By Fred Edwords
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.
Resaissance 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:
- 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.
- Humanism is a philosophy focused upon human means for
comprehending reality. Humanists make no claims to possess or have
access to supposed transcendent knowledge.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
No comments:
Post a Comment