This is an argument that humanism, although preferable to many alternative philosophies, has two major flaws more usually associated with religions. Firstly, it's a way of asserting that the culture and society it comes from is superior to all others. Secondly, it's based on assertions and assumptions that are presented without evidence.

Defining humanism is obviously difficult. For this post I'm defining it using the Amsterdam Declaration of the 2002 World Humanist Congress.

Humanism is a way of asserting that the culture and society it comes from is superior to all others.
The Amsterdam Declaration says:

It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others... Humanism aims at the fullest possible development of every human being. It holds that democracy and human development are matters of right... Humanism ventures to build a world on the idea of the free person responsible to society... Humanism values artistic creativity and imagination and recognises the transforming power of art. Humanism affirms the importance of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts for personal development and fulfilment... Humanism is a lifestance aiming at the maximum possible fulfilment through the cultivation of ethical and creative living.

These are very much the values of Western intellectuals over the last 250 to 300 years, the values of the Enlightenment, the French Revolution and the Declaration of Independence, 19th century philosophy and social reform. They're very culturally specific. Outside Western culture it may not be at all self evident that human development and fulfilment in this sense of being all you can be is particularly important. In many cultural settings the notion of the free person responsible to society won't be a familiar one at all. No prizes for guessing which culture’s literature, music and art is being put on a pedestal here either.

Humanism ... offers an ethical and rational means of addressing the challenges of our times. Humanism can be a way of life for everyone everywhere... Our primary task is to make human beings aware in the simplest terms of what Humanism can mean to them and what it commits them to.... we have confidence that we have the means to solve the problems that confront us all.

So what's being said here is that this particularly Western set of ideas can be a way of life for everyone everywhere and is best placed to solve all our problems. It isn't argued that people from other cultures would be more developed and fulfilled if they adopted Western culture or that adoption of Western culture would be a good thing by any measure. No evidence is presented.

There's no evidence-based comparison to other cultures to see if the West does indeed hold the solution to the problems of the world. Given that the greatest threats to humanity would appear to be climate change and nuclear war you'd be forgiven for thinking that the West was part of the problem rather than the key to the solution. It would be nice if humanism could manage a little humility in the light of the West's track record in bringing democracy and rationality to the rest of the world, from colonialism right down to Iraq. Sadly not.

Historically, religion has been the way in which societies have announced themselves to be right and the rest of the world wrong. Today humanism does the same thing.

Humanism is based on assertions and assumptions that are presented without evidence.

Humanism is all about human fulfilment and development, both as ends in themselves and as the solution to all problems. We’ve known, at least since Darwin, that we are animals but as nothing is said about them it appears that it doesn’t matter whether other animals are developed or fulfilled. Mostly we eat them. Many species have complex social structures but there’s no suggestion that they have a right to democracy as a way of solving their problems.

Although it’s pretty clear that the environment is a major element of the Declaration’s “problems which conform us all” the environment is given value only because the Declaration “recognises our dependence” on it and because it acknowledges “a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations.”

Humanism is premised on a radical separation between ourselves and the rest of the world – the world holds value only insofar as it serves human needs.

What marks us out as so special when we know there is no sharp division between us and the rest of life on Earth? No evidence supports this distinction. The Declaration doesn’t say, it simply asserts. Presumably, however, it’s not too much of a leap in the dark to say that it’s consciousness, self-awareness, moral capacity, free will, that sort of thing. Yet we have no grounds to say that these things are so important or so uniquely human.

Free will is philosophically indefensible. Moral capacity appears to be a developed form of social behaviour present in animals. Does humanism offer evidence that consciousness and self- awareness are completely lacking in all other species? Are these the key to our dominance of Earth? Or is it just that we have bigger brains? Are we really different in kind rather than degree?

Humanism is based on the assumption that humans are the only truly valuable things in the world, that we can be perfected and, ultimately, saved. These are, of course, profoundly religious ideas and humanism offers no more evidence in their favour than religion does.

Thanks for reading.

For me, humanism, should ignore all culture, culture, is what divides human beings. It also leads to the disrespect of animal life. We should, as humanists, be gatherers of good ideas. Ideas, we would like to have, by law, applied to ourselves.

I fail to see any point to your rant.

This reminds me of the theist posts that claim atheists believe blah blah blah...

