by Michael Werner

Humanism, I believe, is best seen as an evolving tradition, not fixed by either ideas or practices. In the early 19th century people, were atheists and agnostics, but there was no alternative “story” or narrative. Emerson tried to come up with a naturalistic story using the concept of the “oversoul” that was at best undefined and vague. All of this was until Darwin?s story. In the late 20th century we see elements of modern humanism evolving in the Free Religious Association where Emerson who had been a Unitarian minister, Felix Adler, founder of the Ethical Cultural Movement and a number of religious liberals and philosophers joined together. Also, we had the Free Thought Movement that was intensively antireligious. In the beginning of the 20TH century, quite independently, many sought to redefine and reinterpret religion in light of the best in reason and science. One thing that was becoming clear is that the functional aspects of religion seemed more important in peoples actual lives than the ideological ones. Functional aspects included such things as building of community, celebrating life passages such as birth, death and marriage, and certainly providing youth with ethical education. Getting religion to evolve became more important than rejecting it.

Two Unitarian ministers, John Dietrich and Curtis Reese met each other and found out that they were both preaching the same thing. Dietrich called his philosophy “Humanism” and that the word caught on as they were both widely known and influential. The Midwest in particular became a hotbed of humanism while at the same time in academia, the University of Chicago and Columbia University had several who aligned themselves with this new holistic, integrated naturalistic view. Remember things were a lot smaller then and all these people all knew each other or their writings.

In 1933 the country was in bad economic shape and humanists were both concerned for the future of humanism and the country as a whole. Thus was born the Humanist Manifesto. Its a product of its time being quite sexist in its language (but not its intent) and leaning towards socialism. (Remember that capitalism had failed miserably at that point). Still, it is a brilliant, clear, succinct document of where humanism had evolved to at that time. It was written primary by Sellers a University of Michigan philosopher . Half the signers were religious (Unitarian ministers and one Universalist minister) and the other half were educators and social activists. See the Humanists Manifesto I as its now known at: http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html

During the forties and fifties humanism grew tremendously in particular in the Unitarian church and Ethical Culture. Edwin Wilson, a Unitarian minister, started a magazine called the Humanist that later evolved into a full-blown organization called the American Humanist Association. One thing they learned from the Free Religious Association experience was that if you don?t have a strong organizational element, humanism will not advance or be able to effectively represent its views in a theistically dominated society. The AHA became a very effective voice for humanism representing all nontheistic people whether they chose to belong to one of the many new humanist societies/churches/fellowships or whether they chose to live a non religious community life. It sought to not be just a bunch of atheists, but to promote a positive ethical life stance where the dignity of each human being was affirmed using the best tools of reason, science and compassion.

For me, one of the geniuses of 20th century humanism has been the blending of the Enlightenment and Romantic traditions realizing that we are not fully human unless we see ourselves as both thinking and feeling, neglecting neither heart nor head. As the great humanist Bertrand Russell said, “The good life is one informed by reason and motivated by compassion.”

There always has been an uneasy truce between those guardians of rationality and those asking for a humanism of heart and action. I have been proud to have been associated with many with both heart and head. Still, we all bring different skills and focus to our lives. All types of humanism?s with adjectives evolved; ethical, scientific, religious, secular, rationalistic. I personally have a problem with hyphenated humanism because I don?t think it is not in the spirit of humanism to be narrow. Narrowing humanism generally represents not different ideologies as much as a reflection of different personality “styles.” The more rationalistic gravitate toward rationalism as humanism, the more social activists contend that it is action that counts, seculars tend to be more inclined to be loners and noncommunitarian etc. Many cannot see these merely reflect their own biases rather that the way the world is or should be.

Paul Kurtz was the editor of the Humanist magazine and reflecting his style moved the magazine more toward the pole of rationalistic philosophy. (this was after a period before that emphasized the human potential movement including Maslow, Fromm, and social action such as the civil rights movement etc.) Paul Kurtz is a very effective promoter, intellectual, hard worker and was very successful. During this time the Friends of Religious Humanism was formed as they thought they were being neglected in humanism. Around 1978 in a bid for more power he quit/got fired depending on who you listen to Remember that the AHA is a member operated organization with an elected board from its members.

Paul then started his own organization/magazine with a self perpetuating board. This has allowed him to move quickly without the burden and messiness of democracy. He defined religious humanists along side the pope which they are not. (The AHA once did a poll and not one of those members defining themselves as a religious humanists believed in a deity). This positioning of secular humanists as the “true” humanists was a effective marketing maneuver to, as he has said in public, “Bury the AHA”. But, it neglects the history, traditions, and the fact that there are more organizational humanists in the Unitarian denomination than in any other group. Free Inquiry focuses on a rationalistic and almost libertarian, humanism that especially meets the needs of the “comeouter” and has done a good job on that focus. But, I would offer, is a narrow and incomplete and sometimes outdated form of humanism. Still, by focusing on the philosophical aspects he has done a clear and thorough job on that focus.

