The Humanism/atheism issue

[Chris Worfolk]

It's probably worth is opening up a debate on the issue of Humanists not wanting to identify themselves as atheists and atheists not wanting to identify themselves as Humanists. It would be good to know the reasons behind each position.

At Leeds, we ran into some quite strong opposition with identification with Humanism. From what I recall the main reasons were:

Humanism implies a set of values or standards and involves committing to something even if it is only a philosophy
Humanism can be considered religious and dogmatic
People often don't live by Humanist values - for example we can often be very selfish which doesn't seem very HumanistThat is not to say we didn't have Humanist proponents who would like the society to lean more towards Humanism. The main argument being:

As atheists we lack any beliefs from which to really have a point and attract membersHowever I'm sure there are a lot better arguments so if people can share their stories and reasons that would be great.

[Andrew Guerin]

Definitely an interesting discussion.

I think some people have the perception (not saying I share it) that Humanism is overly concerned with ceremonies, and is somehow a 'stand in' for people who are not religious but feel that they're missing out on something by not taking part in religion. This, if true, would obviously put off many atheists who don't feel they're missing anything. I don't quite see that myself - Humanism seems to simply be a philosphical position, and the choice to add a ceremonial element is entirely up to the participants.

As Humanism is a philosophical position, this might give the impression that it is too 'prescriptive', and that therefore something like an 'atheist society' could allow for more philosophical diversity among members.

Then there are the views and positions taken by some Humanists/Humanist groups. Firstly there seems to be a pattern of some Humanists distancing themselves or even openly criticising anyone who makes any negative remarks about religion. See some of the recent articles to grace the pages of New Humanist. Secondly there seems to be (I'll admit this might be an erroneous impression that I have picked up) an attitude that rather than challenging the privileges extended to religious groups, we should simply extend the same privileges to those who choose to identify as Humanists. This strikes me as being a profoundly wrong approach, like trying to play the religions at their own game. They've been at it longer. They'll win.

Essentially, when I read about humanism (small 'h'), I find little if anything to disagree with. Indeed if anyone were to ask me if I were a humanist (again small 'h'), I would say "Essentially, yes". However, codifying those ideas into a formal philosophy and capitalising the 'H' seems to me, more than anything, as unnecessary. This is why I do not self-identify as a 'Humanist'.

[SolentSecularists]

Hmm, interesting discussion indeed, I guess I have never really researched the whole Humanist idea (shame on me) but I didn't know that it had some religious connotations to it... nevermind.

I live with the idea that I only do things to others that I expect to be done to me, for example I would never intentionally hurt someone because I wouldn't want it done to me... blah blah blah

Anyway... I have now totally lost my trail of thought... bugger...

[norman]

This is one of those weird debates where I disagree with neither side yet cannot agree to anything!

I find it almost impossible - as Andrew says - to disagree with any one aspect of humanism. I have some slight objections to the ethical ideals and some of the quirky interpretations of the title (speciesism being one) but there is nothing I could not support on the whole.

BUT, I still recoil from the 'accusation' that I am a humanist. Maybe it is the loner in me that does not like being labeled part of a group, particularly one which seems to offer nothing more than a codification on acceptable social morality anyway.

I have often wondered whether Humanism can be said to be religious - there is strong anecdotal evidence that Humanist ideals are as dogmatic as religious ones - I find the idea a little hard to swallow, but it can rarely be denied that any philosophical position is not a little dogmatic.

As humans we resist change - the precursor to dogma.

[Rogerrp]

Dear all,

I am an Atheist and a Humanist :). The term I use depends on the audience and the topic but in general Humanist works best.
When to use atheist:
-to shock some fundamentalist after they have explained to you how proud they are of their faith.

When to use humanist:
-as an ice-breaker on the topic of religion. Everybody has made up his mind over what an atheist thinks, but say you are a Humanist, and people give you a chance to explain yourself.

Problems with atheist:
-you can be a nihilist atheist and think that life is bs and not worthwhile living. There is no place for nihilism in Humanism.
-atheist defines a lack of belief. there is nothing positive in the name per se.

