Are you a Humanist?

[Writer@Large]

As my inaugural thread for the new forum, I thought I’d set the tone by asking a question about the most prominent secular philosophy, Humanism. In this sense, I’m talking about organized humanism, as put forth most prominently by the Council for Secular Humanism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/) and as described broadly in the Council’s Secular Humanist Declaration (http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/declaration.html) and Affirmations of Humanism (http://www.secularhumanism.org/intro/affirmations.html); and as put forth by the American humanist Association (http://www.americanhumanist.org/index.html) and their Humanist Manifesto III (http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm). [IMO there’s little difference between these groups and their definitions of humanism, as I’ve read them.]

Where do you stand on humanism, from the choices in the poll above, as a positive philosophy/code for nontheists?

My own stance is "No, though I hold with many/most/all of their ideals." I have a labels issue, and prefer not to stick myself with the label Humanist or Secular Humanist just yet. But I do confess that I hold to most of what these groups espouse as humanism. In fact, I'm not certain that any decent, forward-thinking nontheist could find strong objection to humanism, and indeed I don't even know if there's a solid alternative out there for the nontheist seeking a philosophy or creed.

Of course, I'm sure someone will disagree with me.

Anyway, what are your thoughts? If you're a humanist, do you follow its tenets consistently? If not, what issues do you have with accepting humanism as a philosophy? Is it just a secular way to replace religious morals? Or does it have a legitimate social basis?

--W@L

[Face]

As a matter of definitions, I follow the Golden Rule (ver. 2.4): Treat other people the way you want to be treated, provided no one gets hurt; and occasionally go out of your way to actually treat others BETTER than you treat yourself, just because.

By that basic rule, I could be mistaken for a Humanist, Confucian, Christian, and a whole bunch of other things, so I usually tell people to avoid the confusion and just call me by my name to make things easier. ;) Generally speaking, people tend to search for a label only when they are seeking solidarity or community based on the qualities OF that label. So since I like to get along with everyone, I don't identify myself by a group (even if we clearly possess the same philosophies), but rather by what I proclaim are my own thought-out traits, opinions and principles. Since as you know, thinking out things for yourself rather than just agreeing with someone else's manifesto is something to be proud of.

[King Rat]

Depends on how much coffee I've had, and how many humans I've been forced to interact with before said coffee takes effect.

[clark]

I answered yes, as it'd be hypocritical of me not to as I'm president of the Las Vegas humanist group. I do have some problem with humanism, as it is portrayed by some organizations. First, I never capitalize it as the AHA and IHEU does (nor do I capitalize "atheism" like American Atheists does). Capitalizing a word like that is just an excuse go give it a slightly different meaning than the common vernacular. Second, I have a lot of problem with the political positions a lot of humanists think go hand-in-hand with humanism. I have disagreed with many of the AHA's resolutions. That said, I strongly agree with the core humanist philosophy.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

[Mageth]

I voted "No, but I agree/adhere to many/most/all of their ideals." Reading the Humanist Manifesto III, there is not much if anything there I really disagree with; at most a few minor quibbles, more on wording than on principle. For example, one affirmation is titled:

Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.

I think fulfillment can be found elsewhere, but I don't disagree with anything in the explanatory paragraph. And another affirmation is titled:

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

That's a worthy goal, and one I find admirable, but in practice quite difficult because of human nature in all its manifestations.

I absolutely agree with the statement: "The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone."

I also cannot find much if anything to disagree with in the "Affirmations of Humanism".

That said, I'm not a member of any Humanist organization (perhaps I should be), and while I've done my small part in promoting various humanistic ideals here and elsewhere, I'm not exactly an activist. Therefore, I'm not sure I'd label myself a full-blown "Humanist".

[southernhybrid]

I am a member of the AHA and the Georgia Humanists. I think of the Humanist Manisfesto as an idealistic document rather than something that I must adhere to in all aspects of my life. I don't think of it as a mandate or as dogma. I like that the document changes over time, unlike prophet driven religions. One doesn't have to agree with the entire document to be a Humanist, imo.

I do think of Humanism as a substitute for religion mostly in regards to the social benefits of organizing with others who share similar values to my own. I don't feel like I need the Humanist group but I do desire and enjoy it.

I don't give much thought as to whether or not I follow the principles consistently so maybe that means I'm not a fundy Humanist. ;) My biggest critcism of the AHA is it seems to support traditional ultra liberal political views, many of which I personally feel are outmoded.

