“Science and technology have made traditional religion obsolete. People are ready to embrace a philosophy that provides human-derived meaning to their lives and focus on improving the human condition.”
Versions of this sentiment were expressed in 1876, by Felix Adler, the founder of the Ethical Culture Movement; in 1933, by the signers of the first Humanist Manifesto; in 1973, by still more signers of the Humanist Manifesto II; and in the year 2000, when announcing the beginning of “the Humanist Century” – yet it has not come to pass.
I occasionally find fellow Humanists wondering why everyone else doesn’t wake up and smell the non-theistic coffee. Sometimes I wonder why too.
Clearly, the multitudes are not converting in droves to a humanist philosophy. However, there has been some recent progress.
The American Religious Identification Survey, conducted by The Graduate Center of the City University of New York in 2001, found that more than 29.4 million Americans said they had no religion — more than double the number in 1990. People with no religion now account for 14% of the nation, up from 8% in 1990.
The survey found that traditional religion was loosing ground and the fastest growing religion (in terms of percentage) is Wicca. Numbers of Wicca adherents went from 8,000 in 1990 to 134,000 in 2001. Their numbers of adherents are doubling about every 30 months.
Unfortunately, Humanism is not experiencing such expediential growth. These figures indicate that the number of people professing no religion is growing, but not at an explosive rate, and all people in this category are not considered to be Humanists.
What is Humanism doing wrong? What is it that we, as Humanists, are not doing to expand our numbers? Before examining these questions, I would like to distinguish Secularism from Humanism.
To the ire of many fundamentalist Christians, Secularism has largely won the legal battle for cultural dominance – Humanism has yet to have such an influence.
One of the great gifts of our Republic, a Constitution that separates Church and State, has created a legal foundation for our secular rule of law. U. S. Courts have enforced this separation in civil society. Secularism in government and education, while often challenged, is well established. Our society’s secular orientation is supported by a coalition of various non-believers and religious groups as well.
Although recent survey results are reason for optimism, Humanism has far to go. I feel that some introspection and self-criticism is in order. I will start by asking: How do we present Humanism to the public at large?
The most prominent public display of Humanist positions are press releases on separation of church and state issues. The recent flurry of reactions to the 9th Circuit Court’s decision declaring recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in Public Schools unconstitutional, because it contains the phrase “under God”, is a recent example.
I am not suggesting that it is inappropriate for Humanists to take stands on separation of church and state issues, merely that this is the most prominent thing that we do. I believe that presenting an assertive position on separation of church and state is an important thing for Humanists and Humanist groups to do. Separation of church and state is a fundamental principal of our democracy that humanists should and do espouse.
Another prominent position put forth by Humanist publications is criticism of organized religion and religious beliefs. This subject approaches the level of obsession by some of our number. While articles on misdeeds by religious leaders, heinous acts performed in fits of religious dementia, and the irrationality of particular religious beliefs, are usually well researched and informative, they have little reach outside of the Humanist Community.
Other subjects covered by Humanists include human rights, women’s rights, science education, environmental issues, and freedom and democracy issues. These issues have greater appeal to those outside of the Humanist Community.
What is the profile that these articles create? What impression does the public get of Humanists and Humanism?
A March 29, 1999, Gallup Poll measured public acceptance of race, religion and sexual orientation. They did this by asking respondents if they would vote for someone with a particular race, religion and sexual orientation for president. While the poll did not have humanists as a category, it did measure attitudes toward atheists (not a perfect proxy I admit, but it can be used to get a feel for how humanists are perceived).
The results of this poll showed that atheists were the most unpopular of the eight groups that were tested. Less than half the respondents, only 49% of Americans, would vote for an atheist.
The unpopularity of the Humanist position can also be gauged by reactions to the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling on the constitutionality of the “Pledge of Allegiance”. After the decision, almost all Humanist groups sent out press releases praising the decision. The “in your face” response of U. S. House members who gathered on the Capitol steps to recite the Pledge of Allegiance en masse and sing God Bless America, showed not only disrespect for people who do not believe in god, but a callous disregard for the Constitution. Most of the public reaction (at least in North Carolina, where I live) ranged from religious outrage to deeming the objection to “under God” trivial and dismissing it. I have seen very few opinions that bothered to discuss the proper degree of separation of Church and State mandated by the Constitution.
Does it matter if we are among the most unpopular groups in the country? Is it worth considering what we can do to change how we are perceived? I believe that it is important and that there are positive steps that can be taken to communicate Humanist ideas and broaden our appeal to non-humanists.
