Humanism: Beliefs and Practices*

Humanism
1

*Borrowed titled of thread from Jeaneane Fowler’s book of the same name. It’s a great book on humanism and it is one of the many books I refer to when I’m discussing humanism. It is a great book for learning about humanism, but it is like a textbook and is sometimes used as a textbook in some colleges, which teach humanism. Still, check it out if you want to know more about humanism.

There are other books I refer to when discussing humanism, including some by the late Paul Kurtz and I’ll name them when I use what they have and even provide a link to them in case anyone wants to get a copy and read for themselves. Also, as we discuss humanism in this thread, please feel free to mention, link to, and contribute to the discussion any books you’ve read on humanism, because I am far from being the authority on humanism.

Let’s start with the manifestos first, which I mentioned in another thread and go from there. I will go in order of their creation.

Let’s back up a bit and give a working, general definition of humanism. Humanism is a non-theistic philosophy based on reason and compassion. There are many other ways to define it and those are good definitions too: Definition of Humanism - American Humanist Association

So we have that also to work from as we discuss humanism. Now for the manifestos:

Many years ago, I think it was in the 1930s a group of male professors at a university got together and started swirling around the idea of humanism and at one point it almost turned into a bit of a fist fight between a Xian professor and an atheist professor, but the end result of all of this was the very first humanist manifesto and as you can see, both the religious and non-religious signed it. I need to find that fight, but it maybe in Edwin Wilson’s telling of the creation of the manifestos in the link above. Humanism has a long rich history despite all of that. It’s not a new philosophy, but it did begin to be nailed out in the '30s.

So you may say, “Wait! What? Religious people signed the manifesto?” Actually, we see Unitarian ministers sign even today’s manifesto on the AHA postings of the manifestos. Humanism isn’t just for secularists. There are many forms of humanism- literary humanism, religious humanism, Humanistic Judaism, Humanistic Christianity (think retired Bishop John Shelby Spong), and many other forms of humanism.

Ok that’s probably more than enough resources to get this conversation started, but I will add the second, third, AHA’s current one, Paul Kurtz’s Humanist Manifesto 2000 created when he started Secular Humanists, and more about humanism.

1 Like
2

Ok I found the aforementioned little brouhaha here Edwin Wilson Manifesto Ch14 » Internet Infidels :

The Bristol, Connecticut, Press editorialized on May 19, 1933, referring to a report of the manifesto published in the same issue and ignoring the fact that over half of the thirty-four signatories were clerics. In fact, the paper chose to view college professors as being the “culprits” behind the manifesto:

In another column of today’s paper, appears a communication, quoting an article from the Literary Digest, signed by various and sundry college professors advocating a new religion, which these professors dub as “Humanism.”

Just as the day of the superbusiness man has passed, and it is realized that his advice in reference to business affairs is no better than that of the ordinary business man, so the day has also come when the college professor with his sophisticated pronouncement on all kinds of human affairs, should no longer be regarded as omniscient.

College professors are much inclined to give out interviews on all sorts of human affairs. When, however, a mess of them such as have signed their names to this communication, show what they do not know about religion, we are reminded of an incident which happened in our college days, and which, we think, would be a first-rate cure to administer to these professors. This particular incident was known as, “Finlay’s Conversion of Thomas.” Finlay was a very ardent Episcopalian. Another member of the class had become very much interested in scientific study, and his investigations had led him to believe that everything in this universe came from cause to effect, without the directing hand of a supreme being in any way whatsoever. He was expressing his advanced ideas one Sunday afternoon. Finlay listened to what Thomas had to say, but he began to be considerably wrought-up, especially when Thomas denied the existence of a God.

Finally Finlay could stand it no longer, and he stepped up to Thomas with these words: “Thomas, you say just once more that there is no God, and I will knock Hell out of YOU.”

He meant exactly what he said for he was a strong man. . . .

Such a dose of medicine is the only kind of argument which these professors are capable of understanding and in our humble opinion they would be cured.

