Humanism Speaks

We are so sensitively related to each other that we can make each other miserable, adding to the hardships which existence already involves. On the other hand, we can ameliorate those hardships, co-operate with nature and with one another, gradually discover and chart the paths to happiness, mark the danger points for those who follow, become more and more at home in the universe and more and more expert in dealing with our fellow human beings, and more and more approach the ideal of a satisfactory human society.

We are born into this existence, and we die out of it; and one event is as natural as the other. Nature neither consults us about coming or going. It is the inevitable. Therefore, instead of censuring or thanking God for our afflictions, let us help each other bear them as best we can. There is no danger of making too much happiness in this world, nor of being too good, save in our own conceit. Those serve God best who serve mankind, and honest deeds and helpful words will blossom and ripen when worship is forgotten.

As an illustration of the despotism of the majority in matters of individual right, witness the closing of the Exposition on Sunday. The right of conscience is, in general, acknowledged; but, says the Christian community, “the majority of this nation are Christians, and the majority rule demands the recognition of the Christian idea of Sunday in our laws and institutions; hence you must submit.” Thus, by this majority rule, the right of conscience of the minority is entirely ignored. That this nation is a Christian nation, is almost the only argument used by those who are zealously striving to place the Christian's God in the United States Constitution. This is but another application of the majority rule which ignores the rights of the minority.

[Death] is the end of the organism. All we can hope is that we have found some sort of happiness in this life and that we have left the world as a little better place.

...for ours is the only true revelation, based in nature and in life.

... critical intelligence, infused by a sense of human caring, is the best method that humanity has for resolving problems. Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy and the whole person fulfilled.

...my friends, let us call ourselves by what names we will, are we not creatures occupying the same earth, and sharing the same nature? And can we not consider these as members of one family...?

While we'll never stand silent in the face of threats to the rights of nontheists to articulate our views freely, as a movement we're reaching the critical mass where we can now accompany our historical individual activism with organizational action. By working hand-in-hand to improve the lives of our fellow human beings, and by actively working to increase the dignity afforded each one of us, we strive for a society in which humanist views are widely available and publicly respected.

"2016 humanism." The Humanist May-June 2016.

Ophelia Benson posted part of a Q&A session at the Reason for Change conference:

A great moment. At the secularism panel just now with Barry Kosmin and Ron Lindsay and Phil Zuckerman, moderated by Paul Fidalgo, Paul asked the audience, how many of you have attended a Secular Assembly?

A LOT of hands went up.

Ron said something I didn’t hear, and Paul said, “That’s a great question – how many of you have gone twice?”

One hand went up.

Those questions remind me how much I’d like to see a greater variety of atheist meetings in more places. I’m lucky to live in a city where there are several Humanist and atheist groups (not all of which suit my schedule or style). Plenty of places have no organized activities, and, even where such groups do exist, any given group won’t be for everyone, as the Q&A response indicates. That’s why I’d also like to see more dialogue about—and encouragement toward—new groups.

Sunday Assembly works for some people. It’s not my cup of tea. I’d likely not mind going from time to time, but Assemblies aren’t the kind of place I’d feel at home. Likewise, I attended services at a UU fellowship for several months before deciding it wasn’t for me, though I have enjoyed attending the monthly meetings of the UU Humanists there.

There’s a wealth of examples new groups can use, either starting as official affiliates of a national group or using other groups as templates. Greta Christina runs through a partial list of groups that make up organized atheism demonstrating the breadth of potential activity. It’s no easy task to get a new group off the ground or keep it going once started. Perhaps as those involved with the Secular Student Alliance graduate college, they’ll continue to use their organizing skills to develop groups.

One way to help make starting new groups easier is if already existing groups made conscious efforts to encourage the growth of new groups as part of wider atheist communities. The UU Humanists have one of the best examples I’ve seen of such encouragement in their mission statement. The group aspires to be an “interface” between UU Humanist groups and other atheist and Humanist groups by:

Helping to establish and/or strengthen local Humanist and freethinker groups (in close cooperation with secular Humanist organizations) and encouraging UUs across the country to join them.

Mobilizing UU individuals, institutions, and congregations to actively support the activities of our partner organizations, especially the Secular Coalition for America and its member organizations.

This position sees one group as an integral part of a wider diversity of organized atheism where different groups will meet the needs of different people. If people don’t end up going back to their local Sunday Assembly, for example, I hope they will find a place that will engage them. (Caveat: If they want to participate in organized atheism at all. Many atheists are content to find social interaction with groups that don’t devote explicit attention to questions of religion and worldviews.)