Problems with humanism:
-people may think this is another sect or religion. Then one needs to remind them that humanists are atheist, agnostics, skeptics, rationalist, freethinkers,... problem solved. Use the humanism is another religion as not collecting stamps is another hobby and being bald is another hair colour.
-people have heard that Humanist have ceremonies. Yep, and really cool ones too. I had a Humanist wedding in Spain (my home country) and I loved it. Here in Scotland Humanist weddings and funerals are a great success. No religious bs in the ceremony, no submission to a higher authority, but a celebration of what it means to be alive, in love, ...
-people think humanism is another creed or dogma. But, the only dogma in humanism is that there is no dogma. Humanists believe in an evolving set of ethics. There is very little that Humanists have to agree with and it is distilled in the Amsterdam declaration 2002 http://www.iheu.org/amsterdamdeclaration

Anyway, this is a very popular topic among our new members in Edinburgh. Most atheist haven't heard the word humanism (I hadn't until 3 years ago). I think it defines me better and this is why I use it more often that atheist.

In any case, as discussed in another forum thread, the atheist-humanist terminology should be left aside when choosing a name for this umbrella organization.

Cheers,

Roger

For more on the topic read our FAQ at http://humanist.eusa.ed.ac.uk or read blogs by our members (linked from the main page of our website). You have the Friendly Humanist blog, That Humanist blog and the Not so friendly Humanist blog.:)

[Chris Worfolk]

That leads on to another debate - is nihilism a problem? As long as you are a happy nihilist lol.

[grammar king mike]

I agree with Roger, I use both depending on who I'm talking to, but I find humanist much better captures my own viewpoint.

People here are saying that Humanism is a philosophical viewpoint, and therefore it is dogmatic. That's a bit of a straw man argument, it may be a philosophical viewpoint in a sense, but it's based on freethought, individualism, rationality and compassion. 2 points about that, firstly freethought, individualism and rationality are the opposite of dogma, secondly nothing in that statement is going to be something anyone will admit to disagreeing with. As Roger correctly notes, one of the core beliefs of most (all?) humanists is the need for evolving ethics. This is not dogma, quite the opposite!

On the other hand, I have a little bit of an issue with the label 'atheist'. It doesn't say anything about you! You don't have to define yourself as a 'non-racist' or a 'non-Spaniard' (provided you're not one, of course), so why should you specify something you don't believe? Ok, we're all atheists, so from that, what do we have in common? Sweet F.A.

'Atheist' says what you don't believe. 'Humanist' says what you do believe, or at least the way in which you decide what you believe.

[grammar king mike]

I think most atheists can be labeled with a subtitle - I am a rationalist atheist, Chris is a New Atheist, some on here are atheist humanists (I think the actual term is secular humanists?). Is this enough of a statement?

Someone made this post somewhere else, I thought I'd move the discussion here. I have a feeling this is going to be quite long.

(Specifically about the bit in bold). The plot thickens with that. It's true that you don't have to be an atheist to be a humanist, and being an atheist doesn't make you a humanist (you could not believe in god but still buy into superstition and the like, for example, or you could just be a bit of a bastard lol). But what to call these subdivisions of humanism is (for me) a subject of some contention.

Atheist humanist is good, but it raises the whole atheist/agnostic argument again. I personally feel it's the best, if a little clunky.

Secular humanist (the one most commonly used) is strictly wrong. Secularism is specifically the desire to separate church from state and deinstitutionalize religion, but these days the term is bandied around (largely by religious people, I might add), so people think it means atheist more generally. I might remind people that you can believe in god and still want church and state separated, so saying you're a secular humanist is not saying that you're a humanist who doesn't believe in god. Swing and a miss.

I think the best way is to call yourself an "atheist humanist" or "agnostic humanist" in the unlikely event that a distinction is required; for all intents and purposes I'm sure "humanist" will do just fine. The only time I can conceive it wouldn't is in a discussion such as this one.

Similarly, what to call those humanists who do believe in a god? It's rare, but it's possible to approach your beliefs in a sceptical, independent and rational way, and still come to the conclusion that a god exists. I don't see the logic myself but strictly speaking the two are not mutually exclusive, at least not in theory.

