As an introduction to my presentation this morning, I would like to read two paragraphs
from sources that are familiar to most of us.
The
first paragraph comes from the Preface to our Hymnal.
"Our living tradition began the twentieth century primarily as a liberal Christianity
among Universalists and Unitarians, and ends that same century also embracing
the riches of humanism, feminism, mysticism, natural theism, the Jewish tradition,
many other world faith traditions, and the skepticism generated by this century's
disillusioning woes and wars."
The
next paragraph occurs in several of the sources we use and introduces us to the
main topic this morning. "The living tradition draws from many sources: Humanist
teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science,
and warn us against the idolatries of the mind and spirit."
Unlike
Marilyn(dUwAYNE'S WIFE), who felt she didn't get to choose the topic of her presentation,
I actually got to choose this topic. I didn't choose it because I thought I was
an expert on Humanism. I chose it because I have considered myself to be somewhat
of a Humanist for some time. I also chose it because I thought it would be interesting
to research and indeed it was.
I was going to start by giving you a detailed account of my religious history
and how I came to embrace humanism. You may relax, that's not going to happen.
Suffice it to say, I progressed from the Catholic Church to the Church of The
Nazarene to the Disciples of Christ to many college courses in philosophy and
psychology. From there I went to the Unitarian church then to a Methodist community,
where Marilyn and I met, and on to the Unitarian Universalist church in Owensboro.
And that's all I'm going to say about my religious history.
So,
what is Humanism? The Encyclopedia Britannica defines it as the: "term freely
applied to a variety of beliefs, methods and philosophies that place central emphasis
on the human realm." And goes on to say the term is also used with reference to
a system of education and inquiry that developed in northern Italy during the
14th century and later spread through Europe and England, also known as Renaissance
humanism. Renaissance humanism included the education of the young and the guidance
of adults through philosophical poetry and strategic rhetoric. Humanism called
for the reform of culture and the transfiguration of the passive and ignorant
society of the dark ages into a new order that would encourage the greatest of
human potential. This is not, however, the only definition of the term. In addition
to that definition, the word has also been used in other applications: humanism
as classicism, humanism referring to the modern concept of the humanities, and
humanism meaning human centered. The Encyclopedia goes on to present a lengthy
discussion of the history of humanism.
Another
source that I refer to from time to time is a book available to read online called
Humanism as The Next Step by Lloyd and Mary Morain published in 1956. In
their book, the Morain's spell out seven contributing ideas that are the forerunners
of modern humanism. The first idea is that this life should be lived fully with
a sensitive awareness and appreciation of that which surrounds us. This idea has
been handed down to us from many tribal societies. The second idea is that nature
is inherently worthy of attention and study. A third idea is that of confidence
in humankind. That humans, when free, have the ability to control their own destiny.
The fourth idea is the equality of rights among all humans. This includes all
classes and races and nationalities and both genders. This idea is hard for me
to practice when I have to interact with members of a certain political party.
A fifth central idea is that of cooperation with other humans and mutual aid to
others. This theme is present in most religions and has been given new justification
through the work of biologists and sociologists. The sixth idea is that of evolution
or the development of species through gradual change. The last idea is that of
rational logical thinking and the need to prove theory by testing and experience.
These are the seven contributing ideas that the Morains say have brought us to
modern humanism.
The
sociologist Frank H. Hankins stated that humanism is a logical step in the human
venture: "Sociological and historical researchers have shown that the essential
core of religion is devotion to those social values which bind people together
in cooperative effort for group preservation and mutual welfare; and that these
values are discovered through human experiences. Among those discovered in recent
times are devotion to truth as exemplified in the scientific mentality, the dignity
of the individual person and the ideals of democracy. Humanism thus becomes the
next logical step in religious evolution; it is the heir and creative fulfillment
of the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the democratic revolutions." Although
I don't agree with everything in this book the one statement that I do wholeheartedly
agree with is that the supreme value is the individual human being. Each one of
us of whatever race, gender, nationality, or even political party, merits equal
concern and opportunity. Laws, governments and other institutions exist for the
service of women and men and, are justifiable only as they contribute to human
well-being.
Other
parts of this book address other topics such as: How humanism serves the needs
of the individual. Applying humanism to personal and social problems. The alternative
to faith. The one source of information that I use the most is the American Humanist
Association and their various publications, especially their magazine: The
Humanist. They also have a website that has material available online.
Frederick
Edwords is a past Executive director of the American Humanist Association and
has written an article where he discusses Secular and Religious Humanism. He says
the most critical irony of modern Humanism is the inability of its proponents
to agree on whether humanism is religious. The secular Humanists see it as a philosophy
while the religious humanists see it as religion. This debate has been going on
since the start of the 1900's. Secular and Religious Humanists each share the
same world view and the same basic principles. This fact was demonstrated when
both secular and Religious Humanists signed the Humanist Manifesto I in 1933 and
Humanist Manifesto II in 1973. There is no difference between the two viewpoints
philosophically.