Blockquote

My point is, nailing out of the first humanist manifesto went about as smoothly as the nailing out of the “official books of the Bible” did. It wasn’t without arguments, fights, disagreements, stories, truths, etc etc. Of course, the media of the day had a field day. I don’t think the philosophy of humanism hasn’t had disagreements anymore than religious sects have- case in point when Paul Kurtz disagreed with the AHA and formed the Secular Humanist organizations, such as CFI, Free Inquiry, and Secular Humanist.

OK I’ll move onto to the second, third, 2000, and AHA’s current manifesto soon, but please feel free to discuss anything I’ve posted thus far or wait until I go through the whole history of the manifestos etc. I think discussing the first one will help with later ones though.

3

There’s a lot of ground to cover concerning the manifestos and one really isn’t going to find a whole lot about them outside of humanist and Unitarian Universalists websites, except maybe Fundamngelical propaganda. That said, I do have a lot of humanist links to give humanist books to share.

That said, after the first manifesto, a second one came along in the 70s. Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson nailed out a new one in 1973. Why? Because the Humanist Manifesto is one that grows and changes as time passes. It was meant to evolve as society and the world changed over time.

This is the manifesto that I think Gene Roddenberry (link to AHA interview) spent most of his life adhering to, not to the letter like a religion, but as a guide, maybe even a reminder. I also think it is one that the retired Bishop Spong and other religious humanists or humanistic Xians adhere to, but not necessarily the U.U. They to have a more modern version on their site or at least some of their sites, but that’s not to say they don’t follow the AHA’s version. UU ministers have notorious for signing the various Humanist Manifestos.

When I was a teen I read about Humanism and years later I found the manifesto very familiar. Sadly, while I was reading the humanist info (it was probably the AHA interview with Gene Roddenberry), my mother walked into my room without knocking, yanked it out of my hand, shouted, “This is not Christian”, and walked out of the room with it. I never saw it again.

I do want to make note right now, that there was another Anglican priest who tried support humanistic values into Xianity. Anthony Freeman wrote the book “God In Us: A Case for Christian Humanism”. He was excommunicated for it, but he basically wrote Bishop Spong has said for years. The forward in the updated edition was written by Bishop John Shelby Spong. That’s not to say Freeman didn’t impress some Episcopalians and Anglicans. Sites like SOF (Sea of Faith) in Australia and the U.K. popped up. That said, they are a bit too religious for me, but they are examples of Humanistic Christianity. Don Cupitt, another Anglican minister, though I think he left the Church, also wrote “Radical Theology”. All three former ministers helped to start SOF and Bishop Spong started a similar group in the U.S., but I forgot what it was called. I still think they are more religious than humanist, but that said, they are humanistic.

There is also humanistic Judaism, as I mentioned before and others. Some of these groups also signed the second manifestor too. This group also claims Greg Epstein as a Humanist Jew, but he calls himself a humanist. Either way, I accept him as a humanist and a humanist minister. Sherwin T Wine is also claimed as a Jew and a humanist and I do believe it is possible to be both.

Now we also have humanist groups around the U.S. - Houston and KC, as well as the various U.U.s and also Ethical Societies around the U.S., which are all humanist groups.

During the 70s, about the only organizations for non-theists were the AHA, American Atheists, UUs, and Ethical Societies, but that was about it. Today, we can find various humanists and atheists groups and organizations all over the U.S.

This leads us to the third humanist manifesto in 2003 AND The Humanist Manifesto 2000, by Paul Kurtz. Now why are there two, you may ask? This is about the time Paul Kurtz left the AHA and created the Secular Humanist. This isn’t discussed much due to not wanting to discuss disagreements among humanists, for whatever reason.

That said, most notably we have humanists and UU ministers, as well as others, signing all the manifestos with the AHA. Some religious clergy signed the first and the second manifestos, but you don’t see religious clergy with the third one. I missed this one, written by Paul Kurtz in 1980. I don’t know when he wrote the Affirmations, but anyone can read those too. Sadly, the only article I can find on the 2000 one by Paul Kurtz is for subscribers only, but it can be read here, if you have a subscription: https://secularhumanism.org/1999/10/humanist-menifesto-2000/

Keep in mind, humanism is not a religion. I consider it a way of life, much like the Roddenberrys do and did. That said, you can read more on the AHA site or at Free Inquiry (a link to a page on Free Inquiry site above), and here on CFI. Edd Doerr and Fred Edwords, both on AHA site, wrote a lot about humanism also.

