Am I a Humanist?
For several weeks I've been reading Karen Armstrong's The Battle for God, a history of fundamentalism from its origins in the wake of the Enlightenment through the present. It covers specific fundamentalist movements which grew in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. I'm not reviewing the book, not yet anyway. I was moved comment, though, on one passage, in which she reprints a "definition of Secular Humanism" which was offered by a Protestant fundamentalist group when the Moral Majority was at its height. Secular Humanism, of course, was the movement that represented for Protestant fundamentalists all that was wrong with America.
This is a pretty weak definition, to be honest. It was published by the Pro-Family Forum in 1983. It's been heavily paraphrased to suit the purposes of the propagandist who distributed it. Still, I found myself reviewing each point against my own beliefs, and I thought it might be interesting to share, if only as an exercise in self-knowledge. Perhaps I'm just taking sides in an old argument? But it's an argument which I don't think ever saw a clear winner.
So, here are the PFF's definition points, my beliefs, and some clarifications pulled from the Humanist Manifestos (I and II) on which the definitions are (loosely) based.
A Secular Humanist:
Denies the deity of God. the inspiration of the Bible and the divinity of Jesus Christ.
"Denies the deity of God?" That's a strange phrase. It sounds like they admit there's a god, but they think he's not what he claims to be. I would think it's more appropriate to say they "deny the existence of god." That is, it would be if they did. The two source documents don't really. They refer to the universe as "self-existing and not created," and they say that "We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural."
The word "Jesus" does not appear in either of the referenced documents.
What do I think? I believe there's a higher intelligence and that it has compassion for humanity. I have no evidence, I just think it's true. I make no claims as to its powers, its gender, its hair color or its choice of beverage. (Strike that... God drinks Dogfish Head Midas Touch. Yeah. That's canon.)
Do I believe in the divinity of Jesus? That he was the son of God? Yes. But the PFF would still damn me to hell, because I believe we're all children of God, which is my poetic way of saying that, if there's such a thing as a pure, moral intellect, then we all carry a piece of it. Like Thomas Jefferson, I don't believe Jesus ever claimed special divinity, and I don't think whether or not he was the virgin-born literal child of God is relevant.
Denies the existence of the soul, life after death, salvation and heaven, damnation and hell.
Again, the source documents don't directly say this. They do specifically refute Cartesian Dualism, the idea that the soul and the body are separate and separable. So I guess that's getting at the non-existence of the soul. Further, declaring the body and soul to be inseparable does tend to preclude the idea of life after death. But, again, they don't say "it can't or doesn't happen." The second manifesto does say "Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful."
Me? I believe in life after death, that intelligence continues in some form eternally. I've worked with many brain dead computers and brought them back. I find it hard to believe there's no mechanism for doing the same for the much more advanced computer that is the human mind. But that's a belief that comforts me, and I'm not going to test it by becoming a suicide bomber. I may be wrong. If I am, I won't have to listen to you laugh when it's proven, will I?
But I find the concept of hell repugnant. Period. If God is both benevolent and omnipotent, he has not excuse for sending human souls to hell. He can fix anything. Why wouldn't he? There's no room for eternal damnation in my beliefs.
Denies the Biblical account of Creation.
Yes, it does, and directly. But here's the thing, until the Enlightenment, no one took the Biblical account of Creation literally anyway. And I still don't. If God had a hand in shaping the world (and it's an "if" for me) then I still think there's room in his work for the laws of physics and the theory of evolution to apply.
But I don't see why it matters. If there is a perfect, benevolent, compassionate being who's watching us, does he have to be our creator too? If you need your toilet plunged, do you call the architect?
Believes that there are no absolutes, no right, no wrong - that moral values are self-determined and situational. Do your own Thing, "as long as it does not harm anyone else."
I don't think anyone believes that there's absolutely no right or wrong. The Humanist source documents do say, for instance, "We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience." Which says, again, that they believe there is no divine arbiter of morality. I find it interesting, indeed, that the PFF accuses humanists of believing there is no right or wrong, and then says that they believe in what's essentially a restatement of the golden rule, a tenet that's common to pretty much all religions.
