What is humanism?
The sort of answer you will get to
that question depends on what sort of humanist you ask!
The word "humanism" has a number
of meanings, and because authors and speakers often don't
clarify which meaning they intend, those trying to explain
humanism can easily become a source of confusion. Fortunately,
each meaning of the word constitutes a different type of
humanism -- the different types being easily separated and
defined by the use of appropriate adjectives. So, let me
summarize the different varieties of humanism in this way.
Literary Humanism
is a devotion to the humanities or literary culture.
Renaissance Humanism
is the spirit of learning that developed at the end of the
middle ages with the revival of classical letters and a renewed
confidence in the ability of human beings to determine for
themselves truth and falsehood.
Cultural Humanism
is the rational and empirical tradition that originated largely
in ancient Greece and Rome, evolved throughout European history,
and now constitutes a basic part of the Western approach to
science, political theory, ethics, and law.
Philosphical Humanism
is any outlook or way of life centered on human need and
interest. Sub-categories of this type include Christian Humanism
and Modern Humanism.
Christian Humanism
is defined by Webster's Third New International Dictionary as "a
philosophy advocating the self- fulfillment of man within the
framework of Christian principles." This more human-oriented
faith is largely a product of the Renaissance and is a part of
what made up Renaissance humanism.
Modern Humanism,
also called Naturalistic Humanism, Scientific Humanism, Ethical
Humanism and Democratic Humanism is defined by one of its
leading proponents, Corliss Lamont, as "a naturalistic
philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily
upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion." Modern
Humanism has a dual origin, both secular and religious, and
these constitute its sub-categories.
Secular Humanism
is an outgrowth of 18th century enlightenment rationalism and
19th century freethought. Many secular groups, such as the
Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism and the American
Rationalist Federation, and many otherwise unaffiliated academic
philosophers and scientists, advocate this philosophy.
Religious Humanism
emerged out of Ethical Culture, Unitarianism, and Universalism.
Today, many Unitarian- Universalist congregations and all
Ethical Culture societies describe themselves as humanist in the
modern sense.
The most critical irony in dealing
with Modern Humanism is the inability of its advocates to agree
on whether or not this worldview is religious. Those who see it
as philosophy are the Secular Humanists while those who see it
as religion are Religious Humanists. This dispute has been going
on since the early years of this century when the secular and
religious traditions converged and brought Modern Humanism into
existence.
Secular and Religious Humanists
both share the same worldview and the same basic principles.
This is made evident by the fact that both Secular and Religious
Humanists were among the signers of Humanist Manifesto I in 1933
and Humanist Manifesto II in 1973. From the standpoint of
philosophy alone, there is no difference between the two. It is
only in the definition of religion and in the practice of the
philosophy that Religious and Secular Humanists effectively
disagree.
The definition of religion used by
Religious Humanists is a functional one. Religion is that which
serves the personal and social needs of a group of people
sharing the same philosophical world view.
To serve personal needs, Religious
Humanism offers a basis for moral values, an inspiring set of
ideals, methods for dealing with life's harsher realities, a
rationale for living life joyously, and an overall sense of
purpose.
To serve social needs, Humanist
religious communities (such as Ethical Culture societies and
many Unitarian-Universalist churches) offer a sense of
belonging, an institutional setting for the moral education of
children, special holidays shared with like-minded people, a
unique ceremonial life, the performance of ideologically
consistent rites of passage (weddings, child welcomings,
coming-of-age celebrations, funerals, and so forth), an
opportunity for affirmation of one's philosophy of life, and a
historical context for one's ideas.
Religious Humanists maintain that
most human beings have personal and social needs that can only
be met by religion (taken in the functional sense I just
detailed). They do not feel that one should have to make a
choice between meeting these needs in a traditional faith
context versus not meeting them at all. Individuals who cannot
feel at home in traditional religion should be able to find a
home in non-traditional religion.
I was once asked by a reporter if
this functional definition of religion didn't amount to taking
away the substance and leaving only the superficial trappings.
My answer was that the true substance of religion is the role it
plays in the lives of individuals and the life of the community.
