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.

A common complaint heard about Humanists is that we lack spirituality. People point to spirituality as a piece of the puzzle that we call humanity. Unfortunately this complaint is also heard among Humanists themselves.

The complaints focus on our reliance on science and reason to solve human problems. People say that science and reason can’t answer every question or solve all the problems. Questions that don’t seem to be answered are like “Why are we here?” and “Is this all there is to life?”.

Humanists should know, by knowing our philosophy, that we can’t answer all the questions. We don’t even make such promises. We know that if there are unanswerable questions, someday there might be an answer and then again maybe not.

We know why Theists make the charge that we lack spirituality, then why does it seem that some Humanists are sinking back into the tar pit of irrationality by wanting Humanists to be more spiritual?

A simple explanation would be the basic human emotion: fear. People fear the unknown and questions like those mentioned above raise the specter of the unknown and unknowable. The same sense of inquiry that drives science also breeds irrational fear of the unknown. People want to know and they want to know now. If answers aren’t available, people will accept any answer that seems reasonable to them even if that answer is irrational or based on the irrational.

I wish that explanation gave the only reason why “spirituality” has crept back into some people’s idea of Humanism. Some Humanists prefer to redefine religion and religious language to fit into their idea of Humanism. Since Humanism isn’t a strict dogma like Christianity, such redefinition occurs quite frequently. Unfortunately, this quest for “spirituality” is part of trend that harms Humanism and mashes us together with Theistic religion.

No matter how “spirituality” is defined, I have a serious problem with the complaint that Humanists lack “spirituality” and even if “spirituality” is needed in Humanism.

I think the supposed need for “spirituality” is part of the cultural indoctrination that many Humanists experienced during their exposure to Theism in their younger years and living in a world dominated by Theists. Even though they reject God and the other dogmatic teachings of Theism, they feel comfortable with the other trappings of Theism like the holidays, the fellowship and the music. They adapt those things into their Humanism.

Instead of celebrating their differences with their previous Theistic life, they seem to want hide it and blend in. This prevents the philosophical progress that is the hallmark of Humanism.

Some seem to backtrack to “spirituality” to cope with the unknown or deal with negative life experiences. We don’t need some religious justification for dealing with such events. All of us can get together with friends and loved ones and work through times of trouble.

As for clinging to “spirituality” because of the unanswerable questions like “Is this all there is to life”, I say why bother? We have to ask ourselves, is answering questions like that important to our overall well being? I don’t think so. Sure it might be a hoot to debate such questions around the dinner table, but if we worry about them to much, we might not get anything else done. Besides what effect will an answer have on our everyday life? Will an answer feed those who are hungry? Will it end war? Will it pay the mortgage? There is an answer to that: No.

As for “spirituality” being redefined as the expression of pleasure or awe we get from aesthetic beauty, obviously, those who redefine it that way don’t know humans. We create art and like art whether it be a painting or an old building. I love old houses and buildings. I recently had an experience of awe when I saw the movie “Pandora’s Box”. It starred Louise Brooks and I was in total awe of her beauty. She was a movie star in the Silent Era. She had used her beauty to seduce some of the most powerful men in Hollywood and some of the women back in the 1920’s and 30’s. If I lacked “spirituality” I wouldn’t have noticed Brooks’ beauty even 70 years after it was first caught on film.

“Spirituality” in any form does exist in Humanism and those who complain it doesn’t should just acknowledge it does and cast off the tentacles of Theism. Why do we insist on adapting Theism to Humanism? Why do they get to define who we are and what we need or don’t need?

“Spirituality” only describes us being human. We all have it.