Believes in the removal of distinctive roles of male and female.
So humanists believe men should have babies? Cause, yeah, that's the distinction. The female mammal produces the egg, the male fertilizes it, the baby gestates within the female.
No, I know that's not what they mean; but gender roles have adapted and changed constantly as life has evolved, and even all mammals don't follow the same division of labor between genders. The reproductive differences are the only ones that should matter.
Believes in sexual freedom between consenting individuals, regardless of age, including premarital sex, homosexuality, lesbianism, and incest.
I find it hard to believe that "regardless of age" was on anyone's mind when these manifestos were developed, nor was incest. Heterosexual incest is a bad idea for genetic reasons, as is any incest for psychological reasons. There probably are a lot of people of all philosophical bents who don't want to admit that reckless premarital sex has consequences, but I've met a lot of those consequences.
But, again, the supporting documents don't directly address these issues. This is hysteria added by the PFF, whose spiritual heirs are even today trying to fight gay marriage because, um... it makes them feel ooky? Okay, that's probably handing them an argument with more intellectual power than any I've heard on TV.
Believes in the right to abortion, euthanasia, and suicide.
And so do I. Nor do I get caught up in the question of when life begins. I simply believe that no one has a right to enslave another person. Making a woman use her body to the benefit of someone else without her consent is slavery.
Believes in the equal distribution of America' s wealth to reduce poverty and bring about equality.
Well, "America" isn't mentioned in either manifesto, but the first one says:
"A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world."
So, yeah, I think that's a pretty fair assessment. And the first proposition with which I categorically disagree. It's true that the free market can be unfair. There are people who have more wealth than they deserve, and there are people who have been prevented from earning the wealth that they could have earned. Both are in the minority. You could take all the material wealth in the world, put it in one place, divide it out absolutely equally, and next week you'd have inequality again. Some people are just better at handling wealth than others. If you give wealth to someone who doesn't know how to earn it, he'll be okay for a little while, but odds are good that he won't learn how to make more wealth. Wealth is a recognition of value given. It must be earned. And I've never seen the government bureaucracy that I'd trust with making sure that the free market was "fair," so I believe it should be left alone.
Believes in control of the environment , control of energy, and its limitation.
If you recall your Genesis, God gave Adam dominion over the earth. That means that it's the Judeo-Christian tradition which supports humankind controlling the environment. But I don't think most humanists do. They believe in controlling how the environment is used, to prevent exploitation. Control of energy? Ever seen fire? You gotta control energy. That's not religion or politics.
Since this passage defies logic, I can't really respond to it. I don't care for a lot of environmentalist rhetoric, but using your resources wisely and being aware that you live in an ever-changing environment is sensible.
Believes in the removal of American patriotism, and the free enterprise system, disarmament, and the creation of a one-world socialistic government.
The manifestos do call for a one-world government, although I don't think they're pointing towards a complete dissolution of national governments. Still, they call for "world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government."
They also do declare that it's time to abandon a lot of our philosophies, which strikes me as pretty damned arrogant. But they don't specifically say the American patriotism should be "removed." How do you remove something that's a natural response to one's pride in one history and one's forefathers? Of course, there is a difference between nationalism (worship of state) and patriotism (love of homeland and history.) I think nationalism is dangerous and ugly. We have both in this country.
But on the question of one-world government, that'd be no for me. I think the United States government is already so big that it's hard for its citizens to keep it reigned in the way the Founding Fathers intended. A bigger government would be impossible to keep controlled, and government, like energy, needs to be controlled to be of benefit.
So there you have it. My two cents on an old piece of propaganda. I remember the first time I hear the term "Secular Humanism" defined. It was on an episode of Sixty Minutes, and it was defined (again by a fundamentalist) as "the belief that you can do whatever you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone else." I remember, at the time, thinking, "And what's wrong with that?"
