HUMANISM – RELIGION OR LIFE STANCE? A CRITICAL AND PROVOCATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS

HUMANISM - RELIGION OR LIFE STANCE?
A CRITICAL AND PROVOCATIVE
ANALYSIS OF THE OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS

By Dr Ian Ellis- Jones
Vice President, Humanist Society of New South Wales Inc
Former President, Council of Australian Humanist Societies Inc

A paper presented at the 39th Annual Convention
of the Council of Australian Humanist Societies (CAHS),
held at the Pilgrim Theatre, Sydney NSW Australia, on 2 May 20041

Is Humanism a religion or a life stance? Almost every Humanist seems to have
a view – generally a very strong view – on the matter, but what do the “official”
documents really say about the matter? I intend to critically analyse a number of
seminal documents that more-or-less officially purport to define or describe
Humanism. The documents that I intend to consider - and they are by no means
an exhaustive compendium of all of the important documents pertaining to
Humanism - are the following:

1. Humanist Manifesto I (1933)

2. Humanist Manifesto II (1973)

3. A Secular Humanist Declaration (1980)

4. IHEU Minimum Statement on Humanism (1996)

5. Humanist Manifesto 2000
6. Amsterdam Declaration 2002

7. Secular Humanist Values and Beliefs (2002)

8. The Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles

9. Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III (2003).

1
A copy of this paper was published in Australian Humanist in Spring 2004.

1

INTRODUCTION

WHAT CONSTITUTES A “RELIGION”?
As a working definition, not intended to be used for legal purposes, a “religion”
may be defined as any specific system of belief about deity or what is otherwise
considered to be of ultimate and inexorable importance or worth, “sacred”,
“spiritual” or “divine” (including awe-inspiring) by its members or adherents,
often involving rituals, rites of passage, a code of ethics, and a philosophy of
life. (As Sir Julian Huxley pointed out, in Essays of a Humanist, the term “divine”
did not originally imply the existence of gods: “on the contrary, gods were
constructed to interpret [humanity’s] experiences of this quality”, the quality
being “not truly supernatural but transnatural”.)

WHAT IS MEANT BY THE EXPRESSION “LIFE STANCE”?
A “life stance” is a view of life, an outlook upon life, an approach one takes to
life. A life stance may or may not be more formalised as a so-called “philosophy
of life” and may or may not be given practical expression in the form and by
means of rituals, rites of passages, a code of ethics, and so forth.

HUMANIST MANIFESTO I (1933)

Early in the 20th century Unitarian ministers in various parts of the United States
of America began calling themselves Humanists. In 1933 a group of 34 liberal
Humanists in the USA – mainly Unitarian ministers1 and also philosopher John
Dewey - attempted to enunciate the Humanist principles that seemed to them
fundamental.

What has since become known as Humanist Manifesto I first appeared simply
as Humanist Manifesto2 in The New Humanist in May/June 1933 (vol VI, No 3).
The document was drafted by philosopher Roy Wood Sellars, Unitarian minister
Raymond Bragg, and others. Philosopher Paul Kurtz has referred to Humanist
Manifesto I as being “for its time … a radical document".

Humanism is referred to in Humanist Manifesto I as "religious [H]umanism", a
phenomenon which arose out of liberal religion in the early part of the 20 th
century. The Manifesto was the culmination of a movement among Unitarians
that was already 2 decades old.

The Manifesto made no attempt to define what is meant by religion or religious
Humanism per se. What the document sought to elucidate were what were
seen by the authors to be the guiding principles or fundamentals of religious
Humanism.
1
In the United States of America the largest number of self-identified Humanists are members of Unitarian Universalist
congregations. Smaller numbers are associated with other bodies such as the American Humanist Association, the
American Ethical Union, and the Society for Humanistic Judaism.
2
“Humanist Manifesto” is a trademark of the American Humanist Association.

According to Humanist Manifesto I, "[r]eligion consists of those actions,
purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is
alien to the religious." Examples given include labour, art, science, philosophy,
love, friendship and recreation.

Whilst the expression “religious Humanism” was used throughout the Manifesto,
the document was still very much a secular one. It was made clear that religion
had to be freed from doctrines and methods which had lost their significance
and which were powerless to solve the problem of human living in the 20th
century. The document referred to the "changefulness" of religions throughout
the centuries. Nevertheless, there were certain "abiding values, an inseparable
feature of human life".

