How would you define humanism?

[Alex]

From the HUUmanists mailing list:
http://lists.uua.org/mailman/listinfo/huumanists-mem
[e-mail]


I would say that humanism is the religion you get when your theology is atheism.

What I mean by that is this: a religion's job is to help its adherents answer questions about ethical behavior, the meaning of existence, the value of life, and so forth.  Humanism asserts that this, observable world is all that there is, and that scientific methods are our best tools for exploring and coming to understand it.  From there, humanism does the work of other religions, but from this non-theistic root.

I'm trying to address what I see as an elephant in the room, which is: "To what extent is humanism just a rebranding of the politically unpalatable term 'atheism'?"

Eric Breck
April 22, 2011


Eric,

I like what you wrote: "I would say that humanism is the religion you get when your theology is atheism."

The Humanist Manifesto of 1933 used the words "religious" and "religion" 24 times as it proclaims that the immediate task for their generation is the establishment of a Humanist religion.

Your commentary is in harmony with that goal.

Your use of "atheism" is probably more acceptable to the majority of non-theists, however, people with roots in the Unitarian denomination and who participate in the Humanist traditions see Humanism as a religion.  The HUUmanist publish a journal with the title of "Religious Humanism".

The elephant is the fear of calling Humanism a religion.  What is lost in all of the atheistic clamor is the emphasis on personal growth and development, on the development of a moral sense and personal character.  What we get instead is the evangelical trashing of religion in general when the object really should be theistic religion.  The anthropologist, Clifford Geertz, defines religion as (1) a world view or philosophy, (2) an ethos or value system, and (3) the commitment to live in accordance with the first two.  You can find this definition hidden in the second paragraph of the preamble of HM I.

People are so conditioned to think god when they hear words like "religion" and "spiritual" that they cannot appreciate what is meant by them.  Your second paragraph is a succinct and cogent call to think from our "non-theistic root(s)".

I like to describe Humanism as a Naturalistic philosophy, a scientific orientation, and an ethical orientation seeking the full expression of our human potential for ourselves and for society.

Humanism is the religion that does that.

Jack Sechrest
April 23, 2011


To: Jack Sechrest and Eric Breck:

I couldn't agree with you more, and would just add that we need to get away from labels and focus on contents and objectives.

As an example, I would refer to the essay, New Words For Life, by the theologian Thandeka in the book A Language Of Reverence published by Meadville Lombard Theological School in 2004. She uses the term "Affect Theology", and proceeds to draw on the brilliant scientific work by Antonio Damasio and Jaak Panskepp in developing the concept that Affect Theology is defined as properties emanating from empathy and intercommunication between human beings. There is not a scintilla of mention of the supernatural, and essentially it is an expression of humanistic naturalism. The foundation stone in Biology is the term, "Emergent Property". Roger Sperry used it frequently. It is used to explain functions that arise in complex systems out of the interaction of cells within the system that could not be ascribed to an individual cell's property alone. There's no mysticism involved, but merely complexity, capable of study and proof and disproof over time.

Dick Bozian
First Church Cincinnati
April 23, 2011



Alex's comment:  Well-said!  Religious Humanism (and/or Religious Naturalism) is perhaps the best religion for the present age of science.  A diversion.  It might be good for UUism to position herself as a Church of Religious Humanism.  Firstly, a church needs a theological center.  Rather than understanding herself as a multi-faith church which lacks a center, Religious Humanism can act as a viable unifying theology for UUism.  Secondly, Religious Humanism, as a religion, needs a church, a place to gather, share and support, celebrate, sing and dance, teach, empower, and act.  The open-minded liberal UU church is an ideal home for Religious Humanism.  Thirdly, as a matter of fact, adherents of various world religions have their own place to go.  Those who are attracted to a UU church more or less share a common humanistic bend within their own religions.  In other words, it is Humanism, not multi-faith, which is actually bringing people to UUism.  UUism branded as a Church of Religious Humanism is beneficial to both UUism and Humanism.

[Alex]

A response to Alex's comment:

"it is Humanism, not multi-faith, which is actually bringing people to UUism"

In a way, that's two ways of saying the same thing. Humanism is at the core of all faiths.  It's just that different flavors of supernatural nonsense were heaped on top.  When people come to UU, it's usually when those layers have been scraped off.

from [e-mail] at [e-mail]



Alex's comment:      譯：人文主義是所有宗教信仰的內核。不同的宗教，只是將不同口味的超自然廢話堆在其上。當人們來到 UU，他們通常是已經將那些外層刮掉而已。