Most people that describe themselves as humanists do not believe most of what you claim they believe.

logical bob wrote:
Defining humanism is obviously difficult. For this post I'm defining it using the Amsterdam Declaration of the 2002 World Humanist Congress.

Mistrust any "declaration" made by a few that assert to represent the views of many individuals.

logical bob wrote:
Humanism is based on assertions and assumptions that are presented without evidence.

Humanism is all about human fulfilment and development, both as ends in themselves and as the solution to all problems. We’ve known, at least since Darwin, that we are animals but as nothing is said about them it appears that it doesn’t matter whether other animals are developed or fulfilled. Mostly we eat them. Many species have complex social structures but there’s no suggestion that they have a right to democracy as a way of solving their problems.

Although it’s pretty clear that the environment is a major element of the Declaration’s “problems which conform us all” the environment is given value only because the Declaration “recognises our dependence” on it and because it acknowledges “a duty of care to all of humanity including future generations.”

Humanism is premised on a radical separation between ourselves and the rest of the world – the world holds value only insofar as it serves human needs.

What marks us out as so special when we know there is no sharp division between us and the rest of life on Earth? No evidence supports this distinction. The Declaration doesn’t say, it simply asserts. Presumably, however, it’s not too much of a leap in the dark to say that it’s consciousness, self-awareness, moral capacity, free will, that sort of thing. Yet we have no grounds to say that these things are so important or so uniquely human.

Free will is philosophically indefensible. Moral capacity appears to be a developed form of social behaviour present in animals. Does humanism offer evidence that consciousness and self- awareness are completely lacking in all other species? Are these the key to our dominance of Earth? Or is it just that we have bigger brains? Are we really different in kind rather than degree?

Humanism is based on the assumption that humans are the only truly valuable things in the world, that we can be perfected and, ultimately, saved. These are, of course, profoundly religious ideas and humanism offers no more evidence in their favour than religion does.

Many humanists would argue that humanism is a philosophy about how humans deal with humans. Most of the above falls outside the scope of this sort of humanism. To say humanists don't pay attention to social behavior in animals is like saying biologists don't pay attention to string theory.

"the world holds value only insofar as it serves human needs"
or
"Humanism is based on the assumption that humans are the only truly valuable things in the world, that we can be perfected and, ultimately, saved."

I converse regularly with many who would describe themselves as humanists. I can't imagine any of them asserting or believing any such thing.

Doesn't the core value of "dignity and autonomy of every individual" logically include the right to one's own culture?

I agree with Godless Infidel. I don't think many Humanists would recognise themselves in what you describe.

"Mistrust any "declaration" made by a few that assert to represent the views of many individuals."

... Awesome.

I work in the field of religious education in the UK, and since I've been doing this work I've come to believe that 'humanism' is a kind of placeholder, a way for non-religious people to stand beside/with religious groups in a way that says "we have ethics and values as well." I've had several experiences of teachers telling me stories of children from non-religious backgrounds who feel they 'are' or 'have' nothing when the subject of religious affiliation comes up. Humanism allows them to feel that they do have a stance that is moral, idealistic, creative and enriching.

Although I belong to the British Humanist Association I don't belong to our local group and I don't attend any of the BHA events. I'm not a 'go-out-to-group-meetings' kind of person. Having said that, I have certainly felt a great kinship and sense of community with people on this forum—like, for example, <LB>, the Haiku Fellowship.

One of the things that I often see emphasised in any discussion of religious education is the importance of teaching how diverse each religion and indeed each religious group within any overall religion is. For instance, if you believed everything written on this forum about Islam you'd think all Muslims believe certain things (e.g. kill the infidel). Whereas there is a huge range of different Muslim groups, spanning from the ultra-fundamentalist to quite enlightened groups (e.g. those who believe men and women are equal and that all should receive the best education).

I occasionally wear the Humanist hat in certain situations, e.g. in RE conferences in schools. However because of my valuation of mythology and metaphor I find that I have no trouble talking about religious/metaphoric truth existing side by side with scientific truth. I believe the two can co-exist and I think in that respect I am not typical of most people who would define themselves as humanist.

All that aside, I have fought hard to ensure that 'humanism' is part of our locally agreed syllabus. In all it's complexity as well, not just as an illustration of criticism of religion (which is the only way it is allowed to surface in some localities).