Religion must be "vital, fearless and frank" – it must meet the needs of the
times. "To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present."

Humanist Manifesto I was grounded in religious naturalism. The universe was
said to be "self-existing" and "not created". What was needed was an organic
view of life. The document referred to the "naturalness and probability" of
things. (If there is a deity in all of this, it is nature.)

There was an express rejection of the traditional dualism of mind and body as
well as an express rejection of any distinction between the sacred and the
secular. "Belief in the supernatural" was dismissed or, rather, seen as
inappropriate and outmoded. An anthropological view of religion was espoused:
religion is the product of a gradual development due to humans' interaction with
the natural and social environments.

There was an express rejection of theism, deism, modernism, and the
movement and ideas known as New Thought. There was also an express
rejection of the "old attitudes involved in worship and prayer". The alternative?
Religious emotions are expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in
a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.

And what of the purpose of religion? "[R]eligion must work increasingly for joy in
living", for ultimately we are concerned with "the fulfillment of human life", that
is, "the quest for the good life".

In may ways, the Humanism embodied in Humanist Manifesto I is post-Christian
Unitarianism without a creed or supernaturalism.

HUMANIST MANIFESTO II (1973)

Humanist Manifesto II was prepared by the philosopher Paul Kurtz and
Unitarian minister Edwin H Wilson (the latter being a signatory to the original
1933 Manifesto and one of the principal founders of the American Humanist
Association in 1941). The document was signed by almost 300 distinguished

leaders of thought and action, including Sir Julian Huxley (a self-styled religious
Humanist, author of Religion Without Revelation, etc), Paul Kurtz, B F Skinner,
Corliss Lamont, Betty Friedan, H J Eysenck, H J Blackham, Isaac Asimov,
Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan (perhaps the most famous and influential Jewish
theologian of the 20th century) and numerous Unitarian Universalist ministers of
religion.

The document first appeared in The Humanist in September/October 1973 (vol
XXXIII, No 5).

In the preface to the Manifesto we read the following:

As in 1933, [H]umanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the
prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons, and to be able to do
something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on
mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of
heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival.
Unlike the first Humanist Manifesto, Humanism is not referred to in this
document as being "religious Humanism". It is secular Humanism; the claim to
being a religion is dropped. "Many kinds of Humanism" exist in the
contemporary world, we are told. Of "naturalistic Humanism" there are several
varieties: "scientific", "ethical", "democratic", "religious" and "Marxist"
Humanism.(See also Paul Kurtz's preface to the 1973 Prometheus Books
edition of Humanist Manifestos I and II: "Humanism is a philosophical, religious,
and moral point of view ... " [emphasis added].)

A range of responses all claim to be heir to the Humanist tradition: free thought,
atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, deism, rationalism, ethical culture, and liberal
religion. "Many within religions groups, believing in the future of Humanism,
now claim [H]umanist credentials."

A number of important statements are made about religion in the very first part
of the Manifesto, including the following:

• in the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical
ideals

• dogmatism, authoritarianism, creedalism and revelation all do a disservice
to humanity

• promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are "both
illusory and harmful"

• there is "insufficient evidence" for belief in the existence of a supernatural
order or level of reality: "we can discover no divine purpose or providence

for the human species"

• the idea of a "separable soul" discredited by modern science

• the rejection of anything and everything that inhibits humans from
helping themselves or experiencing their full potentialities, including the
notion of “solace”

• the emphasis must be on independence, not dependence, on affirmation,
not obedience, on courage, not fear.

Humanists are described as being "non-theists": "... we begin with humans not
God, nature not deity."

The document notes that some Humanists believe that traditional religions
should be reinterpreted and reinvested with new meanings. However, "[s]uch
redefinitions ... often perpetuate old dependencies and escapisms ... ."
Nevertheless, it is expressly stated that traditional religions are "surely not the
only obstacles to human progress". "Other ideologies also impede human
advance."

Humanist Manifesto II is much more specific than the first Humanist Manifesto
in defining the goals of Humanism.

A SECULAR HUMANIST DECLARATION (1980)

This declaration was issued and published by the Council for Secular
Humanism (then called the Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism
[CODESH], formed in 1980). It was drafted by Paul Kurtz and endorsed by 58
prominent scholars and writers, and was first published in Free Inquiry in 1980.