Doctrines may differ from denomination to denomination, and new
doctrines may replace old ones, but the purpose religion serves
for PEOPLE remains the same. If we define the substance of a
thing as that which is most lasting and universal, then the
function of religion is the core of it.
Religious Humanists, in realizing
this, make sure that doctrine is never allowed to subvert the
higher purpose of meeting human needs in the here and now. This
is why Humanist child welcoming ceremonies are geared to the
community and Humanist wedding services are tailored to the
specialized needs of the wedding couple. This is why Humanist
memorial services focus, not on saving the soul of the dear
departed, but on serving the survivors by giving them a
memorable experience related to how the deceased was in life.
This is why Humanists don't proselytize people on their death
beds. They find it better to allow them to die as they have
lived, undisturbed by the agendas of others.
Finally, Religious Humanism is
"faith in action." In his essay "The Faith of a Humanist," UU
Minister Kenneth Phifer declares --
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.
Now, while Secular Humanists may
agree with much of what religious Humanists do, they deny that
this activity is properly called "religious." This isn't a mere
semantic debate. Secular Humanists maintain that there is so
much in religion deserving of criticism that the good name of
Humanism should not be tainted by connection with it.
Secular Humanists often refer to
Unitarian Universalists as "Humanists not yet out of the church
habit." But Unitarian- Universalists sometimes counter that a
secular Humanist is simply an "unchurched Unitarian."
Probably the most popular example
of the Secular Humanist world view in recent years was the
controversial author Salman Rushdie. Here is what he said on
ABC's "Nightline" on February 13, 1989, in regard to his novel
The Satanic Verses.
[My book says] that there is an
old, old conflict between the secular view of the world and the
religious view of the world, and particularly between texts
which claim to be divinely inspired and texts which are
imaginatively inspired. . . . I distrust people who claim to
know the whole truth and who seek to orchestrate the world in
line with that one true truth. I think that's a very dangerous
position in the world. It needs to be challenged. It needs to be
challenged constantly in all sorts of ways, and that's what I
tried to do.
In the March 2, 1989, edition of
the New York Review, he explained that, in The Satanic Verses he
--
. . . tried to give a secular,
humanist vision of the birth of a great world religion. For
this, apparently, I should be A tried. . . . "Battle lines are
being drawn today," one of my characters remarks. "Secular
versus religious, the light verses the dark. Better you choose
which side you are on."
The Secular Humanist tradition is
a tradition of defiance, a tradition that dates back to ancient
Greece. One can see, even in Greek mythology, Humanist themes
that are rarely, if ever, manifested in the mythologies of other
cultures. And they certainly have not been repeated by modern
religions. The best example here is the character Prometheus.
Prometheus stands out because he
was idolized by ancient Greeks as the one who defied Zeus. He
stole the fire of the gods and brought it down to earth. For
this he was punished. And yet he continued his defiance amid his
tortures. This is the root of the Humanist challenge to
authority.
The next time we see a truly
heroic Promethean character in mythology it is Lucifer in John
Milton's Paradise Lost. But now he is the Devil. He is evil.
Whoever would defy God must be wickedness personified. That
seems to be a given of traditional religion. But the ancient
Greeks didn't agree. To them, Zeus, for all his power, could
still be mistaken.
Imagine how shocked a friend of
mine was when I told her my view of "God's moral standards." I
said, "If there were such a god, and these were indeed his ideal
moral principles, I would be tolerant. After all, God is
entitled to his own opinions!"
Only a Humanist is inclined to
speak this way. Only a Humanist can suggest that, even if there
be a god, it is OK to disagree with him, her, or it. In Plato's
Euthyphro, Socrates shows that God is not necessarily the source
of good, or even good himself. Socrates asks if something is
good because God ordains it, or if God ordains it because it is
already good. Yet, since the time of the ancient Greeks, no
mainstream religion has permitted such questioning of God's will
or made a hero out of a disobedient character. It is Humanists
who claim this tradition.