[southernhybrid]

I am a member of the AHA and the Georgia Humanists. I think of the Humanist Manisfesto as an idealistic document rather than something that I must adhere to in all aspects of my life. I don't think of it as a mandate or as dogma. I like that the document changes over time, unlike prophet driven religions. One doesn't have to agree with the entire document to be a Humanist, imo.

I do think of Humanism as a substitute for religion mostly in regards to the social benefits of organizing with others who share similar values to my own. I don't feel like I need the Humanist group but I do desire and enjoy it.

I don't give much thought as to whether or not I follow the principles consistently so maybe that means I'm not a fundy Humanist. ;) My biggest critcism of the AHA is it seems to support traditional ultra liberal political views, many of which I personally feel are outmoded.

[Writer@Large]

Second, I have a lot of problem with the political positions a lot of humanists think go hand-in-hand with humanism. I have disagreed with many of the AHA's resolutions. I'd love to know what some of these were. I agree that both humanist organizations seem very tied to political ideas (just pick up any issue of Free Inquiry). I'm not sure if I like that, or not. But I'd love to hear some specifics.

--W@L

[Writer@Large]

I think of the Humanist Manisfesto as an idealistic document rather than something that I must adhere to in all aspects of my life. I don't think of it as a mandate or as dogma. I like that the document changes over time, unlike prophet driven religions.Agreed, 100%. Its mutability is a positive (though I'm sure some see that very mutability as a negative). I'm very much a situational/contextual person in regards to morals, ethics, behaviors, etc.; I like a philosophy that can do the same.

I do think of Humanism as a substitute for religion mostly in regards to the social benefits of organizing with others who share similar values to my own. Agreed. And while that's an appealing idea, I've (a) never been very social, and (b) gotten my "fellowship" through groups related to other interests (mainly my gaming group, and of course the II).

--W@L

[clark]

I'd love to know what some of these were. I agree that both humanist organizations seem very tied to political ideas (just pick up any issue of Free Inquiry). I'm not sure if I like that, or not. But I'd love to hear some specifics.

Sure. The most recent example is the death penalty. The AHA has an "official" position against it. Many humanists and AHA members, particularly in our chapter, are pro-death penalty. Most importantly for me, I see no connection between humanism and one's position on capital punishment. As another example, I attended the AHA conference two years ago in Houston. Someone proposed an "animal rights" resolution. I spoke against it, as did several others including now-president Mel Lipman. The resolution failed, but not by too much. IMO, an organization like AHA shouldn't even consider a position on something so irrelevant to humanism as animal rights.

Free Inquiry tends to show various sides of a political issue, and the editors themselves rarely take political positions not directly related to humanism - hell, the editor's a pretty outspoken libertarian. The Humanist, on the other hand, is more one sided. As discussed in this thread (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=80774), the current issue basically argues that one can't be a humanist and a political conservative.

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

[Deadbeat]

I voted that I consider myself a Humanist, but like clark, I'm not overly enamoured with the capitalization...

Regardless, I view the Manifesto as an excellent introduction when explaining my views to other people. I certainly don't hold it as dogma or even a particularly good encapsulation of my views, but I find it sets things out in a nice way as to provide a good foundation for discussion.

[Viti]

I consider myself a humanist (no capital letter), according to a secondary definition

2. One who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans.

[Postcard73]

Ahhh... that new carpet smell...

I voted "No, though I hold with many/most/all of their ideals." I agree with all of the ideals of democratic humanism listed in the second link. It has been my experience, however, that my beliefs are difficult to categorize, so I am hesitant to apply a label to them.

[Writer@Large]

Ahhh... that new carpet smell...Yeah, and if you'd take your shoes off first, we'd appreciate it :D.

The AHA has an "official" position against it. Many humanists and AHA members, particularly in our chapter, are pro-death penalty. [...] As another example, I attended the AHA conference two years ago in Houston. Someone proposed an "animal rights" resolution. I spoke against it, as did several others including now-president Mel Lipman.In other words, the organization makes some assumptions about the political leanings of its membership. Can't say I'm surprised, as groups do it all the time. Not justifying it; just noting it. But I do agree with you in one detail: animal rights seem pretty irrelevant to humanism!

Capital punishment is a different matter. Having read Corliss Lamont's Philosophy of Secular Humanism (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0804459975/Internet Infidels), the "code book" that the AHA defines itself by (and sends out to all new members), I can see where taking a stance on such a human rights issue can be justified as an organizational move.

--W@L

[Plognark]

I am not a member of anything in particular other than AAA, but I definately consider myself to be a humanist. The general propositions of humanism fit so closely with my own views that I feel comfortable adopting that label.