I still think there's nothing wrong with that, but I don't think I can quite accept the label "Secular Humanist." The ideas of redistribution of wealth and one-world government are too central to the belief system. Central to my philosophy will always be "And ye harm none, do as ye will." Big governments which seize people's property in the name of a higher cause would do a lot of harm.
This is a pretty weak definition, to be honest. It was published by the Pro-Family Forum in 1983. It's been heavily paraphrased to suit the purposes of the propagandist who distributed it. Still, I found myself reviewing each point against my own beliefs, and I thought it might be interesting to share, if only as an exercise in self-knowledge. Perhaps I'm just taking sides in an old argument? But it's an argument which I don't think ever saw a clear winner.
So, here are the PFF's definition points, my beliefs, and some clarifications pulled from the Humanist Manifestos (I and II) on which the definitions are (loosely) based.
A Secular Humanist:
Denies the deity of God. the inspiration of the Bible and the divinity of Jesus Christ.
"Denies the deity of God?" That's a strange phrase. It sounds like they admit there's a god, but they think he's not what he claims to be. I would think it's more appropriate to say they "deny the existence of god." That is, it would be if they did. The two source documents don't really. They refer to the universe as "self-existing and not created," and they say that "We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural."
The word "Jesus" does not appear in either of the referenced documents.
What do I think? I believe there's a higher intelligence and that it has compassion for humanity. I have no evidence, I just think it's true. I make no claims as to its powers, its gender, its hair color or its choice of beverage. (Strike that... God drinks Dogfish Head Midas Touch. Yeah. That's canon.)
Do I believe in the divinity of Jesus? That he was the son of God? Yes. But the PFF would still damn me to hell, because I believe we're all children of God, which is my poetic way of saying that, if there's such a thing as a pure, moral intellect, then we all carry a piece of it. Like Thomas Jefferson, I don't believe Jesus ever claimed special divinity, and I don't think whether or not he was the virgin-born literal child of God is relevant.
Denies the existence of the soul, life after death, salvation and heaven, damnation and hell.
Again, the source documents don't directly say this. They do specifically refute Cartesian Dualism, the idea that the soul and the body are separate and separable. So I guess that's getting at the non-existence of the soul. Further, declaring the body and soul to be inseparable does tend to preclude the idea of life after death. But, again, they don't say "it can't or doesn't happen." The second manifesto does say "Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful."
Me? I believe in life after death, that intelligence continues in some form eternally. I've worked with many brain dead computers and brought them back. I find it hard to believe there's no mechanism for doing the same for the much more advanced computer that is the human mind. But that's a belief that comforts me, and I'm not going to test it by becoming a suicide bomber. I may be wrong. If I am, I won't have to listen to you laugh when it's proven, will I?
But I find the concept of hell repugnant. Period. If God is both benevolent and omnipotent, he has not excuse for sending human souls to hell. He can fix anything. Why wouldn't he? There's no room for eternal damnation in my beliefs.
Denies the Biblical account of Creation.
Yes, it does, and directly. But here's the thing, until the Enlightenment, no one took the Biblical account of Creation literally anyway. And I still don't. If God had a hand in shaping the world (and it's an "if" for me) then I still think there's room in his work for the laws of physics and the theory of evolution to apply.
But I don't see why it matters. If there is a perfect, benevolent, compassionate being who's watching us, does he have to be our creator too? If you need your toilet plunged, do you call the architect?
Believes that there are no absolutes, no right, no wrong - that moral values are self-determined and situational. Do your own Thing, "as long as it does not harm anyone else."
I don't think anyone believes that there's absolutely no right or wrong. The Humanist source documents do say, for instance, "We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience." Which says, again, that they believe there is no divine arbiter of morality. I find it interesting, indeed, that the PFF accuses humanists of believing there is no right or wrong, and then says that they believe in what's essentially a restatement of the golden rule, a tenet that's common to pretty much all religions.
Believes in the removal of distinctive roles of male and female.
So humanists believe men should have babies? Cause, yeah, that's the distinction. The female mammal produces the egg, the male fertilizes it, the baby gestates within the female.
