reconciled...My faith is in human possibilities...Human nature always contains the possibilities of evil, waste and frustration; but it also contains those of good, of achievement, and of fruition. The lesson of evolution is that we must think in the limited but positive terms of fulfillment -- the degree to which...manage to realize our inherent possibilities.1
Below are three letters published in the November 1985 HC,AHA NEWS, newsletter of the Division of Humanist Counseling [now the Division of Humanist Certification]. They provide some additional insights into why this is an important question, and the difficulty of resolving it.
At our annual luncheon in June 1985, this chapter [Humanist Association of Massachusetts] overwhelmingly opposed designating Humanism as a religion. By a ratio of five to one, our members believed that the AHA should formally renounce this description in favor of "a philosophical and educational" organization. Massachusetts Humanists hope that this lengthy controversy may be resolved at the next annual conference after members nationally have closely considered the arguments.(From the Sept/Oct 1985 issue of FREE MIND, membership newsletter of the American Humanist Association).
I was intrigued by your letter "Against 'Religion' Label," in the Sept/Oct 1985 FREE MIND. I can well believe in the results of your chapter's vote because most current AHA members seem to have a knee-jerk reaction when they hear the word, "religion." I have experienced this first hand since I ran for re-election in the [1984 & 1986] AHA Board elections on a Humanism is a religion platform, and got skinned alive in spite of my many years of dedicated and effective service to the growth of Humanism. However, since you are a Humanist Counselor, AHA and derive your authority to function based on the fact that Humanism is a religion, I am curious as to what role you played in Humanist Association of Massachusetts' ill conceived decision. I would hope you were with the one in five who voted for Humanism as a religion.
HC,AHA Navida Lundsford is currently being denied access to humanist inmates of Jackson Diagnostic Facility (maximum security prison for prisoners under the death sentence) in Atlanta, GA because the warden says Humanism is not a religion. Therefore, Navida has no right to visit prisoners who have requested her visits. Please let me know how your chapter would handle this matter. [This issue has since been resolved and Navida is able to visit inmates.]
I suspect that many of your people feel that the Division of Humanist Counseling was a mistake and should be disbanded. I think, that would be a grievous error. HC,AHA's have been an extremely important resource to many people. The Division has allowed a way for committed Humanists to be effective and put Humanism to work. It has provided a way for individuals using the services of the HC,AHA to get married in a way not otherwise available to them, and to have other meaningful Humanist services -- prisoner visitations, funerals/memorial services, rites of passage, Conscientious Objector status, etc. I think, to strangle this exciting, productive experiment would be a loss to AHA and to the world in general. What think you?
It seems to me that the matter boils down to a conflict between those who think AHA should be a debating society, a place to practice intellectual exercises on matters of little practical value, and those who see Humanism as the most important thing in the world, who see it as the force that will change the world and make it into a place fit for human habitation.
My experience is that those who are violently opposed to thinking of Humanism as a religion are primarily militant atheists on the one hand and on the other Unitarian Universalists. The former think we should be attacking the churches and have no understanding that the goal is to replace them. The latter get their religious needs filled through UUA and see AHA as a force to work against the more irrational religious impulses in society. Either way, these are not people who are committed to seeing Humanism and AHA grow and develop its resources for improving the human condition.
What AHA members must come to realize is that the only difference between a secular Humanist and a religious Humanist is that the former focus on the evils that have been done in the name of religion and think it will stop if we stop using the word "religion," while the latter realize that all societies need a binding force to hold them together. Religion is the name given for those systems of values, ethics, behaviors, ideas, ideals, etc. that bind a society together.
By itself the death of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and all other traditional religions, would achieve nothing. They would only be replaced by other irrational belief systems. What is needed is an organization that promotes a system of beliefs and values that integrate the best thinking of humanity up to this point and especially our scientific discoveries and techniques; i.e., Humanism. Humanism is important because it has the potential to provide that system of beliefs to the modern world. Those who are using Humanism only to fight the evils of the church in which they were raised, have not yet seen the grandeur of Humanism, the needs of the world, or the real problems we confront.
Humanists, no less than other religionists, can get contented and comfortable in their beliefs. They may mouth words about free inquiry, open-minded, ever ready to change with new facts, but in reality their minds may be stuck on "closed." I think, this is the case with Humanists who are unable/unwilling to understand that religion first and foremost is a legal term. It cannot be discarded like the term "God." But, equally important it has a psychological, sociological, and anthropological meaning, and these meanings make Humanism a religion regardless of individual prejudices.
If AHA is to take advantage of the possibilities that now lie within our grasp with Issac Asimov as our president; with our chapter program able to draw from the impressive fund put together by Harvey Lebrun; with our Division of Humanist Counseling proving the need for Humanists who can legally perform weddings, etc. we must find a way to cut through this continuing fruitless, divisive debate about whether or not Humanism is a religion.
I hope your chapter will withdraw its, "hope that this lengthy controversy may be resolved at the next annual conference after members nationally have closely considered the arguments." I can think of no issue more likely to split our ranks and stall our progress than this one. There are vital people on both sides of the issue who are not likely to change positions regardless of what is said. There are important issues that cannot be adequately explored through a mail order process. I would rather hope that we can see AHA as being big enough for both religious and secular Humanists and to avoid spreading each others' blood all over the organization.
Although, I do not have time to carry on a long distance debate, I would enjoy hearing your response to some of the issues raised in this letter.