Religious
Humanists define religion as that which serves the personal and social needs of
a group of people sharing the same world view. Religion offers a basis for moral
values, an inspiring set of ideals, a rationale for living life joyously and an
overall sense of purpose. It also offers a sense of belonging, an institutional
setting for the moral education of children, a unique ceremonial life and the
opportunity for the affirmation of one's philosophy of life. Religious Humanists
assure that the religious doctrine will never overshadow the higher purpose of
meeting the human needs in the present. They don't proselytize people on their
death beds. They agree it's better to let them die as they have lived, unfettered
by the agendas of others. Religious Humanism is "faith in action." UU minister
Kenneth Phifer says in his essay "The Faith of a Humanist"--- "Humanism teaches
us that it is immoral to wait for God to act for us. We must act to stop the wars
and the crimes and the brutality of this and future ages. We have powers of a
remarkable kind. We have a high degree of freedom in choosing what we will do.
Humanism tells us that whatever our philosophy of the universe may be, ultimately
the responsibility for the kind of world in which we live rests with us."
Secular
Humanists may agree with much of what religious Humanists do and they deny that
the activity is called "religious." Secular Humanists argue that there is so much
in religion deserving of criticism that the good name of humanism should not be
tainted by a connection with it. Secular Humanists often refer to Unitarian Universalists
as "Humanists not yet out of the church habit." And Unitarian Universalists sometimes
refer to a secular Humanist as an "unchurched Unitarian." The fact that Humanism
can be both religious and secular is a paradox.
Another paradox is that both religious and secular Humanists place reason above
faith. Because of this, Religious Humanism should not be seen as an alternative
faith but rather an alternative way of being religious. The differences between
secular and religious Humanism may seem confusing. Edmonds claims it is possible
to explain what the Humanist philosophy is about by pointing out the basic ideas
held in common by both. I think he comes across as a little smug and evangelistic
but it may help to clear the confusion.
1. Humanism is one of the philosophies for people who think for themselves. There
is no area of thought that a Humanist is afraid to challenge and explore.
2.
Humanism is a philosophy focused on human means for comprehending reality. Humanists
make no claim to possess transcendent knowledge.
3. Humanism is a philosophy of reason and science in the pursuit of knowledge.
Humanists reject arbitrary faith, authority, revelation and altered states of
consciousness.
4.
Humanism is a philosophy of imagination. Humanists recognize that intuitive feelings,
hunches, speculation, flashes of inspiration, emotion, altered states of consciousness,
and even religious experience, while not valid means to acquire knowledge, remain
useful sources of ideas that can lead us to new ways of looking at the world.
5. Humanism is a philosophy for the here and now. Humanists regard human values
as making sense only in the context of human life rather than the promise of life
after death.
6.
Humanism is a philosophy of compassion. Humanist ethics is solely concerned with
meeting human needs and answering human problems and devotes no attention to the
satisfaction of the desires of theological entities.
7.
Humanism is realistic philosophy. Humanists recognize the existence of moral dilemmas
and the need for careful consideration of immediate and future consequences in
moral decision making.
8.
Humanism is in tune with the science of today. Humanists recognize that we live
in a natural universe of great size and age, that we evolved on this planet over
a long period of time and that human beings have certain needs that effectively
form the basis for any human-oriented value system.
9.
Humanism is in tune with today's enlightened social thought. Humanists are committed
to civil liberties, human rights, church-state separation, and the extension of
participatory democracy not just in government but also in the workplace and education,
an expansion of global consciousness and exchange of products and ideas internationally
and an open-ended approach to solving social problems, an approach that allows
for the testing of new alternatives.
10. Humanism is in tune with new technological developments. Humanists are willing
to take part in emerging scientific and technological discoveries in order to
exercise their moral influence on these revolutions as they come about especially
in the interest of protecting the environment.
11.
Humanism is in sum, a philosophy for those in love with life.
Humanists
take responsibility for their own lives and relish the adventure of being part
of new discoveries and the seeking of new knowledge. Instead of finding solace
in prefabricated answers to the great question of life, they enjoy the open-endedness
of a quest and the freedom of discovery that it brings. Edmonds closes his article
with an extensive list of people who have called themselves Humanists. People
such as: Margaret Sanger, Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, Albert Einstein, Bertrand
Russell, A. Phillip Randolph, R. Buckminster Fuller, Andre Sakharov, Betty Friedan,
Gloria Steinem, Jonas Salk and Issac Asimov. All are people of some renown. That
is why George Santayana may have declared that Humanism was "an accomplishment,
not a doctrine." I hope I've given you an idea of what humanism is. I've enjoyed
doing the research. Humanism is not an either-or proposition. It's yours to do
with as you see fit. Take a little or take a lot. It's entirely up to you.
DuWayne
Keenan - Member UUCO
top
of page
