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

Related posts

• No related posts.

This entry was posted on Saturday, January 1st, 2000 at 1:48 am and is filed under Essays. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.