Even when we are in disagreement, it's a pleasure to hear from you. I respect your opinions and grant, in the matter before us, that you may possibly be correct. Our Board of Directors will give your arguments a full hearing.
Let me ease your mind about the Division of Humanist Counseling. As far as I know, it has the full support of this chapter. Nor would it be dismantled even if we change our official designation.
Your definition of religion is not what most people hold. Religion implies something beyond reason and the empirical order, a mysterium tremendum, or at least the vague transcendence of Unitarian Universalists. It calls for faith, for belief, for a leap beyond reason.
Humanism makes no such recommendation. We do business among ourselves and with all the world using the common coinage of reason. Objective evidence determines disputes. Logic and science form the roots of our value system. And if that's not always demonstrable, we cannot resort to any other method.
It was our hope that a dispassionate discussion nationally would energize lethargic minds and eventually improve and clarify our image. Humanism is all the good things you say it is; but maybe it would best be understood as the alternative to religion.
We will ponder your wise counsel and get back to you soon.
I disagree with Tom Ferrick's assertion that "logic and science form the roots of our value system." It would be more accurate, though not entirely correct, to say that reason forms the basis for our epistemology and science forms the basis of our cosmology.
It seems to me that by Tom's own criteria we non-theistic humanists do have a religion, which I'm perfectly happy to call Secular Humanism to distinguish it from the Christian Humanism of John XXIII.
To be specific: Our religion calls for faith but our "leap of faith" takes place not in the area of cosmology or epistemology as in other religions, but in the area of ethics. There is nothing at all self-evident about the assertion that "one should try to be harmless and helpful to all human beings; to treat all with respect, justice and compassion." This assertion is an act of faith: a premise on which we base the rest of our ethical system. We have no way to prove or disprove it. Nor, can we derive it from our cosmology as other religions attempt to do. At best we can point to the probability that if the possessors of nuclear weapons don't start doing a better job of following the humanist ethic, there won't be a human society capable of being just or compassionate.
And we too have a mysterium tremendum. Many secular humanists feel as much awe as did the author Job or Kant when we contemplate the cosmos as we understand it. The fact that others perceive the forces of creation in anthropomorphic terms and we in evolutionary terms, changes not one whit the sense of something beyond our comprehension underlying and pervading all the experiences we subsume under the term "universe." To call that "ground of all being" "God," as do many modern theologians is to foster semantic confusion. Let us not be so naive as to think that today's scientists have done anything but improve the fit between our ordered observations and our skill at predicting new observations. That is all "the empirical order" means. Those of us who believe that that's the best we can do; that we have no access to anything beyond "the empirical order" should not assume that we have proven that there is no such being behind appearances. We simply state that if such exists, it is not accessible to human faculties.
Finally, I hope that the discussion will be passionate. To attempt to be dispassionate about important matters is to suffer from an impossible dream which seers from Euripides to Jung have pointed out easily turns into a nightmare. Passion is to be cherished as part of our precious human heritage. It is only when the passions lead to violation of our ethics, that they must be restrained.
Bob, thanks for the deep thinking on this issue. I think, you move the topic significantly forward, However, I would disagree with the position that we currently have a formulation of Humanist ethics upon which all thoughtful Humanists must agree. Your statement, "...that one should try to be harmless and helpful to all human beings; to treat all with respect, justice and compassion," seems like a statement that must be based on a more fundamental ethical position.
I think the basis of humanist ethics is something like, "All people should live the fullest, richest, most productive life possible." As you indicate, there is no way to prove such a basic ethical statement. When it is properly formulated, it is self evident. Any healthy, mature, intelligent, well-integrated human being would recognize it as true. There would be no need for faith.
However, the ways to achieve this basic ethical position must be determined empirically. We must study, experiment, gather data and see what works and what does not.
Whether or not Humanism is seen as a religion or not is of more than academic interest to the Division of Humanist Counseling. Many Humanists say that dictionaries define religion as depending upon God, or some superhuman intelligence. However, even my old college dictionary, THE AMERICAN COLLEGE DICTIONARY, 1951 has as its initial definitions of religion: "1. the quest for the values of the ideal life, involving three phases: the ideal, the practices for attaining the values of the ideal, and the theology or world view relating the quest to the environing universe." "2. a particular system in which the quest for the ideal life has been embodied..." Only in the third definition are references to a superhuman power brought in.
However, even if the order of priorities would have been reversed, it would not change the fact that Humanism is recognized by the courts as having legal standing as a religion. It is because of this standing that HC,AHA's are able to do weddings. There is no other way. Anyone who argues that Humanism is not legally a religion is arguing against the Division of Humanist Counseling [Now Humanist Society, AHA] whether they know it or not. HC,AHA's are the clergy of AHA. They have legal standing because AHA is legally a religious organization.
If that condition should change the Division would have no alternative but to either go out of existence, or to be separated from AHA. Anyone who works to remove AHA's religious standing should consider which of these alternatives they would support.
The below article was written by Frank Mortyn, editor of the "Humanist Century," P.O. Box 84116, San Diego, CA 92138, in response to material published in the November, 1985 HC,AHA NEWS (then called the HUMANIST COUNSELOR). This is [was] the newsletter of the Division of Humanist Counseling [now the Humanist Society] of the American Humanist Association.
If you would like to know more about this endeavor visit Science of Religion, or drop a line to
Arthur Jackson.