15. WHAT IS HUMANISM?

Humanism represents the best thinking that is possible at a given stage of knowledge, using the human resources available, on the topic of values, human behavior, and all other issues relevant to human beings.

It starts from the premise that human beings are the source of meaning and value; i.e., human beings must find meaning based on their own individual and collective experiences and understanding.

It draws on the experiences and insights of all cultures, but is independent of all of them. It admires intelligence and supports education. It changes as human knowledge and understanding grows and expands.

There is a widely held view within the human family that some basic core exists within a person that is stable and perhaps eternal. This hypothesis rests on the common experience of growing from an infant to an adult, seeing all parts of us change and yet feeling identification with each stage of our previous being.

If we can feel that identification over such a range of change it seems a small step to suppose that, that essential element of our being can even survive the death of our body. The error of this approach lies in failing to understand that the "I" we feel is not a physical reality (nor, a metaphysical reality), but a mental construct.

The real "I" is a many-faceted, multi-dimensional complex consisting of "hardware" -- the totality of the body; and "software" -- knowledge, understanding, beliefs, values, etc.

The "I" does not reside in any one place, but is our totality as of any moment.

The erroneous feeling of permanence of the "I" results from two facts:

1). No matter how much we change from instant to instant, the bulk of our physical being remains the same. (However, in certain periods such as puberty, the change is so dramatic and so rapid that we come very close to becoming a new "I" fast enough to actually lose our identity, though we tend to forget this as time goes by.)

2). We construct a permanent "I" in our mind that we think of as ourselves, even though close examination will show that it is neither our "I" nor is it permanent.

Although, we think of our "I" as our values, beliefs and mental capacities which are totally dependent upon our physical organization and which change dramatically over time, we do a mental flip to make this constantly changing "I" (which is only part of the real "I") into a permanent, eternal "I" (which is fantasy).

Sometimes atheists, freethinkers, skeptics, rationalists, and non-believers come into the American Humanist Association because they think "Humanist" is just a polite term for these positions. For too long Humanists have made no effort to correct this error. Since most Humanists, including myself, do not believe in God it sometimes is not clear how to differentiate between Humanists and atheists/freethinkers/skeptics/rationalists and non-believers.

Here is my attempt. Atheists, freethinkers, skeptics, rationalists, and non-believers take their stand in the world on the basis that they do not believe in God. Humanists take their stand on the basis that they believe that human beings are the source of meaning and value and that the individual person is the only worthy focus of ultimate concern.

The Humanist believes in working to make the world a better place for human beings to live. They believe in the potential of human beings, the importance of knowledge, the scientific method and applying knowledge to improve the quality of human living.

Atheists, freethinkers, skeptics, rationalists, and non-believers are normally known for what they are opposed to. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with these individuals being part of AHA. We need every sympathetic individual we can attract. On the whole they are honest and thoughtful people. It is unfortunate that their energy is focused on the wrong part of the problem. They are against churches, against prayer, against clergy, against religious tax exemptions, against "religion." By and large they tend to think that religions are bad and if we could get rid of them that is all it would take to make the world a fine place. However, in reality to destroy current religions would not necessarily make the world any better. It is most likely they would be replaced by individuals with groups promoting even more irrational positions without the sturucture and customs to rein-in their flights of fancy. The Branch Davidians and Jones Town are prime examples. What is needed is to replace them.

Part of the confusion about religion is quite justified. Frequently it results because individuals believe what Christian ministers have told them religion is. Also, our schools and popular media do a poor job in teaching about religion, and what its purpose is in society. It is important that Humanists spend more energy clarifying this issue. First, we should help society realize that religion is the term for people's world view. Since everyone has a world view, everyone has a religion. Beyond that its role is to bind a society together -- shared values, shared visions, shared efforts. This is a necessary task.

Societies die when this glue fails. However, western society is at a crossroads. Christianity no longer is able to provide the glue for our modern, scientific societies. Its vision conflicts too much with modern knowledge. Its values are too out of step with our scientific understanding of human beings. Its world view is too parochial and its history too limiting. Something new is needed. I believe, Humanism is the answer. At this time the American Humanist Association has the best chance of developing into what is needed. However our energy continues to be dissipated due to our lack of vision. Up to this point no recognized American Humanist has understood what is needed and developed or supported plans that might help us achieve what is necessary. This is what has made us so vulnerable to non-Humanist thinking. The Courts have consistently ruled that Humanism provides Humanists all the rights and prerogatives of any other religion. That is not a bad thing. It is a good thing. Any person whose Humanism is focused only on attacking the churches and is unable or unwilling to help build structures to replace them totally misunderstands the real value of Humanism. The goal of AHA should be to develop structures and processes so that Humanism can replace supernatural religions and provide the binding vision for the modern world.