Religious humanist is the term most commonly used, but again I think this is wrong. The term "religious" implies that you follow dogma and go to mass, observe holy days etc. It does not just mean that you believe in god, and anyone who did believe in god in that 'religious' way is extremely unlikely to be a humanist. I often go to a creationist group (for s***s and giggles) and they often cringe when I call them "religious", because it doesn't describe them very well. The same would likely be true for any humanist who believes in god.

How about "humanists with faith"? Again not strictly true. The word "faith" means an illogical belief in something improbable, and it would be unfair to put that kind of label onto someone who had approached their beliefs skeptically and rationally.

So what to do? "Humanists who believe in a god" is probably the easiest way. Or alternatively we could just further subdivide. "Theist-humanist" (I'd be very surprised if they exist), "deist-humanist", "pantheist-humanist" and "polytheist-humanist" are all viable and much more accurate. In any case occurrences of "humanists who believe in a god" are extremely rare so I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

[StuartR]

Whenever I find myself among new people and the issue comes up, telling them I'm a 'Humanist' normally raises some eyebrows. Since most people I tend to socialise with are atheists, adding something more is regarded with suspicion, as if it was a religion of sorts. Also, a lot of people seem to have bought in to the whole 'FUNDAMENTALIST ATHEIST' thing (typed in capitals as people are normally, if not always, pretty much foaming at the mouth when they yell it), and saying you're part of a Humanist society seems to immediately bring this sort of thing to mind in some people.

And you know what? Sometimes I'm a bit uncomfortable with the term 'Humanist'. Why? Well, you know that straw man argument that religious people spout all the time, the one about us all being really dogmatic, not accepting any positive things about religion whatsoever, and blaming religion for all of society's ills? When I see some of the older generation of Humanists speak, they, ah, kind of are that straw man (/woman). Now this probably comes from the fact that when they were growing up, religion was seen as 'on the way out', and society was really putting the boot in. But it didn't turn out that way, and as much as I dislike religion (ask anyone), the attitudes of a lot of these older humanists seem to lack... subtlety. If this is the public image of Humanism, I'm not really sure I want to be involved.

So what can we do? Well, most importantly, we need to educate people about what 'Humanism' means, and show them it isn't a religion or even some kind of faith position. We need to show that the description 'Humanist' fits loads of people even if they don't know it! And we need to make sure that Humanist spokespeople are as pleasant and charismatic as possible, to get away from that 'FUNDAMENTALIST ATHEIST' stereotype.

Of course, in an ideal world, nobody would have to refer to themselves as an 'atheist' or a 'Humanist', they would just be 'a normal person' as opposed to 'a Christian', 'a Muslim', 'a Scientologist', etc etc. Unfortunately, after thousands of years of religions making themselves into social groups, part of me thinks it's necessary to have some kind of organised response. And it's also just the fact that humans have a psychological need to group everything, including themselves, into categories - and if people with an anti- or non-religious standpoint want to get together and call themselves a name, I don't really see any major issues, especially with such a non-prescriptive name as 'Humanism'.

And Chris - of course nihilism is a problem! Haven't you seen The Big Lebowski?!

[Jenna]

Firstly, I call myself a humanist, even though I think the term officially is secular humanist, which I agree is misleading! The other term I think which is widely employed is theist-humanist, well can you be Humanist and believe in God? I don't think so, but you CAN share humanist values and believe in God. Many humanist vales remind me of Christian values, it has to be said, especially 'love thy neighbour' kind of notions.
I never use the term 'atheist' to describe myself, I think 'humanist' is what I am no matter who I am speaking to. Like Stuart, I have had reservations about being associated with the persona of Humanism because of older or more militant factions, now talking about the BHA. The BHA I think is quite political, whereas I joined to be part of a group of like-minded people rather than to get involved in every campaign. Even if I agree with the campaigns, I might not like how it's being handled, in that it is too negative towards religion. So I guess I am guilty of 1) enjoying the social/identity side of humanism, and 2) distancing myself from those hostile to religion.
I personally don't see how a true humanist really valuing humanity in all its diversity can see hostile debate as the way forward. Of course, every group, big or small organised around an issue will have tensions within it between members. This I expect will be the case even with our national society, there will be more and less militant viewpoints. Of course, I am not saying that I expect those identifying as atheist to be more militant than the humanists among us, we are all individuals!! Perhaps what I'm saying is that rather than focussing on the atheist/humanist labels we should see where we differ on particular issues, what actually are the tensions we are likely to face in working together??

