The History & Philosophy of Humanism & Its Role in Unitarian Universalism

[greyl]

by Steven D. Schafersman
AN ADDRESS TO THE UNITARIAN UNIVERSALIST CONGREGATION OF BUTLER COUNTRY
Oxford, Ohio
September 24, 1995
(Updated in December, 1998)

<snip
Humanism is therefore concerned largely with two issues: first, a rejection of all forms of theism, supernaturalism, and their associated miracles, superstitions, dogmas, authoritarian beliefs, and wishful and hopeful thinking, and second, the resulting necessity of creating or finding values, meanings, and ethical beliefs in a completely naturalistic universe by the sole use of human reason and individual inquiry. In today's society, these are both tough rows to hoe, but let's discuss them both and then turn to Humanism's relation to Unitarian-Universalism.

(Humanism is a moral philosophy. Humanists believe that humans can live moral, happy, and productive lives on the basis of human reason and experience, without relying on the supernatural. In this article I want to explore three areas of humanist thought to explain humanism to those unfamiliar with this philosophy of life. After reading this, you can judge humanism for yourself. The humanist worldview is not difficult to understand, but in recent years the religious right has defamed humanism in the popular media, making it their whipping boy on every issue for which they have an opinion. In their quest to make all secular and public institutions conform to their God-centered beliefs, humanism has been frequently disparaged. Let me say at the outset that humanism is indeed opposed to the popular religions based on Biblical concepts of supernaturalism, mysticism, authoritarianism, coercion of belief, and inequality among different human sexes, classes, and nationalities. If you, on the basis of this knowledge, feel that your religious faith might be jeopardized, read no further.

Humanists base their lives and beliefs on three intellectual areas: naturalistic ethics, rational skepticism, and science. Humanists believe in naturalistic ethics, that humans are the ultimate source of morals, values, purposes, and meanings. Moral values find their source in human experience; ethics stem from human need and interest; the purpose and meaning of life are what we make it to be. Human ethics and values are an outgrowth of the cooperation necessary for the survival of a social species such as Homo sapiens. Thus, ethics and values can and should be chosen by the application of human reason; they are not handed down to us by a deity from atop a mountain. The dogmatic claim that only supernatural forces can civilize humanity and that human thought cannot be the source of morality is a superstition. To the contrary, we are responsible for our ethics as much as for our actions. It is improper to equate values and morals with religion. Estimable values and a personal code of ethics can exist independently of any religious doctrine or creed, and have done so for centuries. Many great historical figures lived moral, happy, and productive lives without religion, and their example is being emulated by innumerable men and women today. Humanists recognize this, and state only that since we must choose our values and morals, we base our choices on human reason and experience, not on supernatural authoritarian doctrines. Infinite punishments and rewards for finite acts do not need to be invoked to secure proper moral behavior; ethics can be justified by their ability to promote a happy conscience, a productive and successful life, and the harmonious working of society. Discussion of reasoned moral and value choice occupy the major part of the humanist literature, hardly the activity of a group that is trying to "brainwash youth into accepting non-moral values."

The second realm of humanist thought is rational skepticism, which is withholding belief where there is no evidence or where there is contrary evidence. Humanists do not believe whatever feels good, but only what we are allowed to believe by the available evidence. This realist viewpoint may not be as congenial as wishful thinking, but it is certainly more productive of reliable knowledge. )
continued...

The home page of the link is well worth a visit.
www.freeinquiry.com

[CGrantt57]

1. Once again, we stray from the source....

Humanists are about as far from the origins of humanism, as Christians are from Christ's real teachings.

Humanism was born in the era of the "Natural Order." It was theorized, by the Powered Elite, that God had decreed a place for every human being on the chain of life. Further, God had decreed that said place was fixed and immovable.

In other words, once a peasant, always a peasant.

The Humanists rejected that claim, averring rather that God intended man to use his innate gifts and rise above his station. That sentiment is even echoed in our Declaration of Independence.