Humanism is referred to throughout this document as "secular [H]umanism". As
Humanist Manifesto 2000 points out, the 1980 declaration was issued because
Humanism had come under heavy attack from religious fundamentalists and
right-wing political forces in the US who maintained that secular Humanism was
a "religion". The declaration makes it clear that secular Humanism cannot be
equated with religious faith. It is a very "reactionary" document.

The emphasis is on Humanism as a set of moral values and a nontheistic
philosophical and scientific viewpoint. The very first paragraph records
opposition to “all varieties of belief that seek supernatural sanction or espouse
rule by dictatorship."

The emphasis is placed on the "variety of anti-secularist trends" of today,
including but not limited to Christian fundamentalism and Moslem clericalism in
the Middle East and Asia. There are also, among many other “disturbing
developments”, the “[n]ew cults of unreason as well as bizarre paranormal and

occult beliefs”.

The importance of free inquiry is made abundantly clear, as is the fundamental
importance of the need for the separation of church and state.

Religious skepticism is a “must”: one must be "generally skeptical about
supernatural claims". However, "[w]e recognise the importance of religious
experience: that experience that redirects and gives meaning to the lives of
human beings. We deny, however, that such experiences have anything to do
with the supernatural."

"Doubt" is expressed as to traditional views of God and divinity. “[T]raditional
views of the existence of God either are meaningless, have not yet been
demonstrated to be true, or are tyrannically exploitative." There is “insufficient
evidence" for the claim that some divine purpose exists for the universe. The
universe is a dynamic scene of natural forces that are most effectively
understood by scientific inquiry.

The declaration notes that secular Humanists may be agnostics, atheists,
rationalists or skeptics.

There is an express rejection of the divinity of Jesus, the divine mission of
Moses, Mohammed, and "other latter-day prophets and saints of the various
sects and denominations". So-called “Holy books” such as the Bible and the
Koran, etc - not literally true. There is no convincing evidence that there is a
separable "soul".

The Declaration observes that "[r]eligions have made negative as well as
positive contributions toward the development of human civilization."

The section entitled “Religious Skepticism” ends as follows: "We must therefore
conclude that the ethical life can be lived without the illusions of immortality or
reincarnation. Human beings can develop the self-confidence necessary to
ameliorate the human condition and to lead meaningful, productive lives."

IHEU MINIMUM STATEMENT ON HUMANISM (1996)

At its meeting (held in Mexico City, in November 1996) the Board of the
International Humanist and Ethical Union approved the followed “minimum
statement” of Humanism:

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human
beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own
lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based
on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through
human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of
reality.

This is, perhaps of necessity, a very brief "omnibus" document.

Humanism - referred to as such – is said to be a "democratic and ethical life
stance". The document refers to "human and other natural values" and the
"spirit of reason and free inquiry." Humanism is officially declared to be “not
theistic” – note, “not theistic”, not necessarily if at all atheistic. Be that as it
may, it is nevertheless expressly stated that Humanism “does not accept
supernatural views of reality." In other words, one order or level of reality – the
natural world.

HUMANIST MANIFESTO 2000

This Manifesto was drafted by Paul Kurtz (once again) and issued by the
Council for Secular Humanism in 1999. The document was endorsed by a
distinguished list of Humanist intellectuals, including Arthur C Clarke, Richard
Dawkins and 10 Nobel Laureates.

The Manifesto is very long and rambling and, with the greatest respect to
Professor Kurtz, the document is at times textually incoherent.

The preamble states that "[h]umanism is an ethical, scientific, and philosophical
outlook ... ." There is no reference to Humanism being a "religious" outlook or
point of view. This is a very secular document.

Humanism is presented as "Planetary Humanism", expressed to be "post-
postmodernist in its outlook". There are few references to religion as such.
Religion is seen as largely, if not entirely, irrelevant. However, the document
makes it clear that it is "inadmissible" to introduce "occult causes" or
"transcendental explanations". The emphasis is fairly and squarely on scientific
naturalism and free inquiry. Further, there are references to fundamentalist
religions contesting the "principles of Humanism and secularism" and
demanding a return to the "religiosity of a premodern era". Religion, and
religiosity, are largely dismissed as irrelevant and divisive.

This Manifesto embodies an entirely secular code of ethics free from religion.
"Humanist ethics ... does not require agreement about theological or religious
premises ... ."