[Arctic]

If you had asked me a month ago it would have been no, I've always been in the "no, but I generally agree with most of their principles." category. Of late I've pretty much converted so to speak, and now generally describe myself as a secular humanist rather than an atheist when someone enquires as to my religious leanings or belief.

[ohwilleke]

Card carrying AHA member.

[BSM]

I’ve sworn of any regular posting to the forums (largely due to my schedule). Since the BB upgrade, naturally, I found myself checking out the lay of the land as it were. Thus, when I saw the new forum titled "Positive Atheism & Secular Activism" I got very excited. In fact, since my hiatus I’ve noticed a very positive trend on these boards and I think that the name of this forum sort of backs up my observations. Moreover, I’ve also noticed evidence of this positive trend in the moderator/board member guidelines. Simply put, many of the so-called angry atheists (present company embarrassingly included in this description) have done much to harm the secular’s image—both in the context of these boards, as well as beyond. In spite of these errors in judgment by the minority, it’s really nice to see an effort to promot a positive image by so many of the true regulars of this board. Thus I can’t help but salute you all!

Also, I can’t help but respond to W@L’s question because, since my hiatus, I’ve been giving secular humanism a hard look. Thus, my two cents for what it’s worth:

I still have trouble with labels because so many of the labels (e.g., atheist, agnostic, humanist, skeptic) seem to come with lots of baggage. Much of the negative associations seem to stem from the demonizing of our position by the Christian right (my opinion). Worse still, certain historical figures have done much to harm our image (e.g., Madelyn O’Hare).

Despite my problem with the labels I’ve decided that we really need to prove these negative interpretations wrong. Believe me, it still bothers me when, after finding out that I am an atheist (or any of the other labels), some people will look at me like I’m a terrorist! So, rather than try and re-invent a new label (or hide altogether), it’s my opinion that we need to be as forthright as we are comfortable with, and we definitely need to take back the old labels and prove the religious right wrong!

Whatever the case, I consider myself a secular humanist and agree with the humanist philosophy. In fact, I just recently finished reading “Toward a New Enlightenment: The Philosophy of Paul Kurtz� by Paul Kurtz. For those that are interested in finding out more about secular humanism, I would highly recommend this book as a starting point. In fact, after seeing the name of this new forum and after noticing the positive trend on these boards, I was reminded of something Kurtz says in his book. In fact, while reading this particular comment, I got so excited that I scribbled the word “Amen!� in the margin! (may Kurtz forgive me) What follows is an excerpt of that comment:

“Modern skeptics are willing to admit that they are atheists, but with qualifications as I have suggested: Atheism cannot be taken as dogmatic, but is a result of a process of critical inquiry. It depends on the best philosophic analysis, scientific and Biblical scholarship. It should not express an attitude of hatred or rancor toward believers, but should be open and fair-minded. Atheists and humanists should always be prepared to examine any new arguments adduced by theists…� (p.191)

Here’s hoping you’re successful in promoting this spirit!

Sincerely,
-BSM

[Mageth]

Hiya, B. Steven Matthies, and thanks for the positive feedback on the new forum!

BTW, you might want to recommend and describe that book by Paul Kurts on this thread asking for recommended reading materials on positive atheism:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=81203

[Bill]

Where do you stand on humanism, from the choices in the poll above, as a positive philosophy/code for nontheists?

My own stance is "No, though I hold with many/most/all of their ideals." I have a labels issue, and prefer not to stick myself with the label Humanist or Secular Humanist just yet. But I do confess that I hold to most of what these groups espouse as humanism. In fact, I'm not certain that any decent, forward-thinking nontheist could find strong objection to humanism, and indeed I don't even know if there's a solid alternative out there for the nontheist seeking a philosophy or creed. In my view, "humanism" (the AHA flavor) is extremely broad, and embraces some groups that I see as being outside of atheism. Meanwhile, the CSH/Kurtz flavor of "humanism" is largely based upon bigotry: Kurtz has a lengthy video taking the AHA to task for its origins within the UU and Quaker church communities. This is notwithstanding the assertions of everybody I know in the leadership of the AHA to the effect that they are all atheists.

But to focus on this "local squabble" (local within the United States, anyway) is to ignore the fact that "humanism" is a worldwide movement that exists largely under the umbrella of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (http://www.iheu.org/), whose "minimum statement (http://www.iheu.org/minimum_statement.html)" of what "humanism" amounts to is this: 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. Given that "minimum statement (http://www.iheu.org/minimum_statement.html)" of what "humanism" amounts to, I cannot do anything but agree that I am a humanist, and that so too are most "Positive Atheists." And I thus also agree with you that: "I'm not certain that any decent, forward-thinking nontheist could find strong objection to humanism, and indeed I don't even know if there's a solid alternative out there for the nontheist seeking a philosophy or creed." If there is such an alternative, it would almost certainly fit underneath the broad umbrella of the "minimum statement (http://www.iheu.org/minimum_statement.html)" as set forth above.