I do take issue with you on one matter. You seem to imply that atheists are only interested in opposing the concept of a supernatural being. While this may be true with some individuals this is not necessarily true merely by describing oneself as an "atheist." Robert Ingersoll who I consider the greatest atheist and humanist in American history believed and espoused many humane programs.... He believed, as I do, that religious superstition detracts from the real issues of making our current society a better one.

Phil, thanks for providing me the opportunity to write more on the topic of humanism vs. atheism. This is an important issue that deserves much more thought than it has received up to this point.

I heartily agree with your position that atheists may be interested in more than opposing the concept of a supernatural being. Many (probably most) atheists are good people. They are honest and trustworthy. They love other people. They do not exploit others. They work for the welfare of humanity as a whole.

However, the point is, there is nothing in the doctrines of atheism that requires, implies, or always leads to this.

An atheist is one who says when asked for their world view, "I do not believe in God." They in no way are expressing what they do believe in. They may believe that human relationships are important. Or, they may believe that it is OK to exploit and manipulate people, steal, abuse their friends and kill their enemies. Their atheist position tells us nothing about their position on human beings.

I am an atheist. I think everyone should be one. However, when asked about my world view, or religion, I say I am a Humanist. This is not because I am a coward and afraid to say the word, atheist, in public, but rather because atheism does not represent my world view.

I believe in human beings. I believe in the importance of nurturing, supportive relationships. I believe in the importance of working together to improve the quality of human life. I believe that at its deepest level, the meaning of life is tied up with relationships with other people. I believe in building, in increasing joy, pleasure, relevance. I think these ideas are inherent in Humanism. If a given Humanist takes an opposing point of view or if their behavior is not congruent with these ideas, it is because they (or I) have not thought enough.

I must admit that I regard a person who says, "atheist," in response to the question, "What is your world view?" an individual who has only started their search for enlightenment. They have taken an essential first step, but they have not yet started the most important stage of their journey.

There is hope for them. If they also are in favor of civil rights for all people, if they believe in helping other people become mature, self-actualized adults, increase the level of education, prevent starvation, promote creativity, believe that human beings have the potential of solving human problems, believe in improving the quality of human life, realize the importance of physical affection (holding, cuddling, fondling, touching, massaging, etc.), in enhancing the connection between people, than they have found some of the prime humanist values and have taken a giant step along the path to maturity.

The pressing need of Humanist organizations is to perfect our structures so that our actions are congruent with our philosophy and to become more effective in helping to bring about a Humanist world.

Just to clarify the relationship of atheism to "AHA Humanism" (there are other kinds, so clarity requires the distinction).

Traditionally the values of Western society have come from God concepts, always as explained to us by God's representatives (priests, pastors, ministers). These values include right and wrong, the proper ways to live, and the meaning of life.

Atheism eliminates the conceptual ground of this value system, God. It tears down the traditional edifice -- church and cathedral. Now what do you have? An empty hole in the atheists' mental system; an empty plot of ground where the church stood. Maybe you are happy with this and nothing more. Some are. They live their lives from then on reassuring themselves that nothing is there; God is gone; no more is needed.

Humanism says: If God is dead (for us), what then?

Where do we go from there? What is to be ground for our value, the ground for our sense of life meaning? Humanism asks Kant's three prime questions: What can I know (with some probability of validity)? What ought I to do? What may I hope for? And answers them this way. I must, having given up God, turn to something. That something is humanity in the large, and my humanness, specifically. AHA Humanism rejects the Marxist Humanist concept of the individual counting for little, the social/collective, for everything.

AHA Humanism, then, (contradistinguished from Christian Humanism, Marxist Humanism, Literary Humanism, etc.) deliberately turns to individual human beings for values. It points out that, for humans, all values have to be derivatives of human living and reflective reacting: there is no other way. Indeed, paradoxically, this principle applies to religious fundamentalism, but "true believers" are blind.