"...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Humanism doesn't reject a deity, necessarily. It generally leaves that decision up to the individual. To claim that to be a humanist one has to reject the Divine Spark is just, well, dogmatic claptrap.

[bloom]

2. Some other snips

(related to other conversations...)


"....I taught and advocated humanism to a congregation that was largely humanist and, while I was president, we sought and hired a minister who was an explicit religious humanist. Since that time, however, I have concentrated on educational issues and have not been as active in promoting Humanism; also, while I have been an explicit naturalistic humanist since 1978 (and an atheist since about 1964), I have become increasingly alienated from religious humanism and have identified myself as a secular humanist since 1990.

Humanism and Religion

Now let's discuss the relation of humanism to religion, and this will take us to Unitarian-Universalism. Remember, previously we have talked about theism and supernaturalism; these are not synonymous with religion. Is Humanism a religion? This question, believe it or not, has generated an immense literature, which we will ignore. Is Humanism a religion? The answer is simple: yes and no! It depends on how you define religion! If religion is defined normatively as worship of a supreme being, or involving any type of theism or supernaturalism, then Humanism could not be considered a religion. If, on the other hand, religion is defined functionally as one's ultimate concern, the system of principles of how you will live your life, the source of your values and ethics, your world view, or how you find meaning in life, then Humanism could be considered a religion. But so could capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, republicanism, environmentalism, science, golf, football, basketball...well, you get the idea. Creedless, liberal, atheistic, and humanistic religions exist in the world, no doubt about it, but I personally don't consider Humanism to be a religion, and neither do most Humanists.

Perhaps Humanism could be considered a substitute for some aspects of religion. In my view, religions fill a variety of human needs. People join religions to find a sense of community, to associate with others with similar needs and backgrounds, to find a place to help their children get an education in ethics, and--most importantly--try to find answers to their questions about morals, values, and meanings; to develop, in other words, a philosophy of life. Every human has these questions, including atheists and humanists. We find that we exist, so ask "How should we then live?" These are all good and vital functions of any institution, and Humanists encourage their fulfillment. All people have a philosophy, whether they acknowledge it or not. One's philosophy should be explicit. But what comes with a personal philosophy of values and morals? Too often a very heavy baggage of supernaturalism and theism whose inclusion is, frankly, incomprehensible to me and other Humanists, as well as being dysfunctional to the believer.

Theistic religions provide a ready-made theistic philosophy--or theology--to answer these questions, one that is burdened with authoritarianism and supernaturalism. Liberal religions, on the other hand, such as the UUA, allow members to develop their own moral philosophies and provide the opportunity to do so with like-minded individuals. For the guests present, the word "liberal" in "liberal religion" is used in the sense of "liberty;" UUs are at liberty to think for themselves about all aspects of ethical inquiry. The UU motto is "Deed, not Creed." Humanists agree completely with this point of view. UU congregations have members with a diversity of theologies and philosophies, including theism, deism, pantheism, paganism, atheism, and humanism. All are engaged in a common search for meaning and values without the requirement to believe or accept any specific doctrine or creed. For this reason, the philosophy of Humanism has long found a home within Unitarian-Universalism."

[greyl]

