Secular humanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Part of Philosophy series on

Humanism

Secular humanism

Humanism (life stance)
International Humanist
and Ethical Union (IHEU)
Council for Secular Humanism

Religious humanism

Christian humanism
Christian
Existential Humanism
Humanistic Buddhism
Humanistic Judaism
Spiritual Humanism
Integral humanism

Posthumanism
Neo-humanism
Incarnational Humanism
Transhumanism
List of humanists
Happy Human

History of humanism

Renaissance humanism
Humanism in Germany
Humanism in France
Humanist Manifesto

Philosophy Portal · v • d • e

Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as warrants of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance or a praxis focusing on the way human beings can lead good and happy lives (eupraxsophy). The term was coined in the 20th century to make a clear distinction from "religious humanism". A related concept is scientific humanism, which the biologist Edward O. Wilson claimed to be "the only worldview compatible with science's growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature".^[1]

[edit] Tenets

Secular humanism describes a world view with the following elements and principles:^[2]

Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.

Reason, evidence, scientific method - Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.

Fulfillment, growth, creativity - A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.

Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.

This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.

Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.

Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

A Secular Humanist Declaration was an argument for and statement of belief in Democratic Secular Humanism. The document was issued in 1980 by The Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (CODESH), now the Council for Secular Humanism (CSH).

[edit] Relationship to other concepts

When humanists use the phrase secular humanism it is typically to emphasize differences relative to religion or religious humanism.

There are a number of ways in which secular and religious humanism can differ:^[3]

Religious humanists may value rituals and ceremonies as means of affirming their life stance. Secular humanists are typically not interested in using rituals and ceremonies.^[4]
Some religious humanists may seek profound "religious" experiences, such as those that others would associate with the presence of God, despite interpreting these experiences differently. Secular humanists would generally not pursue such experiences.
Some varieties of nontheistic religious humanism may conceive of the word divine as more than metaphoric even in the absence of a belief in a traditional God; they may believe in ideals that transcend physical reality; or they may conceive of some experiences as "numinous" or uniquely religious. Secular humanism regards all such terms as, at best, metaphors for truths rooted in the material world.
Some varieties of religious humanism, such as Christian humanism include belief in God, traditionally defined. Secular humanism is skeptical about God and the supernatural and believes that these are not useful concepts for addressing human problems.

While some humanists embrace calling themselves secular humanists, others prefer the term Humanist, capitalized and without any qualifying adjective. The terms secular humanism and Humanism overlap, but have different connotations. The term secular humanism emphasizes a non-religious focus, whereas the term Humanism deemphasizes this and may even encompass some nontheistic varieties of religious humanism. The term Humanism also emphasizes considering one's humanism to be a life stance.

Secular humanism advocates secularism but is a broader concept. Secularism has a number of usages but generally emphasize limits on the role of religious or supernatural considerations in the affairs of society or government. Secular humanism adds to these positions a comprehensive perspective on life, including affirmation of human dignity and the importance of ethics.

Secular humanism is a broad philosophic position and not simply a statement about belief or non-belief in God. As such, it is inaccurate to identify secular humanism as being the same thing as nontheism, atheism, or agnosticism. While secular humanists are generally nontheistic, atheist, or agnostic, the converse may not be true. Many nontheists, atheists, and agnostics adhere to the tenets of secular humanism, but this is not intrinsically the case.^[5]

Secular humanism has appeal to atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, empiricists, objectivists, rationalists, skeptics and materialists, as well as to some Buddhists, Hindus and Confucians.

Christian fundamentalist opponents of humanism typically use the term secular humanism pejoratively to mean atheism or secularism or to lump together all nontheistic varieties of humanism. Humanists object to such usage, finding it misleading or overly broad.

[edit] Secular humanism today

While secular humanist organizations are found in all parts of the world, one of the largest humanist organisations in the world (relative to population) is Norway's Human-Etisk Forbund,^[6] which had over 69,000 members out of a population of around 4.6 million in 2004.^[7]

In certain areas of the world, secular humanism finds itself in conflict with religious fundamentalism, especially over the issue of the separation of church and state. A faction of secular humanists may judge religions as superstitious, regressive, and/or close-minded, while the majority of religious fundamentalists see secular humanism as a threat to the values they say are set out in religious texts, such as the Bible and the Qur'an.^[8]

[edit] Criticism

Some criticize the philosophy of secular humanism because it offers no eternal truths nor a relationship with the divine.^[9]^[10] They comment that a philosophy bereft of these beliefs^[11] leaves humanity adrift in a foggy sea^[12] of postmodern cynicism and anomie.^[13] Humanists respond that such criticisms reflect a failure to look at the actual content of humanist philosophy, which far from being cynical and postmodern, is rooted in optimistic,^[14]^[15] idealistic^[16] attitudes that trace back to the Enlightenment,^[17]^[18]^[19] or further, back to Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers and Chinese Confucianism.^[2]

[edit] Is secular humanism a religion?

Some Christians maintain that secular humanism is a religion. Humanists say that secular humanism is not a religion, while acknowledging that some varieties of humanism may be religious in some senses of the word. Disputes around this subject are largely semantic.