There is so much more to discuss about humanism, but the manifestos are a good starting point, IMO. You can learn more at Humanists International, Institute for Humanist Studies, AHA Center for Education, and others. There was a The Continuum of Humanist Education (COHE), where I took courses in humanism and it’s how I got Fowler’s book, because she created some of the courses there, but it seems defunct now (the site won’t load) and you really don’t have to take courses to learn about humanism. There are plenty of books on humanism, some I have listed. Paul Kurtz wrote a lot, as well as Edd Doerr and Fred Edwords (we’ve lost all three now, I think). There is also The Philosophy of Humanism, by Corliss Lamont. I bought the book after I saw the PDF. He also wrote The Affirmative Ethics of Humanism, too.

I probably threw an awful lot, just on the manifestos alone, which seems like also involves a lot of info on humanism too. I’ll stop and allow people to go over what all I posted and comment on what they can. I have a lot more on humanism too, but this is a good start to encourage discussion at least on the manifestos.

4

I forgot “The Amsterdam Declaration” of 1952 and updated 2002.

5

[quote=“mriana, post:4, topic:8325, full:true”]

I forgot “The Amsterdam Declaration ” of 1952 and updated 2002.

Amsterdam, my hometown. We know what it is to be human… :hugs:

1 Like
6

Yes, they made the first international humanist declaration, even though it wasn’t called that, it was used by Humanist International.

7

What is a “Xian professor”?

In your opinion, do they have something in common to justify that they are put together, and what is this thing in common?

8

Yes. It is a philosophy in very large sense of the term, a “thought tradition”.

9

@mriana I linked to this thread in my thread Let’s define humanism

Do you think the category “religious humanism”, used by the AHA, is useful, and would you categorize AHA as “religious humanism”?

Thanks for all the information you shared here.

10

Yes and yes, but not all AHA members are religious humanists. Some are ethical humanists, some are secular humanists, others are naturalistic humanists, as well as Xian humanists (think the late Bishop John Shelby Spong). When you speak of ethical or religious humanists, that is more like those who attend the U.U. and many who signed the first the and second Manifesto were from the U.U. Now, there was a big disagreement with the third manifesto causing a split in the AHA, thus why you see the AHA and the Secular Humanist, but that’s another story. Regardless, in the AHA you still see secular humanists.

You are very welcome for the information.

X as in the Greek Chi, as in Chi Rho. In case you don’t know what a Chi Rho is, it is the X over P. The X is the initial of Christ in Greek or shorthand (or rather initial) for Christ or Christo, instead of spelling the whole thing. Sorry for my habit of abbreviating, it comes from studying religion and even some Greek. So in this case, when I Xian it is short for Christian with X symbolizing the Christ and the ian is the/a person. In this case a Christian professor, thus Xian professor.

Just that they have humanistic ideals along with their beliefs. There are some Jews who don’t believe a god exists, but they are culturally Jewish, thus humanistic Judaism. In the case of Bishop Spong, he had humanistic values, didn’t believe in a literal crucifixion or even hell for that matter. His Xian beliefs were not traditional at all. Another one is Fr Tom Harper and Anthony Freeman. Anthony Freeman was excommunicated from the Anglican Church for his Book. Tom Harper, the author of Pagan Christ, was not and neither was Bishop Spong (I knew him personally) for his books, though both have been threatened. Tom Harper is the one who said, “Religion is mythology misunderstood”. So if one thinks their religion is mythology and they don’t take it literally, but practice humanistic values, that makes one a humanistic Xian.

11

What are those humanistic ideals?
I thought that more humanistic religions/Churches are just more liberal religions/Churches.

From what I understand from the explanation below, those humanistic ideals might be the positive interrelationship values of their religions such as love, compassion, non-violence, etc., after having put away the supernatural aspects, and also the antagonistic aspects (prejudices against people of other religions, homosexuals, women, etc.)

You study religion? How do you study religion?
You study Greek to better read the original religious writings?