3. Furthermore...

The Necessity of Humanism

Humanism, in my and others' opinion, is absolutely vital in today's world. My personal view is that Humanism must flourish or we will lose our Earth and our civilization. I can mention only two reasons this morning. First, belief in theism and supernaturalism is bad because if you believe in gods, immortality, a soul, and miracles, then you can believe in anything. Millions of individuals believe in the paranormal, ghosts, communication with the dead, astrology, alien abductions, past lives, and so on--all things for which there is not a shred of empirical evidence. Yuri Geller, the charlatan psychic, said it best: "The paranormal exists because God exists." His logic is perfect. Critics of Humanism falsely claim that we believe "if it feels good, do it;" but the truth is that theistic religionists believe "if it feels good, believe it." Any affront to human reason is permitted if you have already suspended the rules of evidence and reason and chosen to believe in virgin births, raising the dead, life after death, mind-body duality, and so forth. The belief in transcendence is dangerous because it weakens one's skepticism and capacity for rational thought. Perhaps you say that these religious and paranormal beliefs, while irrational, illogical, and unreasonable, are not necessarily harmful. But then you will also fall prey to pseudoscientific beliefs: creationism, parapsychology, and the current, most popular pseudoscience--Republican environmentalism, which maintains that there is no ozone depletion, no global warming, no biodiversity loss, no dangerous pollution, and no topsoil erosion. That popular purveyor of nonsense, Rush Limbaugh, is a major victim of this lack of critical thinking, and he victimizes others--his dittoheads--as he peddles this new Republican pseudoscience.
http://www.freeinquiry.com/humanism-uu.html

If we keep swapping out-of-context snips like this, we could reproduce the entire piece by the middle of next week. :)

[bloom]

4. What do you think about this Rationalist critique of Humanism....?

"My principle objection to humanism is the implication by its promoters that freethinkers do - or should - "believe in Man". I dissent from this on two grounds. It is reminiscent of "I believe in God", and I contend that the freethought or rationalist movement should not be promoting an ersatz religious mode of thinking but offering a radical departure from it by saying that the whole concept of "believing in" (in the dogmatic religious sense) is erroneous. Belief, for a freethinker, should be tentative, and open to amendment and reasoned argument. Atheists rightly regard "Jesus saves" as a flatulent slogan; "Man is the measure of all things" is immodest, unscientific bunkum, and it is high time someone said so....

I want the world to be a place fit for my grandchildren, where they will have space to move, freedom and time to think, wilderness to admire; a world where people can live in harmony with plants and animals. I do not want them to be forced to elbow their way through an overcrowded, stressed, war-riddled civilisation that has degraded the face of the earth into either ugly cities or vast, intensively farmed monocultures. It would only be a matter of time before such a society destroyed itself.

If we want the first sort of civilisation in the future, rather than the second, we may have to forgo a few fancy gadgets or devise more sensible alternatives; we will need to control our human numbers, put world poverty and land misuse before national privilege, nuclear war-toys and space research (without blunting our scientific curiosity), and change the emphasis of our throw-away, consumer society. Above all, we will need a more sensitive, perceptive view of the role of the human race on this planet, one which will understand the right of other animals to breathe free in the air we at present pollute, one which will appreciate the value - practical and aesthetic - of plants, trees and wilderness."

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/humanist.htm

[greyl]

5. It's intrinsically flawed, but valuable.

It appears that Nigel Sinnott and Steven D. Schafersman are saying many of the same things, and that Nigel's initial opposition is to but one narrow label of humanism that Steven recognizes but places near a bottom edge of his capital "H" Humanist ideology.

Sinnot uses a shortened version of Protagoras's "Man is the measure of all things; of those which are, that they are; of those which are not, that they are not" to leverage the bulk of his anti-humanist essay, creating a strawman based on a misinterpretation of Protagoras. Protagoras's statement is psychological, epistemological, and anti-theological more than it is bluntly arrogant. I don't suspect we'll ever see hordes of "Man is the Measure" t-shirt-wearing humanists storming over meadows, gleefully stomping on baby bunnies, asserting their domain over all creatures great and small. Humanism neither justifies nor implies unsustainable "anti-community of life" behavior. In fact, rational humanist systems thinkers (like Daniel Quinn, Peter Senge, and Helen Caldicott) are leading the charge against the cultural arrogance which says "Our God Blessed Culture Is The Divine Measure of All Things; It Is The One Right Way to Live.

Sinnot's apparent blindness to the diversity of humanity and inability to recognize that his culture does not equal humanity leads to his total asshole statement: "Unlike humanists I am not very proud of my membership of the human race."

In summary, fuck Nigel Sinnot.