There is a continuum of humanist philosophies which may be divided into several categories:

A. Nontheistic non-religious humanism
B. Nontheistic religious humanism
C. Theistic religious humanism

Adherents of the first category of humanism, A, emphatically do not regard their variety of humanism as a religion. Adherents of the last two categories of humanism, B and C, regard their variety of humanism as a religion.

Confusion arises because proponents and opponents of humanism tend to define the term secular humanism differently.

Among proponents of humanism, secular humanism refers to category A. The current article relates primarily to secular humanism as defined in this fashion.
Among Christians who oppose humanism, secular humanism is used to refer to categories A and B, or even A, B and C.

Fundamentalists use the descriptions of those in category B of their humanism as a religion to "prove" that "Secular Humanism is a religion." This angers those who actually call themselves secular humanists, those in category A, because their variety of humanism is "by definition not religious."

So, the question of whether secular humanism is or is not a religion devolves into a question of semantics, and a question of whether or not people are to be trusted to know whether or not their own beliefs are religious in nature:

If one uses self-reporting of adherents to determine which beliefs are "religious" then:
- Using the definition of those who self-identify as secular humanists, then secular humanism is emphatically not a religion. To these individuals, the word "secular" means "not religious" and is an assertion of their desire to be not associated with religion.
- Using the fundamentalists' definition of secular humanism, the question of whether secular humanism is a religion or not is not coherent: secular humanism denotes a range of world views, some of which are religious and some of which are not.
If one does not use self-reporting of adherents to determine which beliefs are "religious" then:
- What definition of "religion" one adheres to will determine whether or not some varieties of nontheistic humanism should be regarded as religious or not.

Related legal questions are considered in a subsequent section.

[edit] Legal mentions (United States)

The issue of whether and in what sense secular humanism might be considered a religion, and what the implications of this would be has become the subject of legal maneuvering and political debate in the United States.

[edit] Case law

[edit] Torcaso v. Watkins

The phrase "secular humanism" became prominent after it was used in the United States Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins. In the 1961 decision, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." Such footnotes, known as obiter dicta, are personal observations of the judge, and hence are incidental to reaching the opinion.

[edit] Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda

The footnote in Torcaso v. Watkins referenced Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda,^[20] a 1957 case in which an organization of humanists^[21] sought a tax exemption on the ground that they used their property "solely and exclusively for religious worship." Despite the group's non-theistic beliefs, the court determined that the activities of the Fellowship of Humanity, which included weekly Sunday meetings, were analogous to the activities of theistic churches and thus entitled to an exemption.

The Fellowship of Humanity case itself referred to humanism but did not mention the term secular humanism. Nonetheless, this case was cited by Justice Black to justify the inclusion of Secular Humanism in the list of religions in his note. Presumably Justice Black added the word secular to emphasize the non-theistic nature of the Fellowship of Humanity and distinguish their brand of humanism from that associated with, for example, Christian humanism.

[edit] Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia

Another case alluded to in the Torcaso v. Watkins footnote, and said by some to have established secular humanism as a religion under the law, is the 1957 tax case of Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia [1] (101 U.S. App. D.C. 371). The Washington Ethical Society functions much like a church, but regards itself as a non-theistic religious institution, honoring the importance of ethical living without mandating a belief in a supernatural origin for ethics. The case involved denial of the Society's application for tax exemption as a religious organization. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court's ruling, defined the Society as a religious organization, and granted its tax exemption.

The Society terms its practice Ethical Culture. Though Ethical Culture is based on a humanist philosophy, Ethical Culture is regarded by some as a type of religious humanism. Hence, it would seem most accurate to say that this case affirmed that a religion need not be theistic to qualify as a religion under the law, rather than asserting that it established generic secular humanism as a religion.

In the cases of both the Fellowship of Humanity and the Washington Ethical Society, the court decisions turned not so much on the particular beliefs of practitioners as on the function and form of the practice being similar to the function and form of the practices in other religious institutions.

[edit] Peloza v. Capistrano School District

The implication in Justice Black's footnote that secular humanism is a religion has been seized upon by religious opponents of the teaching of the theory of evolution, who have made the argument that teaching evolution amounts to teaching a religious idea.

The claim that secular humanism could be considered a religion for legal purposes was examined by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Peloza v. Capistrano School District in 1994. In this case, a science teacher argued that, by requiring him to teach evolution, his school district was forcing him to teach the "religion" of secular humanism. The Court responded, "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are 'religions' for Establishment Clause purposes." The Supreme Court refused to review the case.

The decision in a subsequent case, Kalka v. Hawk et al., offered this commentary:^[21]

The Court's statement in Torcaso does not stand for the proposition that humanism, no matter in what form and no matter how practiced, amounts to a religion under the First Amendment. The Court offered no test for determining what system of beliefs qualified as a "religion" under the First Amendment. The most one may read into the Torcaso footnote is the idea that a particular non-theistic group calling itself the "Fellowship of Humanity" qualified as a religious organization under California law.