At this point, despite appearances, all humanist organizations live hand to mouth. There are others including Humanistic Judaism, the Humanist Institute, Ethical Culture, North American Committee on Humanism, Friends of Religious Humanism, Freedom From Religion Foundation. Each has its own strengths, positioning and focus. I think each does a good job on its focus, but all give only one image of a larger picture.

Humanism today is in fact more fragmented than ever. Many Unitarians have rejected humanism for they see it as “head only” and just a bunch of “angry, antisocial, old white men”. This is in part due to the influence of Free Inquiry. The new generation of humanists there are emphasizing toleration, and effecting real change in peoples lives. Humanism is decline at the present in Unitarian Universalist circles, but there is hope with some of the newer humanists there. Ethical culture has done a good job with their credo of “Deed before Creed” and have long been a potent source of social action. The Religious Humanism magazine represents some of the most advanced thinking in humanism. The Humanist Institute trains a next generation of humanist leaders in a cross disciplinary way. The book they produce yearly takes on a difficult topic with the faculty writing contrasting essays. The AHA continues to try to be an umbrella organization for all types of humanists. Humanistic Judaism is important for those naturalistic Jews who want to keep and learn more of their cultural heritage.

Humanism in the 21st century will have to evolve or die. We are caught in cultural paradox in a neoromantic postmodern age where we have to at the same time stand up for reason and science and at the same time evolve out of the old rationalism. It is in a humbler and more encompassing humanism that we have hope that humanism will survive and indeed flourish.

©2000 Michael Werner

In meeting people who describe themselves as Humanists, I’ve met more than a few who refuse to join any kind of Humanist organization or group. One reason given over and over for not joining is they don’t what to be required to follow a dogma. They feel that in most cases the Humanist philosophy is a dogma much like the religious dogma that they rejected. They don’t wish to replace one dogma with another.

Is the Humanist Philosophy a dogma?

On the surface, one could say that it is a dogma in much the same way that physics or economics is a dogma. When people have complained about following a humanist dogma, what they really have a problem with, is being told what to do. It is this negative aspect of dogma that they don’t like.

They don’t realize that Humanism isn’t a dogma in that negative way. Our philosophy is a set of principles and beliefs arrived at through consensus.

We recognize that not everyone agrees 100% with each and every principle of Humanism. It isn’t required, in order to be a Humanist or to join a Humanist group, that one must follow our principles to the letter, or agree totally with the collection of ideas we call the Humanist Philosophy. There really isn’t some central authority dictating what Humanism should be; we all decide together by arriving at a consensus.

Last time I checked a calendar, Christian dogma hasn’t changed in over 2000 years. Humanist dogma changes and evolves as new or better information comes along. We freely change our theories and ideas to fit the results of current thought. We still do it through consensus.

I’m sorry but I just don’t go for any dogma at all.

Really? Have yet to meet anyone who believes in nothing. Dogma is everywhere in our lives. We all believe in something and that belief doesn’t have to be limited to one specific label. If you vote, you subscribe to a particular dogma even if it isn’t identified with any particular political party. If you like a particular sport over others, you follow a dogma. If you are a citizen of a particular nation or state there is a dogma involved. Dogma is even involved concerning the kinds of food you eat.

That sounds nice but doesn’t Humanism only concern itself with the human condition?

Humanism is a broad category that contains many of what I like to call “flavors”. For instance, if a Humanist focuses on church and state issues or other issues of a religious nature, then they follow the Secular Humanist dogma.

Humanism is a dogma in that there is a set of principles and ideas that in sum describe Humanism. We do that in order to set our dogma apart from the Catholic dogma or the Ohio dogma. The different flavors of Humanism further define themselves by adding more specific principles and ideas.

These flavors might point out how a Secular Humanist is different from say a Religious Humanist. Each has a set a principles in common with Humanism but each has additional principles or ideas different from the other flavors.

One common principle to Humanism is that religion should not be used to solve human problems. Most if not all Humanists would agree with that. What would really spark a heated debate among Humanists would be trying to decide if Humanism was religious. Secular Humanists would assert that Humanism is not a religion and Religious Humanists would have no problem saying it was a religion.

The biggest strength of Humanism, establishing principles by consensus, can also be a hindrance. Because there is no central authority dictating what Humanism is, it is hard to grasp a clear definition.

Many Humanists read all the various documents and books produced concerning Humanism. Through these writings one can get a sense of what the current consensus is. The book I use for an overview is “The Philosophy of Humanism” by Corliss Lamont. He isn’t some Humanist prelate but he had enough experience in the Humanist movement for me to trust the ideas he introduced and explained. He also showed that Humanism evolves. By the time he died in 1995, his book had gone through 8 editions.