I can certainly see the value of a placeholder, a way of ensuring a seat at the table for those who have no religion, for as long as society gives religious institutions a privileged place in moral discussion. That's especially true in education. My kids get classes in Religious and Moral Education and also in Personal and Social Education. Let's unpack the assumptions that place ethics with religion rather than with the personal and the social. In the long run we need to break that down rather than create a Religion Lite so that we can play too.

It seems to me that humanism is sometimes taken to be a synonym for atheism, or perhaps for organised unbelief. There is also a movement that seems to be making some positive claims as well as simply stepping away from religion. Some of the replies above suggest that people who identify as humanists don't recognise these claims. Taking account both of this equation of atheism with humanism and of this additional agenda I think we should beware of the situation where a particular group is assumed to speak for all of us when in fact it doesn't.

This shows the difficulties presented when attempting conceptual definitions by committee, the interpretive problems inherent in such ad-hoc definitions, and the hopelessly inaccurate assumption that a rejection of religion necessarily leaves gaps in one’s psyche to be filled by a tribal equivalent. I do not recognise the picture of humanism painted from the conclusions drawn in the OP (although I understand it was presented for illustrative purposes), nor do I accept the authority of any self-appointed convention delegates seeking some form of crude tribal association.

logical bob wrote:
It seems to me that humanism is sometimes taken to be a synonym for atheism, or perhaps for organised unbelief. There is also a movement that seems to be making some positive claims as well as simply stepping away from religion. Some of the replies above suggest that people who identify as humanists don't recognise these claims. Taking account both of this equation of atheism with humanism and of this additional agenda I think we should beware of the situation where a particular group is assumed to speak for all of us when in fact it doesn't.

I suspect you are right about the equation of humanism and atheism in the mind of some. But humanism is really an ethical stance, whereas atheism is quite simply non-belief in the supernatural or divinity.

As to some of the things in the Amsterdam declaration, well I'm fairly certain that most humanists wouldn't agree with or identify with it.

For instance most of the humanists I know are also conservationists, and certainly wouldn't raise the needs of human beings above all other life on earth.

But like I said earlier, I think the term is a placeholder, a way to counteract the somewhat negative connotations of 'atheist'.

I'm not entirely sure that a humanist, while definitely atheist, could also be anti-religion or anti-theist? That would seem to go against the golden rule, which seems to be the one rule humanists treat like a commandment?

Well, if what I learn from posting this is that the Amsterdam Declaration fails to represent what humanism is actually about then I guess it's been instructive.

logical bob wrote:Well, if what I learn from posting this is that the Amsterdam Declaration fails to represent what humanism is actually about then I guess it's been instructive.

I strongly suspect you would get a different definition of humanism from every person you spoke to about it. Viewed from that perspective it's a very human idea indeed!

iam43 wrote:

logical bob wrote:Well, if what I learn from posting this is that the Amsterdam Declaration fails to represent what humanism is actually about then I guess it's been instructive.

I strongly suspect you would get a different definition of humanism from every person you spoke to about it. Viewed from that perspective it's a very human idea indeed!

Ditto with any other tradition. We once did a very interesting 'speed dating' exercise with a network of RE teachers. Each pair was given 10 minutes (5 minutes each) to tell the other what the word 'religion' meant to them. After 10 minutes a bell would ring and we'd switch partners. It was one of the most fascinating meetings we ever had.

Keep in mind that these were RE teachers, their responses were all kinds, i.e. personal, academic, anecdotal etc.

One popular misperception of humanism that I think needs rebuttal is the idea that it says "humanism has the answer to the world's problems". Most thoughtful humanists I know don't think that. What they think instead is "no philosophy is a guarantee. We may not be able to solve some problems. But any solutions to problems are going to be human ones, not divine ones."

orpheus wrote:One popular misperception of humanism that I think needs rebuttal is the idea that it says "humanism has the answer to the world's problems". Most thoughtful humanists I know don't think that. What they think instead is "no philosophy is a guarantee. We may not be able to solve some problems. But any solutions to problems are going to be human ones, not divine ones."

Nice ! I like that.