AHA Humanism turns to human functioning -- for knowing, valuing, believing, acting, hoping. And for life meaning, by trying to live so others will treasure our having lived, rather than curse our memories as with Hitler, Stalin, etc. Practically, AHA Humanism reaches out human hands of helpfulness/friendship to one another. Since there is no God, what is there? Our answer is humanity.

In the framework of Naturalistic Humanism, we human beings are integral parts of nature. From this perspective -- one shared by the biological sciences -- sharp dichotomies between the human and non-human are spurious. Yet many of us claim rights while denying such rights for non-human animals. Others among us believe animals, at least certain kinds, have, or ought to have, the same sorts of rights. Who is correct? What should our position be on this issue?

The issues involved are far from simple. Consider some of the problems involved. First, let's consider our own alleged rights. What is meant by "right"? What is the source of our alleged rights? How can we justify our claim to have such rights? For many theists God is the source of our rights, "all people are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." Clearly, such a justification is not possible for us. What, then, is the source of, and justification for, the rights we might wish to claim for ourselves? Intuition? Historical precedent? The dictates of "Practical Reason" (Kant's approach)? I think none of these can stand up to critical scrutiny and challenge. Ultimately, I think that the rights we claim to have can only be justified by appeal to pragmatic consequences -- what will probably occur if we try to deny the rights people insist on having?

But what about animals? They are constitutionally incapable of claiming to have rights, and it isn't clear what sorts of pragmatic consequences might follow if it is claimed that animals have rights. It seems that only people can claim rights for animals -- the animals must have human spokespersons if they are to be accorded rights. Nature appears to be neutral; it does not seem to guarantee rights for humans or non-humans. And certainly we cannot appeal to God to resolve the issue. Is it intuitively obvious that animals have rights? Hardly. So how can the claim that animals have rights be defended? Can such a claim be justified by the fact that animals experience pleasure and pain, just as we do? Some people think so; others do not.

Another problem: Which animals have rights? All animals -- from amoebas to primates, our nearest relatives -- or just vertebrates, or just those we happen to take an interest in? But what if you like one that I take no interest in or even abhor? Why should some kinds of animals have rights and others lack them?

As Humanists, what would our position be on these important questions? Does an ecological perspective -- one which acknowledges the interdependence of all forms of life -- offer clues to the position we, as Humanists, should adopt toward animal rights?

These, I think, are some of the sorts of questions Humanists should explore in regard to this important issue.

AHA members have traditionally held differing views about Humanism. Some have viewed it as their religion, others thought of it as a philosophy or a way of life, and still others have held even different points of view. And, this was always considered to be OK. However, in recent time there has been an effort by some Humanists to push for the idea that Humanism is not a religion. More importantly, to push for the idea that it is not alright for another AHA member to consider Humanism their religion.

It is not clear exactly what motivates these individuals. Part of the issue is mere ignorance. Many Humanists have discarded the religion of their childhood which held God to be a central aspect of that religion. They think God has something to do with religion and since they do not use the term God they feel they also need to get rid of the term religion.

However, ignorance can be overcome with information and some of these individuals appear not to be able to benefit from information. Religion is a legal term. It has nothing to do with God per se. It is the binding force within a given culture.

Psychologically these individuals appear to be suffering from fusion of concepts due to the affects of trauma. As a result of early childhood experiences they are not now able to separate God and religion.

They are incapable of laying out a cogent argument on this issue because their mind is not free to see the various elements of the issue. As a result they merely state their position in increasingly strong terms until it becomes obvious that the discussion is leading no where. Or, after one presents them with the clearest explanation of the issues, they go away. On next meeting they are found to be exactly where they were before. They have been totally unaffected by all that has been said. They seem to be incapable of moving from their position.

However, regardless of the personality dynamics involved in this matter, the bottom line is, who owns AHA? Those of us who have felt that there is room in AHA for all points of view on the matter must re-examine this assumption. Can AHA remain an umbrella organization for persons holding varying views on Humanism. Or, will AHA become the property of those holding only one point of view?

If AHA should become the property of the "Humanism is not a religion" element, it would be very sad. The Humanist Community of San Jose could no longer be part of AHA since we are not only a religious organization, we are a church! But, even more significant AHA would have lost the opportunity to provide a vision to inspire humanity. Rather than leading humanity to higher levels it would become one more group focusing on what is wrong with other groups, but unable or unwilling to provide better answers.

