Humanism FAQ
Raven
Humanism: FAQ
Q. Is Humanism the same thing as atheism?
A. No. Humanists want to have the best possible foundation for their beliefs
and values, and so they demand good evidence for all of their convictions,
religious or otherwise. Since many Humanists don't think the evidence
for the existence of a God is very good, they are atheists or agnostics
(people who haven't committed to a definite belief) or pantheists (people who
think the universe itself is, in effect, God). But just as a Christian isn't
just someone who believes in God, a Humanist isn't just someone who doesn't
believe in God (or who is a pantheist, or who thinks the jury is still out).
Humanism has a many-centuries-old tradition of values that pre-date
Christianity by some five hundred years. (Indeed, much of what people have
come to think of as "family values" is actually Humanist in origin.) If you
sincerely believed that the best available evidence provided a convincing case
for the existence of God, and you endorsed Humanistic values, you would then
be a theistic (or religious) Humanist.
Q. Do Humanists believe in "the survival of the fittest" as a code of conduct?
A. No. Far from it. The phrase "survival of the fittest" is derived from the
theory of evolution originally proposed by Charles Darwin. Humanists do believe
that human beings, like every other living thing, evolved from simpler
organisms; but the evolutionary process doesn't provide an ethical standard.
Humanists share with most of the religions of the world a belief in the Golden
Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Notice that this
rule doesn't have anything to do with the existence or non-existence of
supernatural beings. (A statement of Humanist morality can be found in the
work of the philosopher Immanuel Kant.) On the other hand, it's revealing to
note that the American business community explicitly endorsed "the survival of
the fittest" as a code of conduct late in the nineteenth century as a
justification for its predatory, exploitive practices, believing itself to be
comprised of "the fittest." Even today, grossly unethical practices are
shrugged off by many businessmen as "nothing personal" and just a matter of
"doing business," which amounts to an implicit endorsement of the survival of
the fittest as a code of conduct in the sphere of economics -- which touches
upon every aspect of life. And many wealthy individuals continue to believe
that they represent the flower of humanity, and that they are therefore far
more deserving of a high quality of life than anyone else.
Q. Who are some famous Humanists?
A. Socrates, Confucius, Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, and many Nobel-prize
winners.
Q. What do you have to believe in order to be a Humanist?
A. Humanism doesn't have a "bible" which codifies all of the beliefs that
Humanists must have in order to be Humanists. However, the writings of many
eminent figures over thousands of years comprise a kind of Humanist canon,
which spells out a complex tapestry of evolving values. Important early
figures in Humanism were Socrates, Aristotle and Confucius, all of whose work
remains seminal. Among the most important modern Humanist philosophers have
been Brand Blanshard, a professor of philosophy at Yale university, and Thomas
Hurka, a professor of philosophy at the University of Calgary in Canada, whose
work provides an exciting new foundation for ethics and values. In general,
Humanists place a great deal of emphasis on living a full life, with a rich
variety of experiences and accomplishments, and in contributing to the quality
of life of others as well. If you try to live each day of your life in such a
way as to try to make the world a little bit better place, you are living
humanistically.
Q. How many Humanists are there? Where are they?
A. Because the majority of Humanists are reared in cultures that are religious
(in the authoritarian, non-Humanistic sense), and because organized religions
have a long tradition of persecuting Humanists (perceiving in Humanism a threat
to their own prestige, power and wealth), many don't even know that they are
Humanists, and keep their opinions to themselves. This makes it difficult to
know precisely how many Humanists there are. As a very rough measure, roughly
ten percent of the populace in any nation inclines toward Humanistic
convictions, most having reached such convictions on their own. Perhaps another
twenty percent are, in effect, religious Humanists, skeptical of the dogmas of
their religion, but broadly accepting of its values and disinclined to "rock
the boat."
Q. Are there Humanist organizations?
A. Yes, several. Information pertaining to them is available elsewhere on this
site.
Q. What do Humanists think of the religions of the world?
A. That varies from Humanist to Humanist. Some Humanists, having been
persecuted for their convictions, or seeing in religion a propensity to
superstition, have an active dislike of all forms of religiosity. Some are
quite religious, though in a very questioning, seeking way. Others are
somewhere in between, seeing religion as mixed blessing, offering some
valuable guidance and insight, but at the same time cultivating an attitude
of submission to authority, an unquestioning acceptance of dogmas, and a
refusal to abandon medieval, spirit-haunted views of the world long since
disproven, at least in anything resembling their original form. I'm personally
inclined to the latter viewpoint.
If this viewpoint is correct, then religious reforms are badly needed. The
sciences didn't advance beyond a very rudimentary stage of development until
they developed a very tough-minded attitude toward the facts and worked out a
methodology to systematically check those facts. Values seem to me to be in
precisely the same position today. Philosophers have painstakingly worked out
ways of validating viewpoints, including ways of evaluating values, but until
these are widely known and accepted by religious institutions and ordinary
people, our values will remain confused and poorly grounded.
Because cultivation of the sciences led to incredible improvements in our
standard of living, and indirectly generated vast fortunes, it became very
difficult to ignore or suppress them. Philosophy, on the other hand, has
generated few, if any, fortunes, and has therefore had few benefactors in the
business sector. The consequence has been that we have become spiritual
barbarians in possession of tremendously powerful weapons and tools.
Q. But aren't the truths of philosophy too difficult for the average person
to grasp? Isn't the fear of an all-powerful, all-knowing God necessary to
keep people in line morally? And don't atheists and Humanists have a license
to act immorally?
A. Although arguments of this kind have often been made, history has shown
them to be false. For example, the Japanese people developed an ethic known
as Bushido that had nothing of any importance to do with supernatural beings,
but nevertheless served as a code of conduct which, although a mixed blessing,
was at the very least no worse in its consequences than organized religion.
Similarly, the Chinese philosophy of Confucianism served as a non-theological
code of ethics for the Chinese for millennia, often with very beneficial
effects. Of course, like conventionally religious individuals, Humanists too
have their moral lapses, but these have less to do with Humanist doctrine than
with a fallible human nature. And, of course, not all Chinese or Japanese had
an appreciation of all of the subtleties of Bushido or Confucianism, just as
many religious individuals have only a very basic understanding of their
religious doctrines. Nevertheless, these non-religious doctrines served well.
If morality was closely tied to the existence of God, there would be much to
fear for morality, for the existence of God has never been proven, or even
been shown to be very likely. However, the Humanist view is that the
legitimacy of morality has little to do with either the existence or
non-existence of a supernatural being.
[end]