The Humanist Manifestoes also offer a good description of the current principles. Humanists aren’t required to sign on to any of the manifestoes. The fact that there are two, one written in 1933 and one written in 1973, and plans for a third, shows that Humanism isn’t a dogma in the negative sense.

Attending any Humanist gathering helps you find out the current consensus and allows you to have input into changing the consensus if needed. Many local groups don’t require belief in a particular dogma to join aside from a general agreement with the common Humanist principles. Some don’t even require you to be a member to attend a gathering.

The Humanist philosophy is a dogma. It isn’t a negative static dogma like religion. It is a fluid evolving positive dogma arrived at through consensus of its members.

Posted by Doug Berger

Some members of our Humanist community have recommended that we add ‘god’
to our statement of principles in order to entice more people to join. They
are of the opinion that Humanists need to accept and support ANYONE who
wants to call themselves Humanists. They think we should, in the effort of
building Humanism, go for quantity rather than quality.

Some of the members who have been the most vocal, about this concern, also
are members of the First Unitarian Universalist Church here in Columbus
(UUs). UUs have been connected with Modern Humanism for decades, including
helping draft the Humanist Manifesto I. It is a church that gives its
members the function of a church without the dogma and Bible. Recently,
they have sponsored a Humanist discussion group that meets each month.

The UU Humanists operate using several slogans including ‘All stories are
sacred ‘ and ‘All are welcome here’. The UU Humanist’s attempt to include
anyone who is humanistically incline and use Theistic words such as
’spirit’, ‘god’, and ‘religion’ with definitions that depend on the person
who uses those terms. This seems to be an effort to help people who may
still believe in the supernatural to express their humanist side.

Even though they try and include everyone, some people, specifically
Atheists are not as welcome. Atheists are allowed to attend services and
participate in various discussion groups the church sponsors, but when
Atheists attempt to question views that are opposite of their own, such as
those which use words like ’spirit’, ‘god’, and ‘religion’, they are not
held in a positive light even with the supposed openness of the 1st UU
church. Atheists have been called arrogant, smug, bigots, and similar words
that have also been heard from Theists from mainstream religions. The UU
Humanists confuse the principle of tolerance with agreement. Tolerance
means that you do not coerce and put down someone whose comments do not
agree with yours not that you agree with them.

What does this have to do with the Humanist Community? Since its founding
HCCO has been a Secular Humanist group. A secular Humanist follows a
philosophy of life that rejects supernaturalism and focuses on living in
the here and now. A secular Humanist doesn’t use theistic words in
describing our Humanism. What troubles a secular Humanist about using
theistic words, redefined or not, is that they dilute our message and
equivocates. Those kinds of words lend support to supernaturalism.

As Secular Humanists, we need to concentrate on developing strategies for
living without gods which contrasts with the 1st UU’s strategy of salvaging
and redefining religious terms. (ex. “I don’t believe in ‘god’ , but I just
use the word for its poetic emotional effect.”). Instead we forward notions
that stem from the core precepts of Modern Humanism like reason, science,
compassion, democracy, knowledge, kindness, courage, and service.

Atheism, in the common usage of the word, is a philosophy of life without
any god beliefs. Atheists, as well as other non-theistic groups such as
Agnostics, then can find like minded folks in Secular Humanism. An average
Atheist has more in common with Humanism, than an average Theist does. The
main similarity is that the Atheist has no god beliefs, while a Theist, by
the very term, has god beliefs.

If a theist feels uncomfortable in a Secular Humanist meeting they have
many places to go, including the 1st UU church, where they may feel more
comfortable. An Atheist, on the other hand, really has no other place to
go, that will affirm their non-theistic views and allow them to be
Humanists. HCCO has worked to be that shelter for Atheists and Agnostics.
The Humanist Community of Central Ohio’s mission is to support a secular
philosophy that values people, emphasizes reason, and focuses on the world
we live in. To undermine that mission by including anyone who wants to call
themselves Humanists is something I don’t want to be a part of and fails to
include a group such as Atheists and to some extent, Agnostics.

We will not change our Statement of Principles for the sake of bringing in
more members. We want to provide a safe space for Humanists without the
divisiveness of ‘god-talk’. We want curious people to attend and learn more
about Modern Humanism and they can’t through the fog of ‘god-talk’. Like
ANY group we welcome anyone who supports our mission and considers
themselves in substantial agreement with our Statement of Principles. If an
individual has trouble doing that then they have the option not to join.
Modern Humanists focus on this world and how to cope with it, not on
‘gods’.

This article, Doug Berger, appeared in the March/April 1996 issue of the Central Ohio Humanist newsletter.