Nora_Leonard wrote:

iam43 wrote:

logical bob wrote:Well, if what I learn from posting this is that the Amsterdam Declaration fails to represent what humanism is actually about then I guess it's been instructive.

I strongly suspect you would get a different definition of humanism from every person you spoke to about it. Viewed from that perspective it's a very human idea indeed!

Ditto with any other tradition. We once did a very interesting 'speed dating' exercise with a network of RE teachers. Each pair was given 10 minutes (5 minutes each) to tell the other what the word 'religion' meant to them. After 10 minutes a bell would ring and we'd switch partners. It was one of the most fascinating meetings we ever had.

Keep in mind that these were RE teachers, their responses were all kinds, i.e. personal, academic, anecdotal etc.

We could have done with some of this kind of mental flexibility round about here, where quite a few people were seriously saying that if you can't define exactly what makes someone a Christian then you can't use the word.

orpheus wrote:One popular misperception of humanism that I think needs rebuttal is the idea that it says "humanism has the answer to the world's problems".

Unfortunately it seems to be out there because of people claiming to speak for all humanists. If you go to the website of the British Humanist Association you'll also be linked to the Amsterdam Declaration that I used above.

Zwaarddijk wrote:

logical bob wrote:
We could have done with some of this kind of mental flexibility round about here, where quite a few people were seriously saying that if you can't define exactly what makes someone a Christian then you can't use the word.

Even better, some claim you can't use the word if you don't use it the way they want it to be used.

Exactly. We've had this discussion I don't know how many times over the use by non-religious people of the words 'faith' or 'spiritual'.

And further to what <LB> is saying, how many times have I read something like "Well if they don't believe every word in the Bible/Qu'ran how can they claim to be Christian/Muslim. It's all or nothing."

Why should that be so?

logical bob wrote:Let's unpack the assumptions that place ethics with religion rather than with the personal and the social. In the long run we need to break that down rather than create a Religion Lite so that we can play too.

zoon:
I agree strongly that in the long term we need to break down the assumptions that place ethics with religion, but in the short term any attempts to do so tend to wind up all over the place, which I would see as the reason why humanist organisations try to come up with placeholder ethics that everyone might be able to agree on until something better is sorted out.

I agree with what you said in your OP:

logical bob wrote: Free will is philosophically indefensible. Moral capacity appears to be a developed form of social behaviour present in animals.

The problem is that this knocks out normative ethics altogether. If “free will is philosophically indefensible”, on what basis can one argue that anyone ought to do (or refrain from doing) anything? To say that “Moral capacity appears to be a developed form of social behaviour present in animals” is to use “moral” in the descriptive, not the normative sense. Different human societies have different moral codes, and some animal societies may include proto-moral behaviour, but on this way of looking at the matter (which I agree with) there’s no basis for saying one moral code is better than another. So what do I want to stand up for, and what would I want to tell children? I don’t like racism or slavery, but both have been accepted parts of the moral code for successful societies, so on what basis can I argue that they are wrong?

From the evolutionary point of view, natural selection produces organisms, including us, which maximise their inclusive fitness. This adds to the argument that normative ethics is dead, but isn’t much use in suggesting a replacement. Human cooperation is not yet understood, it’s still a hot potato for scientists who study the evolution of social behaviour.

In the end, I think that (for example) racism and slavery cannot be shown to be wrong, they are just not the best strategies for large societies in the modern world. Slavery isn’t useful unless there’s a lot of very repetitive and menial work to be done (which is now done by machines), and it leads to an ongoing problem of keeping the slaves under control. Racism in a mixed race society which doesn’t practise slavery is apt to be explosive. But this puts both slavery and racism on a cost-benefit basis, which I agree isn’t really where I want them. Today’s Independent describes a recent study of the brain which shows different parts of the brain lighting up for opinions which the subjects would sign away for cash, and for values which they wouldn’t sign away:

Tim Hume, in the Independent, wrote: The study found that "sacred" values – those the participants would not sign away for cash – prompted greater activation of the part of the brain associated with evaluating rules-based, right-or-wrong thought processes: the same neural systems used for processing rules of grammar, syntax or street signs. The statements that were disavowed prompted greater activity in the parts of the brain associated with reward-based systems.

Ethics feels like something that ought to be rules-based, non-negotiable, but I suspect we may need to live with the assumption that it isn’t.