[StuartR]

B-but debates are fun! And you learn loads about other people! If you, as you say, 'value humanity in all its diversity', then there are times you have to stand up and oppose those who are bigoted and racist and homophobic etc etc etc. Just happens that these kind of people tend often to be religious...

[Jenna]

I'm all for debates as long as they are civil and respectful, done with tact I should say. And yes to standing up to racists and homophobes, but I would try to separate their reasons for their views from the religion that they hold, and if they were attributing their views to their religion I'd point out that there are others of their religion who manage to have more liberal views, so it's not really down to the religion, it's that individiual's interpretation of religious texts etc.

[norman]

Debates are certainly fun. A-Soc is holding our second annual debate with the Christian Union next week on the motion "This house opposes the biblical resurrection".

Tact is not always the best tactic in debates. As long as the information is correct and the speakers remain within the boundaries of civility then there is nothing wrong with being untactful. In fact, in many cases, a lack of tact is the better option when trying to communicate strong ideas.

[StuartR]

Oh no, not the Resurrection! Aren't there more interesting things to debate?

I say this because we recently had a debate on that in Edinburgh (organised by the Philosophy Society and the Christian Union, nothing to do with the Humanist Soc) with two professional debaters, and it was, well, a little bit dull. The speakers got involved in hopelessly minute Bibilical details and the audience was quite turned off. I'd try and avoid this if I were you, but then with such a topic it may be pretty tough to avoid the details...

Just a poor debate topic, in my opinion. Though let us know how it goes!

[norman]

The reasons for the debate topic are quite specific - it is almost impossible to get the CU to debate anything as they refuse to debate anything unless ALL their members agree on it, which kind of limits the topics to the resurrection, the divinity of Jesus and grace. All of which can be boring debates.

The key to this debate will be the angles we are taking. We are trying to stay away from debating the actual bible - as we would probably lose... instead we are focusing on the mythology and methodology of such a resurrection!

Hopefully this will prove more interesting!

A video of the event should be available afterwards so you can make your own minds up.

[StuartR]

Haha, 'grace'! Our CU-ers go on about that too! I was once asked why I was being so 'ungracious'.

Apart from the Bible, there isn't really that much to say about the resurrection other than 'don't be silly, people don't come back from the dead'. Surely it's on them to provide the proof (I hope they're going first!).

[norman]

Well the format and style agreed upon (which is a mission in itself) means that we are proposing the motion, so speak first. There is plenty of medical fact which supports people coming back from the dead, just not the kind of death that Jesus* suffered and definitely not after three days. There is plenty of biblical absurdity, but we are mainly just going to say that it is too obvious to mention - stuff like the zombies and massive earthquakes, lol.

But the main thrust of the argument is the why of it. Why does the resurrection story exist and why is it so similar to so many other stories predating the bible.

I think it will be interesting and definitely will fit in with the rest of the week's activities based around rationalism and critical thinking.

*if he even existed or was the son of god, which was the content of last year's debate!

[Tessa K]

The term Atheist doesn't need to be negative. The prefix can mean 'free from', a positive thing in the same way that food which is 'free from artifical additives' is a good thing.

The NSS stance is that society should protect the believer, not the belief, which should be robust enough to stand up for itself. So in debates, we don't need to shy away from strong argument, as long as it is not ad hominem.

Dawkins is not to everyone's taste but outspoken religious people are not to every believer's taste either. There are calm, reasonable religious debaters and calm reasonable atheist debaters. It's good that there are different levels of energy matched on both sides.

It may not seem 'nice' to get heated about certain religious beliefs, but when you look at the consequences of them, sometimes the gloves have to come off.

One interesting element to the resurrection is that it pops up in pretty much all agrarian societies throughout history, right across the world. The god dies/is sacrified, disappears for a bit and resurfaces in the spring. Even Hercules did it. So if anyone asks if you believe in the resurrection, ask them which one.