Here are my suggestions for areas where we can challenge our selves, stretch our limits, and perhaps further the growth of humanism.
True versus Right
Too often we focus on what is true rather than what is right. We do this in two ways – by denigrating the truth of others and by proclaiming our own truth as superior.
When we focus on debunking other people’s version of truth, we are less able to find common understanding and to work in concert with others. There are cases where we can find a common vision and establish a course of joint right action – despite significant differences in what informs our opinions of what is right. To increase the influence of humanism, we should look for opportunities to form coalitions with others.
We also erect barriers between humanist groups and non-humanists when we loudly proclaim our own, exclusive truth. When we ascend to this level of truth statements, we risk being perceived as being as dogmatic as those in the religious community who we criticize.
I do not suggest that we completely refrain from putting forth our beliefs about what is true or pointing out the implications of other versions of truth. I do suggest that we are more conscious of the appropriateness of such actions and more open to the possibility of working in coalition with those with different beliefs.
Human Communication and Understanding
Humanists are known more for having strong opinions than for being receptive to the opinions of others. If being a Humanist means being concerned with humanity, we should be prepared to fully participate in the rich and diverse tapestry of human conversation. In addition to providing our own well-reasoned opinions, we should be able to truly listen to the opinions of others.
My issue with communication is this: I believe it should be part of our identity as Humanists that we approach conversation with concern for the other, respect for differences of opinions, and a radical openness to the truth of the other.
This does not mean that we should be without convictions and unwilling to try to persuade. I certainly have convictions and for ideas that I am passionate about, I feel obligated to attempt persuasion.
In life, I see too many people talking past each other... too many missed opportunities for dialogue. My suggestion is to take conversation, both amongst ourselves and in our daily lives, to this higher level of exchange. On rare occasions such exchanges can transform relations and reach the level of empathic understanding, even when we do not change our opinions.
This is the ideal of communications that I suggest that humanists aspire to achieve. I have made a personal commitment to strive for this level of exchange. Most of the time, my experience falls far short, but when it truly clicks I experience, for a brief moment, the beauty of human possibility.
Humanist Spirituality
A USA TODAY/Gallup Poll in January 2001 also identified a shift away from religious identity: 50% of Americans call themselves religious, down from 54% in December 1999. But an additional 33% call themselves "spiritual but not religious," up from 30%, and about one in 10 say they are neither.
What about this "spiritual but not religious" segment of the population? Is “spirituality” something that is inaccessible to Humanists? Is it merely the latest zeitgeist that we can ignore? Although “spirituality” carries a lot of baggage, I believe that we could benefit by espousing a “Humanist Spirituality”.
Albert Einstein said:
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, his eyes are closed.
As a Humanist and follower of philosophical naturalism, I do not believe that I am immune from experiencing awe and wonder. I may even experience an occasional more profound feeling of connection to nature, the human community or the universe.
Our brain chemistry is capable of producing truly amazing mental experiences. We should be able to appreciate and celebrate these experiences. They should not be dismissed as delusional hogwash incompatible with a rational view of the world.
Addressing our internal experience should supplement Humanism’s traditional focus on rational inquiry, so that we are able to address our whole beings.
Addressing Humanist Spirituality may also be a way to appeal to an emerging group that may become culturally dominant. A popular analysis of demographic trends, The Cultural Creatives, by Paul Ray and Sherry Anderson, predicts the increasing influence of a new cultural group, the Cultural Creatives. The trend analysis of Ray and Anderson bodes well for Humanists. They predict the decline of traditional religion and modern materialist values and the rise of a group concerned with protecting natural resources, advocating human rights, and promoting personal growth. Many of the interests of the Cultural Creatives, as identified by Ray and Anderson, are consistent with Humanist values.
I encourage other Humanists to help develop and articulate a Humanist Spirituality that explores our experience of awe and wonder and affirms our place as a part of the natural world.
Conclusion
My view on the future of Humanism is optimistic. While the mass changes in attitude envisioned in the Humanist Manifestoes have not quickly come to pass, slow but steady progress has taken place. Secularism in public life is well established. Humanists have been effective advocates of separation of Church and State, democracy, and social justice. Humanism would continue to grow in influence by just continuing to do what it has been doing of late.
I believe that opportunities exist to broaden the influence of Humanism by increasing our willingness to form coalitions with others, making a commitment to become as good listeners as we are talkers, and developing a rich and meaningful Humanist Spirituality. I have incorporated these ideas into my vision of Humanism. I invite you to consider how they may relate to your vision of Humanism.
Posted by Randy Best on November 06, 2002