AMSTERDAM DECLARATION 2002

In 1952, at the first and founding IHEU congress, a declaration with IHEU's
principles about Humanism was formulated and accepted. In 2002, at the 50th
anniversary IHEU congress, a revised version was adopted.

Humanism is described rather than defined. Humanism is not depicted as

being a religion, or philosophy, or philosophical outlook or point of view, but, at
least in one part of the declaration, as a "lifestance". For the most part, the
document is content to simply allow Humanism to be.

Humanism is explicitly "ethical" and "rational". Insofar as religion is concerned,
the declaration states that Humanism is a response to the “widespread demand
for an alternative to dogmatic religion”. The declaration relevantly states:

The world’s major religions claim to be based on revelations fixed for all time,
and many seek to impose their worldviews on all of humanity. Humanism
recognises that reliable knowledge of the world and ourselves arises through a
continuing process of observation, evaluation and revision.
Problems are to be solved by means of "human thought and action", rather than
divine intervention. Humanism is described as being "undogmatic", imposing no
creed upon its adherents. However, the declaration contains no express
rejections or denials of supernaturalism and theism.

SECULAR HUMANIST VALUES AND BELIEFS (2002)

The Council of Australian Humanist Societies, at its 37th Annual Convention
endorsed a document entitled “Secular Humanist Values and Beliefs”. The
document refers to Humanism as being “contemporary Humanism”, which is
described as a “distinctive system of belief” having 5 “essential features”,
namely, Humanism is naturalistic, ethical, rational, universalist, and holistic.

Humanism is referred to in the document as being a “philosophical life stance”,
that, of necessity, “excludes any supernatural act of creation by any kind of
spirit creator”. Further, it is stated that:

Humanism has no place for ideas about spirits, souls or other transcendent beings,
forces or supernatural processes, including life after death.
The Humanism embodied in the document is very sceptical. A negative, almost
polemic, view is expressed toward what are referred to as “unsupported claims
of special knowledge, power or authority (e.g. miracles, psychic surgery,
channelling spirit messages, divine revelations, etc.)”. A thoroughly secular
state is hoped for, “without the trappings of religion (symbols, sacred books and
hymns, references to gods and saints, etc.)”.

The “no nonsense” document is very similar to the documents that have
emanated over the years from Paul Kurtz and his team.

THE AFFIRMATIONS OF HUMANISM: A STATEMENT OF
PRINCIPLES

This is another Council for Secular Humanism / Free Inquiry document.

Humanism is presented as a "realistic alternative" to, among other things,
"theologies of despair". Dogma, blind faith and irrationality are all rejected. It is
expressly stated that Humanism "deplores" efforts to seek to explain the world
in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation. Religion is seen
as "divisive".

This is another thoroughly secular document from the Kurtz stables.

HUMANISM AND ITS ASPIRATIONS: HUMANIST MANIFESTO III
(2003)

This Manifesto is expressed to be a “successor to the Humanist Manifesto of
1933”. Interestingly, the introduction to the Manifesto doesn’t even mention
Humanist Manifesto II, only the first Manifesto of 1933. This document has been
seen by many as an attempt to tone down the rather polemic rhetoric of
Humanist Manifest II.

The Manifesto was released by the American Humanist Association in April
2003. At last count the 2003 Manifesto already had at least 20 signers who are
Nobel Laureates.

The document is stated to be a part of an “ongoing effort to manifest in clear
and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must
believe but a consensus of what we do believe”.

Humanism is referred to in the Manifesto as a “progressive philosophy of life” as
well as a “lifestance”. Consistent with previous Manifestos and similar
documents, the emphasis is on the use of reason, rational analysis and
science. (Science is boldly declared to be the “best method” for determining
knowledge of the world.) The aim is for our “fullest possible development” and a
“deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of
human existence”. Values are derived from human need and interest as tested
by experience.

Supernaturalism is expressly declared to form no part of Humanism, although,
interestingly, there is no actual express denial or rejection of supernaturalism
per se. Humanism operates “without supernaturalism”. Also of interest is that,
unlike many previous documents, there are no express references to
Humanism being nontheistic, although that would appear to be the necessary
implication in any event. Otherwise, the document makes little reference to
religion, except to affirm certain propositions that are not otherwise inconsistent
with religious naturalism.