== Bill

[Demosthenes]

I've been thinking about this and what it means to call myself a humanist or not. While I share most of the same ideas with a self-labelled Humanist, I'm a bit hestitant to call myself a Humanist because to put it simply, I'm not a big fan of labels. I've had to struggle with different kinds of strongly emotive labels in my life so I tend to find myself shying away from such strong labels such as Humanist. I call myself an atheist and a gay man because simply those words accurately describe what I am. Why do I willingly use those labels and not Humanist? Perhaps it's because "atheist" and "gay" are simply descriptory words while Humanist label invoke a entire system of ideals and philosophy.

I spent the last few hours thinking about it and came to the conclusion that I simply shared so much in common with Humanists including their central simple idea of the ascendancy of a human being above irrationality that it was justified for me to call myself a humanist too. So I voted Yes.

[Celsus]

I don't need no steenkin manifestos.

Celsus the Humanist

[Writer@Large]

While I share most of the same ideas with a self-labelled Humanist, I'm a bit hestitant to call myself a Humanist because to put it simply, I'm not a big fan of labels. I've had to struggle with different kinds of strongly emotive labels in my life so I tend to find myself shying away from such strong labels such as Humanist.I have the same problem. Don't like many labels *at* *all*. I've never had to deal with "gay," [my wife assures me that I'm not :)] but all the same ... labels bad.

--W@L

[Malagasy Rain]

I would describe myself as a Humanist but I still harbor a little contempt for human beings (mostly for being so largely gullible and stupid). I have made some steps to help folk out but the most of the people here take it for granted. :sigh:

I guess random acts of kindness require patience.

[Kwerkee]

Hello All,
This is my very 1st time responding to a post. (Although I do browse IIDB's just about daily..) You guys are soooo witty! Anyways,
to answer W@L's question, I'd say after reading Corliss Lamont's book, "The
Philosophy of Humanism" that humanism for the most part reflects the values that I live by anyway. IMO humanism is kind of a natural progression beyond atheism.

[clark]

I have the same problem. Don't like many labels *at* *all*. I've never had to deal with "gay," [my wife assures me that I'm not :)] but all the same ... labels bad.

--W@L

I think labels are good, necessary for communication even, if they describe your beliefs. Labels become bad, IMO, when they begin to proscribe your beliefs - "I'm a humanist, so I automatically have to be against x, y and z".

THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

[Ftoomsch]

Of course I am a humanist, and if I thought I had to follow everything in someone's manifesto to be a humanist, well then I wouldn't be much of one at all, as I understand humanism. Humanism, in stark contrast to religions, stresses reason tempered by compassion. Reason involves questioning and questioning results in varied or even opposing intelligent opinions. It is about the spirit of the thing, not all the details. In that sense I believe most of the people here are humanists, but many object to being labeled. I find it comforting to be able to summarize my general value system in a word; I certainly don't find it restricting. I also don't feel anyone is pressuring me to take a particular political view just because they write an article stating how they see their political beliefs as inextricable from their humanism. These writers know perfectly well based on experience with the forum in which they write that other humanists will disagree, and still be humanists. To me, the questioning is part of being humanist and that is why it is acceptable to me where religion, which prohibits questioning and demands belief, is not. One more thing. "Reason tempered by compassion." Compassion is possible because human beings have empathy. I feel that without empathy, full moral development is not possible. If one has empathy one cares about the suffering of others. I find it too unreasonable to buy the idea that people can have sincere empathy for beings who share 100% of their DNA but none whatsoever for creatures who share only 99 or 98% of it. In fact I do not trust such people; I tend to believe they must be faking it toward their own kind. So I think that as an empathetic person I cannot disregard the suffering of animals. There is still a lot of room for debate by intelligent people over what is necessary suffering, but to not care at all... I find this ... inadequate, to say the least. So IMHO, animal rights can be significant to humanism for consistency's sake, if nothing else.