 Some humanists believe we should reinterpret traditional religions and reinvest them with meanings appropriate to the current situation. Such redefinitions, however, often perpetuate old dependencies and escapisms; they easily become obscurantist, impeding the free use of the intellect. We need, instead, radically new human purposes and goals.

Humanist Manifesto II

I don’t mind if some Humanists call themselves religious, though I don’t consider myself or Humanism religious. I do, however, share the concern raised in the second Humanist Manifesto that using religious language to refer to ideas that aren’t widely understood as religious can create confusion. Gretta Vosper discusses a similar concern in her post “Semantics Sleight of Hand”:

If we use that word to mean “a sense, a deep feeling and a belief in something more” as one FB poster recently argued and “can call that something more God”, we’re in complicated territory. Who is going to know that’s what is being meant  when 99.9% of the population (more likely 99.999999999%) still think you’re talking about “the big guy” as he was identified on a radio show this past week?

Diversity of ideas is inevitable. As is disagreement. Taking time to understand how our interlocutors differ in their understanding of key terms can help us avoid needless misunderstanding and ill will.

Secular institutions that enforce and uphold oppressive hierarchies must also be actively challenged within a humanist framework. Modern capitalist inequities that permit criminally stratospheric wealth and obscene poverty buttress America’s faith industry. So in the absence of an explicitly anti-raist, anti-sexist, anti-heterosexist and anti-imperialist critical consciousness there will continue to be a major divide between white atheist discourse and the lived experiences of humanists of color. And in the absence of community-based institutions anchored in humanist approaches to health, wellness, and sustainability, humanist atheists of color will have no “real time” foundation beyond insular white settings.

Christina explains why people join specialized groups among atheists:

Writing at TheHumanist.com, Kirabo addresses the concepts of white supremacy and racism as systemic phenomena:

Two points from the IHEU Amsterdam Declaration:

Humanism is undogmatic, imposing no creed upon its adherents. It is thus committed to education free from indoctrination.

Humanism recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a continuing process of observation, evaluation and revision.

Sometimes I encounter questions such as “If there’s no institutional authority that defines Humanism (such as religious institutions like the Catholic Church define particular religions), then how do we know what Humanism is?”

The two above points answer that question. There is no authority that defines by fiat what Humanism is, and the definition of Humanism has changed over time. However, Humanists have converged on a set of consensus beliefs as represented in the development of the Humanist Manifestos and the Amsterdam Declaration. It is a false dilemma to say that Humanism has to either have a single authority defining it or that it collapses into arbitrary opinion.

Within the consensus is the understanding of Humanism as:

working from the human perspective

understanding that perspective to have limitations

using reason, empirical study and science to help overcome those limitations and solve problems

respecting human rights; encouraging individual liberty balanced with rights of other and the well-being of society as a whole.

As a student of rhetoric, I often think about Humanism in terms of language, so I was glad to see Greta Christina’s reminder about the subjective nature of the words we use. Like Christina, I don’t have much interest in the personality conflict at hand, but I also agree that the way we talk about our disagreements can have important consequences for “the issues underlying that conflict, including the issue of how we should or should not talk about sexual assault.” In hope of having a productive conversation on such issues, it is important to keep in mind:

See, in my experience, words like “controversy,” “infighting,” “bashing,” and “discord” are very subjective. As I’ve written before: When we disagree with someone or think the point they’re arguing is trivial, we tend to call their arguments “infighting,” “bashing,” “discord,” “strident,” and “creating controversy”; when we agree with someone or think the point they’re arguing is important, we’re more likely to call their arguments something like “constructive debate.” If you don’t specify the people you’re talking about, and cite examples of the behavior you’re criticizing, it makes it difficult to have a discussion about the behavior in question, or to decide whether we agree with your characterization of it. Your readers will likely assume that your accusations apply to whoever and whatever they happen to not like.

A radical humanist vision eschews religious and social hierarchies of race, gender, sexuality, and class because they undermine the universal human rights and self-determination of oppressed peoples.

The task for humanists, religious or not, is to find a wise balance between accepting life as it is and striving for the possibility of a higher humanity. (56-7)

Peter Derkx. "Humanism as a Meaning Frame." What is Humanism and Why Does It Matter? Ed. Anthony Pinn. Durham, UK: Acumen, 2013.