The Manifesto, which is quite oblique in parts, is rather remarkable for its failure
or refusal to acknowledge human limitations, weaknesses, and capacity for evil.
Rather, the focus is on such topics as evolution and environmentalism.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The way in which secular Humanists have seen and described Humanism has
clearly changed over time:
Humanist Manifesto I (1933) : This was a distinctly "religious" document in
a "naturalistic" sense.
Humanist Manifesto II (1973) : This document left room for both naturalistic
Humanism and liberal religious Humanism.
A Secular Humanist Declaration (1980) : This declaration made it clear
that Humanism is secular and could not be equated with religious faith.
Humanist Manifesto 2000 : This Manifesto, as well as The Affirmations
of Humanism: A Statement of Principles , carried that theme even further.
Humanism is said to be secular and essentially nonreligious in character.
Amsterdam Declaration 2002 : Although the declaration contains no
express rejections or denials of supernaturalism and theism (cf the more
strident Secular Humanist Values and Beliefs (2002)), the Humanism
that is described in the declaration is distinctly secular and rational and
essentially nonreligious in character. If read in conjunction with the IHEU
Minimum Statement on Humanism (1996), Humanism is officially
nontheistic and does not accept the notion that there can be more than one
order or level of reality.
Humanism and Its Aspirations: Humanist Manifesto III (2003): This
Manifesto seeks to remove any confusion as to what Humanism is and is not.
Humanism, which operates “without supernaturalism”, is referred to as a
“philosophy of life” and “lifestance”. The Humanism described in the document
is essentially nonreligious, but the tone is much less strident than that of the
decidedly secular Humanist Manifesto II.
The more recent official declarations and statements on Humanism are to a
large extent "coloured" and "reactionary" documents insofar as what is said
about religion is concerned, the primary purpose being to resist the attempts by
some - primarily but not exclusively opponents of Humanism - to categorise
Humanism as a religion.

Despite what our High Court has said in Church of the New Faith v
Commissioner of Payroll Tax (Vic) (1983) 154 CLR 120 ("the Scientology
case"), in which the majority of the court postulated a belief in the existence of a
supernatural being and/or a belief in the supernatural in order for there to be a
"religion" for certain legal purposes, the plain and objective truth is that religion
in a sociological, anthropological and theological sense does not require
supernaturalism or a god or gods of any kind. Art Jackson in “Humanism: A

Religion?”3 had this to say about the matter:

To me it seems clear that the issue isn’t whether or not some choose to define
Humanism as a religion. Rather, Humanism is a religion b[e]cause it is a unified
and unifying way of seeing the world. It is congruent with the modern world,
congruent with the knowledge of science and the striving of the poets, the desire
for adventure of the astronauts, the need for love/physical affection of all human
beings.
I suspect that Jackson is right if religion is defined in the wider naturalistic and
anthropological sense, although I think he has somewhat overstated the
position. Nevertheless, the fact remains that, as regards Humanism, whilst, to
date, there have been over the years several explicitly clear and unambiguous
rejections or denials of supernaturalism and theism, and some very strong
statements about the negative aspects of religion together with an increasingly
secular flavour to the official pronouncements, there has been no official
rejection or denial of religious Humanism or naturalistic Humanism.

In addition, nothing has been officially written, to date, that would prevent a
particular Humanist organisation from labelling itself, for whatever reason, as a
religious Humanist organisation (cf the American Humanist Association) nor
prevent individual Humanists from regarding their Humanism as a nontheistic
statement of religious naturalism and engaging, in good conscience, in religious
activities that are not inconsistent with the fundamentals of Humanism as
expressed in the various official declarations and statements.

In the final analysis, Humanism is not so much a case of what but rather how
one believes.

3
International Humanist, 1986, No. 4, p.2.

HUMANISM – RELIGION OR LIFE STANCE? A CRITICAL AND PROVOCATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie HUMANISM – RELIGION OR LIFE STANCE? A CRITICAL AND PROVOCATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS

Ähnlich wie HUMANISM – RELIGION OR LIFE STANCE? A CRITICAL AND PROVOCATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS (20)

Mehr von Dr Ian Ellis-Jones

Mehr von Dr Ian Ellis-Jones (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

HUMANISM – RELIGION OR LIFE STANCE? A CRITICAL AND PROVOCATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE OFFICIAL DECLARATIONS