12

I think one very important feature to reach humanist goal* is the fight against arbitrariness.

For that, our principles and values must be very explicitly and very precisely defined, the extent to which we attain those goals must be easily measured, and all of that must be based on Reason.

This I think is what is found in secular humanism, and what distinguished it from {religions, traditions, religious humanism}.

*humanist goal: self-preservation (access to life) → welfare (access to health and psychological/intellectual autonomy) → individual development/fulfillment (happiness and individualism)

13

I think the fight against arbitrariness is a core value in the fight for freedom/autonomy/individualism.

Humans can not be free if they have not the tools to dismantle arbitrary injunctions, norms, imposed upon them. One of those tools is Reason.

This is very evident in the realm of feminism.

Why should a woman alone take care of children? Please explain clearly this injunction and justify it with sound arguments. Otherwise it is just arbitrary domination.

Why should a woman be sexually restrained? Please explain clearly this injunction and justify it with sound arguments. Otherwise it is just arbitrary domination.

Why should a woman not enter in the military, in finance, etc.? Please explain clearly this injunction and justify it with sound arguments. Otherwise it is just arbitrary domination.

At the very moment the reasoned discussion about those injunctions starts, the individuals start to be freed from arbitrary domination, in part because the game is rebalanced.

This is true for feminism, but also for society as a whole. For instance, those kinds of arbitrary injunctions (e.g. the mirrored version of the examples above) are imposed upon men too.

14

I did, yes.

You take classes, read books on it, read the actual text from front to back, you just study it.

Why would anyone learn Greek, Hebrew, or Latin? People even learn Sanskrit to study Hindu religious texts. You see, even the Bile has been translated and mistranslated so much that it’s best to read it in the original language. Hebrew for the Hebrew (Jewish texts) and Greek for the Xian texts. Sanskrit for Hindu texts. Why and how else do you really study and research religion?

15

I think I included that on my thread on humanism.

16

I think this is very brave.

You studied religion in college, and continuously after? You studied Greek in college?

17

Yes, and more. I was also a lay minister in the Episcopal (Anglican) Church, until they informally excommunicated my thirteen year old son. Yes, I helped with communion, gave communion to the home bound, read the scripture of the day, and did other things to assist the minister. We also had to know the religious text too as well as the text for various rituals, like extreme unction and last rites. Yes, Latin was used even. After my son was excommunicated, I left and was a heretical apostate who became a humanist, because even my son, who is now 32, will tell you that is F***ed up. Trust me, the Episcopal Church is not as liberal as many people think they are and the more you study the scriptures and religion in general the less you believe it, because it’s basically the same thing written a little differently for each culture. As Fr. Tom Harper of the Anglican Church in Canada said, “Religion is mythology misunderstood.” That’s all it is, mythology and if Jesus ever existed, as Robert Price said, “He’s too buried in myth to find.” So there you go. A stauros is nothing more than wooden post to impale someone on as a means of corporal punishment, which was quite common back in the day that the story, yes STORY of Jesus was set in and the story has many literary tools used in it too. When you are a minister of any sort, yes you do study religion, even learn some Greek, maybe even some Hebrew, and some Latin. Latin is not uncommon in the Episcopal/Anglican Church. I also grew in the Church. My grandfather was a lay minister and I had to stand up in front of the congregation to quote Bible verses. Not only that, I HAD to read the Bible cover to cover and learn it. When one is a PC (Paster’s Child) in a Fundamngelical Church, like the Church of God, you have to read the Bible cover to cover. I even had an uncle who was a Free Methodist minister. If I didn’t know my crap, then I was a chastised for it. I could probably run circles around some here and some wouldn’t like what they heard from me about it. Now, is there anything else you wish to know about my religious studies, religious service, and upbringing?

1 Like
18

So you studied religion in college in the context of serving as a lay minister in the Church of God? It was like part of the training, somehow? A Christian private college?

And now that you write critical books on religion, are you attacked by religious people?

19

No I did not go to a Xian private college, but I did go to college. No, I was not a lay minister in the Church of God. If you read it right, I grew up in the Church of God and was a lay minister in the Episcopal Church. What is this? The Inquisition?

20

No, I just try to get it right…