No, I know that's not what they mean; but gender roles have adapted and changed constantly as life has evolved, and even all mammals don't follow the same division of labor between genders. The reproductive differences are the only ones that should matter.
Believes in sexual freedom between consenting individuals, regardless of age, including premarital sex, homosexuality, lesbianism, and incest.
I find it hard to believe that "regardless of age" was on anyone's mind when these manifestos were developed, nor was incest. Heterosexual incest is a bad idea for genetic reasons, as is any incest for psychological reasons. There probably are a lot of people of all philosophical bents who don't want to admit that reckless premarital sex has consequences, but I've met a lot of those consequences.
But, again, the supporting documents don't directly address these issues. This is hysteria added by the PFF, whose spiritual heirs are even today trying to fight gay marriage because, um... it makes them feel ooky? Okay, that's probably handing them an argument with more intellectual power than any I've heard on TV.
Believes in the right to abortion, euthanasia, and suicide.
And so do I. Nor do I get caught up in the question of when life begins. I simply believe that no one has a right to enslave another person. Making a woman use her body to the benefit of someone else without her consent is slavery.
Believes in the equal distribution of America' s wealth to reduce poverty and bring about equality.
Well, "America" isn't mentioned in either manifesto, but the first one says:
"A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world."
So, yeah, I think that's a pretty fair assessment. And the first proposition with which I categorically disagree. It's true that the free market can be unfair. There are people who have more wealth than they deserve, and there are people who have been prevented from earning the wealth that they could have earned. Both are in the minority. You could take all the material wealth in the world, put it in one place, divide it out absolutely equally, and next week you'd have inequality again. Some people are just better at handling wealth than others. If you give wealth to someone who doesn't know how to earn it, he'll be okay for a little while, but odds are good that he won't learn how to make more wealth. Wealth is a recognition of value given. It must be earned. And I've never seen the government bureaucracy that I'd trust with making sure that the free market was "fair," so I believe it should be left alone.
Believes in control of the environment , control of energy, and its limitation.
If you recall your Genesis, God gave Adam dominion over the earth. That means that it's the Judeo-Christian tradition which supports humankind controlling the environment. But I don't think most humanists do. They believe in controlling how the environment is used, to prevent exploitation. Control of energy? Ever seen fire? You gotta control energy. That's not religion or politics.
Since this passage defies logic, I can't really respond to it. I don't care for a lot of environmentalist rhetoric, but using your resources wisely and being aware that you live in an ever-changing environment is sensible.
Believes in the removal of American patriotism, and the free enterprise system, disarmament, and the creation of a one-world socialistic government.
The manifestos do call for a one-world government, although I don't think they're pointing towards a complete dissolution of national governments. Still, they call for "world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government."
They also do declare that it's time to abandon a lot of our philosophies, which strikes me as pretty damned arrogant. But they don't specifically say the American patriotism should be "removed." How do you remove something that's a natural response to one's pride in one history and one's forefathers? Of course, there is a difference between nationalism (worship of state) and patriotism (love of homeland and history.) I think nationalism is dangerous and ugly. We have both in this country.
But on the question of one-world government, that'd be no for me. I think the United States government is already so big that it's hard for its citizens to keep it reigned in the way the Founding Fathers intended. A bigger government would be impossible to keep controlled, and government, like energy, needs to be controlled to be of benefit.
So there you have it. My two cents on an old piece of propaganda. I remember the first time I hear the term "Secular Humanism" defined. It was on an episode of Sixty Minutes, and it was defined (again by a fundamentalist) as "the belief that you can do whatever you want, as long as you don't hurt anyone else." I remember, at the time, thinking, "And what's wrong with that?"
I still think there's nothing wrong with that, but I don't think I can quite accept the label "Secular Humanist." The ideas of redistribution of wealth and one-world government are too central to the belief system. Central to my philosophy will always be "And ye harm none, do as ye will." Big governments which seize people's property in the name of a higher cause would do a lot of harm.