[edit] Controversy

Religious groups resentful of the separation of church and state attach great significance to the granting of legal protections to non-theistic organizations as religions. They argue that secular humanism—and by association secularism—has been granted religious status, that secularism in government and in the schools constitutes state favoritism towards a particular religion, and a double standard is used in granting religious protections to these groups while allowing the teaching of ideas such as evolution which are consistent with secularism.^[22]

U.S. courts have consistently rejected this interpretation. Often the discussion is not clearly framed. However, the rationale for believing there is no contradiction appears to include the following:

Beliefs involved are about more than secularism — Religious status has been granted to various non-theistic humanist organizations. Such organizations typically favor various aspects of secularism. However, humanism embraces a variety of ideas which are not part of secularism, for example, affirming human dignity. Even if a particular brand of humanism were to be regarded as a religion, that would not necessarily make particular positions, such as secularism, religious, as religious status could be based on other considerations.
Beliefs of a religious group can be non-religious — Even if a group did assert secularism in isolation to be its religion (no instances of this are known), this would not mean that secularism is in general a religious idea. ("Just because people count something in what they say is their religion does not make it inherently religious. If some people start worshipping chairs chairs shouldn't be kept out of school."^[23])
Court rulings haven't been about beliefs — Court rulings on particular non-theistic groups being religious have never ruled that the ideas of these groups were religious per se. Instead, rulings have generally said the groups in question functionally acted like other religious institutions and therefore were entitled to similar protections. (This fact has been obscured by imprecise comments, such as those of Justice Black, but is reflected in the text of particular rulings.)
Most advocates aren't religious^{[citation needed]} — Ideas such as the scientific method and evolution are advocated primarily by people who do not regard these ideas as being part of their religions, lending credibility to the claim that these ideas are not inherently religious.

Decisions about tax status have been based on whether or not an organization functions like a church. On the other hand, Establishment Clause cases turn on whether the ideas or symbols involved are inherently religious. An organization can function like a church while advocating beliefs that are not necessarily inherently religious.

Author Marci Hamilton has pointed out that the "Moreover the debate is not between secularists and the religious. The debate is believers and non-believers on the one side debating believers and non-believers on the other side. You've got citizens who are ... of faith who believe in the separation of church and state and you have a set of believers who do not believe in the separation of church and state."^[24]

[edit] Legislation

[edit] Hatch amendment

The Education for Economic Security Act of 1984 included a section, Section 20 U,S.C.A. 4059, which initially read: "Grants under this subchapter ['Magnet School Assistance] may not be used for consultants, for transportation or for any activity which does not augment academic improvement." With no public notice, Senator Orrin Hatch tacked on to the proposed exclusionary subsection the words "or for any course of instruction the substance of which is secular Humanism."^[25]

Implementation of this provision ran into practical problems because neither the Senator's staff, nor the Senate's Committee on Labor and Human Resources, nor the Department of Justice could propose a definition of what would constitute a "course of instruction the substance of which is secular Humanism." So, this determination was left up to local school boards.

The provision provoked a storm of controversy which within a year lead Senator Hatch to propose, and Congress to pass, an amendment to delete from the statute all reference to secular humanism.

While this episode did not dissuade fundamentalists from continuing to object to what they regarded as the "teaching of secular humanism," it did point out the vagueness of the claim.

[edit] Historical and modern references

The term secularism was created in 1846 by George Jacob Holyoake in order to describe "a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life."^[26]

Historical use of the term humanism (reflected in some current academic usage), is related to the writings of pre-Socratic philosophers. These writings were lost to European societies until Renaissance scholars rediscovered them through Muslim sources and translated them from Arabic into European languages."^[27] Thus the term humanist can mean a humanities scholar, as well as refer to The Enlightenment/ Renaissance intellectuals, and those who have agreement with the pre-Socratics, as distinct from secular humanists. See the article on humanism for additional history of this term.

The meaning of the phrase "secular humanism" has evolved over time. This phrase was first known to have been used in the 1950's. It was used, for example, by Leo Pfeffer and by Joseph Blau, then professor emeritus of religion at Columbia University. However, as used initially the phrase did not have the connotations it later assumed. In 1958 Pfeffer used the term to mean "Those unaffiliated with organized religion and concerned with human values."^[26]

As mentioned previously, "secular humanism" was a term used by Justice Black in 1961 to refer to a non-theistic variety of humanism that its adherents considered to be religious. The phrase was seized upon by religious fundamentalists, with the inclusion of the word "secular" often used to cast humanists as anti-religious.

By the 1970s the term was embraced by some humanists who, although critical of religion in its various guises, were deliberately non-religious, as opposed to anti-religious, which means that their humanism has nothing to do with spiritual, religious, or ecclesiastical doctrines, beliefs, or power structures. This is how "secular humanism" is most commonly understood by humanists today.^[2]

In a mockery of an Alabama judge's reference to secular humanism as a religion, musician and free speech advocate Frank Zappa established the "Church of American Secular Humanism."^[28] Columnist Art Buchwald wrote a column, "Secular Humanists: Threat or Menace?", which poked fun at alarm about secular humanism.^[29]