[walt6]

I answered yes, as it'd be hypocritical of me not to as I'm president of the Las Vegas humanist group.
THOUGHTfully Yours,
Clark

In my youthful days, I thought I was the only athiest in the world. Then I was introduced to the AHA. What a god send. Like Clark, I believe in their core values, but disagree with some of their ideas. Also, I soon learned that the AHA was made up mostly of old people, and they seemed quite happy to keep their numbers small, and shied away from recruiting. I thought this was a big shame, as the non-theist world needs organizations like this to form a sense of community.

[Eudaimonist]

Where do you stand on humanism, from the choices in the poll above, as a positive philosophy/code for nontheists?

I'm somewhat in agreement and somewhat in disagreement. Secular Humanist morality often comes across as too close to christian altruism for my taste, as if it is merely Christianity minus God. Also, they mix so much leftist politics with humanism, which I don't like since I'm a libertarian capitalist.

This is not to say I don't appreciate the existence of secular humanists. At least they respect reason, science, and moral excellence.

In fact, I'm not certain that any decent, forward-thinking nontheist could find strong objection to humanism, and indeed I don't even know if there's a solid alternative out there for the nontheist seeking a philosophy or creed.

Objectivism is a solid alternative, at the very least. At least as solid as humanism.

[DMB]

I am a European Humanist, so I probably differ in detail from many American Humanists. Mind you, I am a life member of CSH, as well as BHA and a few other Humanist organisations.

I decided that "Humanist" was the best label for me nearly 50 years ago, although I subsequently turned my back on organised Humanism for many years. I thought of it as a sort of church for the secular, and couldn't see any need for it. As I got older, however, I became more of an activist in a variety of causes. I began to realise that what explained my stance on the issues involved was my Humanism and that it made sense for Humanists to work together for them and against the often malign and powerful influence of the churches and other religious groups. So for me, Humanism is connected to activism.

It also acts as a framework for consideration of ethical problems. Although individual Humanists may be influential, we don't have a Humanist pope to lay down the law for us. I resent it when any Humanist organisation appears to be pounding the table and suggesting that Humanists should be unanimous in taking up a particular political position. IMO it is unrealistic to expect us to agree on everything. But we should be able to agree on the rules of discussion and a common approach to enquiry and argument.

With regard to the treatment of animals, I would say that this is primarily an ethical question, and so is very suitable for discussion by Humanists, even though we aren't likely to end up with total agreement. I believe that we can learn a lot from one another in such discussions and a few of us may even change our minds after hearing the arguments of the other side.

Some Humanist organisations also perform a very useful function (and not just for their own members) in providing officiants for non-religious ceremonies such as weddings and funerals.

[walt6]

I think the important point about being a Humanist is that we realize that we often have to make decisions that are to some peoples liking, and to others disliking. We realize our decisions are not perfect, but at least made with the position of trying to make a better world. I have seen a word for this called "satsficing" which means we make the best decision we can with the facts we have on hand.

[DMB]

Bill drew attention to the "minumum statement" of the IHEU:
But to focus on this "local squabble" (local within the United States, anyway) is to ignore the fact that "humanism" is a worldwide movement that exists largely under the umbrella of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (http://www.iheu.org/), whose "minimum statement (http://www.iheu.org/minimum_statement.html)" of what "humanism" amounts to is this: Given that "minimum statement (http://www.iheu.org/minimum_statement.html)" of what "humanism" amounts to, I cannot do anything but agree that I am a humanist, and that so too are most "Positive Atheists." And I thus also agree with you that: "I'm not certain that any decent, forward-thinking nontheist could find strong objection to humanism, and indeed I don't even know if there's a solid alternative out there for the nontheist seeking a philosophy or creed." If there is such an alternative, it would almost certainly fit underneath the broad umbrella of the "minimum statement (http://www.iheu.org/minimum_statement.html)" as set forth above.

== Bill
I would like people to look also at another IHEU document, the
Amsterdam Declaration (http://www.iheu.org/adamdecl.htm), which was thrashed out by discussion among representatives of many Humanist organisations at the World Congress in 2002. This is a much fuller statement.

[Writer@Large]

Bill drew attention to the "minumum statement" of the IHEU:
He drew my attention to it, too, if for no other reason that I had no idea that the IHEU existed! I've been meaning to read into it, and get back to this thread, but I've had a busy, busy week ...

Anyway, thatks, Bill, for pointing me towards the IHEU.

--W@L

[BSM]

After reviewing some of the links that relate to humanism, I'll have to qualify my earlier statement and just call myself a humanist for now and leave it at that. I do get excited about the notion of critical inquiry into all areas but I should have realized that Secualr Humanism is not the only group who promotes this notion. Moreover, I have not given the AHA a fair examination and more to the point: I don't want to get caught up in local squabbles or political agendas.