What the world needs is a religion congruent with our current knowledge and understanding. It would be able to transform the world into a place of peace, prosperity and joy through institutions organized to help individuals become fully functioning human beings. It would be able to grow as knowledge and understanding grows.

That is the vision that inspires and motivates me. That is the dream I hoped to see AHA fulfill. And that is the reason for my sadness in seeing the possibility of the shattering of that dream.

I am a dedicated Humanist. I am not in a quandary (a state of perplexity and uncertainty) about religion. I have long been convinced that, if people are to communicate intelligently, they must go by the dictionary definitions of the words they are using.

You say, "They [perplexed Humanists] think God has something to do with religion." I give you here the definitions of religion from all three of my dictionaries, compiled by men (and women, I hope) who are masters of semantics and authorities on the English language. They also think God has something to do with religion!

Webster's two-volume Unabridged Dictionary, second edition: Religion "...from religare, to bind back, re, and ligare, to bind, to bind together.

"belief in a divine or superhuman power, powers to be obeyed and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe, expression of this belief in conduct...

"(a) any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy; as, the Christian religion, the Buddhist religion, etc.; (b) loosely, any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or related to such a system; as, humanism is a religion..."

The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, College Edition:

"religion. 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances and often having a moral code for the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific and institutionalized set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons or institutions adhering to a set of religious beliefs and practices; a world council of religions. 4. a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices: to get religion. 5. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc: to enter religion. 6. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 7. a point or matter of ethics or conscience..."

The third is an immense old Funk and Wagnall's unabridged of 1925 which goes to great lengths to define all facets of religion:

"...1. A belief in an invisible superhuman power (or powers), conceived of after the analogy of the human spirit, on which (or whom) people regard themselves as dependent, and to which (or whom) they think themselves in some degree responsible, together with the feelings and practices which naturally flow from such a belief.

"Traces of religion in this its more primitive form are universal, both in time and ethnologically, as far as we have trustworthy knowledge of human history. In the greater world-religions, and especially in Christianity, religion has developed into faith in One perfect Ethical Spirit as the Ground and Lawgiver of the universe and the Father and Redeemer of humanity.

"As a branch of anthropological ethnology, the study of religion embraces (1) its forms, as animism, ancestor-worship, polytheism, henotheism, monotheism; (2) mythology; (3) symbolism; and (4) religious teachers and their doctrines, with analysis of special religions, as Brahmanism, Buddhism, Confucianism.

"The anthropological classification of religions may be given as follows, beginning with the lowest forms:
I. Animism or polydaemonism; characterized by fetishism and sorcery.
II. Polytheism, embracing (1) its therian­thropism, including (a) tribal and (b) national religions; and (2) anthropo­morphism, with elaborated allegorizing myths.
III. Nomistic religions, at once ethical and ethnic, having scriptures and usually a lawgiver or law­givers, as Brahmanism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism.
IV. individualistic religions, as Buddhism, Mohammedanism, and Christianity.

"Philosophically, religions may be classified as: (1) anitheistic , embracing atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, nature religions, and animism: (2) theistic, embracing (a) polytheism, and (b) monotheism, or theism proper, including theism: Mohammedanism, Judaism, and Christianity..."

You will note that all three dictionaries, in their first and universally accepted definition of religion with little change in wording, say, "a belief in and worship of a supernatural or superhuman power who created the Universe and is in charge of human destiny."

We must go by dictionary meanings if we are to communicate.

And furthermore I resent mightily being called ignorant...

What motivates this individual is making a better world for humanity; the separation of Church and State, and of Humanism and Religion. My particular goal at present is to see that Christians understand and admit to the dogmas they profess to believe in: the degrading stigma of the dogma of Original Sin; the evasion of final responsibility in the dogma of forgiveness by proxy; and belief in the concept of Heaven and Hell, the system of rewards and punishments, not for good or bad behavior but for belief or unbelief. There are others but these are, to my mind, the three that are the most harmful to the peace and progress of humans.

And what's more, Mr. Jackson, I feel that you owe me and many other dedicated and thinking Humanists an apology.

If you would like to know more about this endeavor visit Science of Religion, or drop a line to