A Refreshing Look at Humanism
This past weekend, the Boston Globe Magazine featured an excellent article on the rise of non-theists in America. What’s even more refreshing is that the article took the time to point out the distinction between atheism and humanism.
Particularly encouraging was the article’s focus on the increasing attraction of young nontheists to organized secularism. For example, the article points out the following statistics:
The number of campus groups affiliated with the Secular Student Alliance, for example, has increased by more than 50 percent in the past two years, to more than 80 groups, says August E. Brunsman IV, executive director of the Albany, New York-based alliance.
I can certainly attest to this trend just by looking around the AHA’s offices. More than half of our staff is under the age of 30. It is certainly interesting to wonder why this might be the case. Personally, I think it has to do with the fact that this generation—the children of the Baby Boomers —have grown up seeing the perverse side of religion. This includes most notoriously the attacks on 9/11 and the rise of the Christian Right here in the U.S.
But, as the article also goes on to state, the rising tide of nontheists (or “nonbelievers” as the article uses, a term that I, personally, dislike) has drawn criticism for what others see as a bombastic and anti-religious nature. Personally, I don’t see a problem in pointing out the failures of religion, but if others feel threatened by nontheists/Humanists, then perhaps they need to look deeper into their own belief system and question it themselves.
What do you think? Should Humanists tread carefully when pointing out the flaws of the religiously-inclined or should we go full force ahead?
Subscribe to Feed
If religious adherents insist on bringing their belief claims into the public arena, then those claims should be subject to the same scrutiny to which all other claims are held. Absent such scrutiny, those claims should not be seriously considered as bases for social, political, economic or other public decisions. No set of claims, religious, scientific, etc., deserve special status or exemption from scrutiny on the basis of its origins.
Religious adherents who contend that such expectations are unfair are not interested in dialog, negotiation or compromise; they are interested, instead, in monopolizing and dominating any public “conversation” on their lop-sided terms. I really don’t mean to offend anyone, but such a stance is unacceptable in a democratic society.
Personally I do not make my life revolve around rejecting what others believe. What matters to me is asserting loud and clear what I consider right.
Therefore, I will not accept negative labels such as “non-theist” or “atheist” or “non-believer.”
Identifying yourself by your rejection of what others consider central is a fast route to marginalizing yourself, because it concedes to them that their claim is a standard against which you measure yourself.
I consider myself a free individual human being. Defense of freedom is a central concern, with freedom of the mind in first place.
Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of movement in society are all valuable. But freedom to think is the starting point.
Therefore I embrace the term “freethinker.” The OED recognizes the word albeit hyphenated. But my spellchecker doesn’t know about “freethinker.”
One freedom, freedom from faith, deserves more attention from Humanists. Most of society accepts without question the assumption that faith is a good thing. It is not.
No need to tread carefully. We should push on with forthrightness and with energy. Relentlessly, even.
We should be relentless because we are a minority, and could get drowned out by the energy and cacophony of religionists who want to seize the law and compel us all to obey. Also because at this moment in history, the ugliness and dangers of fundamentalism are vividly apparent for all to see. Finally, right now eloquent authors (e.g. Dawkins, Hitchins, etc) are taking on the whole mindset of faith and gaining a wider audience by way of their books and interviews. Some proportion of that wider audience will be attracted to the message of humanism, and treading too carefully would risk leaving them with partial or distorted views of it. We’d miss a moment of opportunity. So I say let’s step out as boldly as possible, with pride and energy and forthrightness, and tell anyone who will listen what humanism is all about.
Your points about the increased numbers of secular student groups, as well as the youthfulness of AHA’s staff, are highly encouraging as well as instructive. It’s the youth who are our best target audience, so that humanistic values can perpetuate into the future and compete effectively with the message “just believe”. We know the horrors of that line of thinking, after all these centuries.
However, I would never advocate a bullying or belittling approach when talking to the faithful. For one thing, it cannot work. It would give us the appearance of those who sneer and condescend. That’s self-defeating; no one listens well to someone who tells them they’re full of it. All people are groping for understanding, whether they’re science- or faith-minded.
Also, the aspects of humanism that go beyond its stereotype as “unreligion” should get more attention. If humanism really has something to offer, it has to be more than just a confrontation with faith all the time. Freedom, connectedness among people, learning about the wondrous world, shared efforts toward improving human life, those should get at least equal time.
Ah yes, indeed.
“Freedom, connectedness among people, learning about the wondrous world, shared efforts toward improving human life, …”.
We should make it clear, loudly and often, that Humanism stands for freedom. Let Humanism speak for freedom more loudly than anyone else does.
Freedom, especially freedom of the individual and his or her mind, are central to our mission.
“The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central Humanist value. … We reject all religious, ideological or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality.” [HM2 #5].
The International Humanist and Ethical Union has a fine anthem, which they sing at IHEU congresses. “My mind is free!”. I would like to hear it in the original German. I have heard it in English. It goes like this:
Die Gedanken sind frei!
My thoughts freely flower.
Die Gedanken sind frei!
My thoughts give me power.
No scholar can map them.
No hunter can trap them.
No one can deny
Die Gedanken sind frei!
I think as I please,
and this gives me pleasure.
My conscience decrees,
this right I must treasure.
My thoughts will not cater
to duke or dictator.
No one can deny:
Die Gedanken sind frei!
And should tyrants take me
and throw me in prison
My thoughts will burst free
like blossoms in season.
Foundations will crumble
and structures will tumble
And freely I’ll cry
Die Gedanken sind frei!
Part of the reason that you’re seeing more young people is due to the rise of the internet and the fact that young people get a good amount of information from the internet. While I may be biased, atheist and humanist arguments tend to be more powerful and more correct than religious ones. The more we get out there and shoot down the nonsense and demonstrate that we’re not the lunatic fringe, the more we’ll see young people show up in the future.