After all, much of Human progress
has been in defiance of religion or of the apparent natural
order. When we deflect lightening or evacuate a town before a
tornado strikes, we lessen the effects of so called "acts of
God." When we land on the Moon we defy the Earth's gravitational
pull. When we seek a solution to the AIDS crisis, we, according
to Jerry Falwell, thwart "God's punishment of homosexuals."
Politically, the defiance of
religious and secular authority has led to democracy, human
rights, and even the protection of the environment. Humanists
make no apologies for this. Humanists twist no biblical doctrine
to justify such actions. They recognize the Promethean defiance
of their response and take pride in it. For this is part of the
tradition.
Another aspect of the Secular
Humanist tradition is skepticism. Skepticism's historical
exemplar is Socrates. Why Socrates? Because, after all this
time, he still stands out alone among all the famous saints and
sages from antiquity to the present. Every religion has its
sage. Judaism has Moses, Zoroastrianism has Zarathustra,
Buddhism has the Buddha, Christianity has Jesus, Islam has
Mohammad, Mormonism has Joseph Smith, and Bahai has Baha-u-lah.
Every one of these individuals claimed to know the absolute
truth. It is Socrates, alone among famous sages, who claimed to
know NOTHING. Each devised a set of rules or laws, save
Socrates. Instead, Socrates gave us a method --a method of
questioning the rules of others, of cross- examination. And
Socrates didn't die for truth, he died for rights and the rule
of law. For these reasons, Socrates is the quintessential
skeptical Humanist. He stands as a symbol, both of Greek
rationalism and the Humanist tradition that grew out of it. And
no equally recognized saint or sage has joined his company since
his death.
Because of the strong Secular
Humanist identity with the images of Prometheus and Socrates,
and equally strong rejection of traditional religion, the
Secular Humanist actually agrees with Tertullian--who said:
"What has Jerusalem to do with
Athens?"
That is, Secular Humanists
identify more closely with the rational heritage symbolized by
ancient Athens than with the faith heritage epitomized by
ancient Jerusalem.
But don't assume from this that
Secular Humanism is only negative. The positive side is
liberation, best expressed in these words of Robert G.
Ingersoll:
When I became convinced that the
universe is natural, that all the ghosts and gods are myths,
there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my
blood the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of
my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light
and all the bolts and bars and manacles became dust. I was no
longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master
in all the wide world, not even in infinite space. I was
free--free to think, to express my thoughts--free to live my own
ideal, free to live for myself and those I loved, free to use
all my faculties, all my senses, free to spread imagination's
wings, free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope, free to
judge and determine for myself . . . I was free! I stood erect
and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.
Enough to make a Secular Humanist
shout "hallelujah!"
The fact that Humanism can at once
be both religious and secular presents a paradox of course, but
not the only such paradox. Another is that both Religious and
Secular Humanism place reason above faith, usually to the point
of eschewing faith altogether. The dichotomy between reason and
faith is often given emphasis in Humanism, with Humanists taking
their stand on the side of reason. Because of this, Religious
Humanism should not be seen as an alternative faith, but rather
as an alternative way of being religious.
These paradoxical features not
only require a unique treatment of Religious Humanism in the
study of world religions, but also help explain the continuing
controversy, both inside and outside the Humanist movement, over
whether Humanism is a religion at all.
The paradoxes don't end here.
Religious Humanism is usually without a god, without a belief in
the supernatural, without a belief in an afterlife, and without
a belief in a "higher" source of moral values. Some adherents
would even go so far as to suggest that it is a religion without
"belief" of any kind-- knowledge based on evidence being
considered preferable. Furthermore, the common notion of
"religious knowledge" as knowledge gathered through
nonscientific means is not generally accepted in Religious
Humanist epistemology.
Because both Religious and Secular
Humanism are identified so closely with cultural humanism, they
readily embrace modern science, democratic principles, human
rights, and free inquiry. Humanism's rejection of the notions of
sin and guilt, especially in relation to sexual ethics, puts it
in harmony with contemporary sexology and sex education as well
as aspects of humanistic psychology. And Humanism's historic
advocacy of the secular state makes it another voice in the
defense of church/state separation.
All these features have led to the
current charge of teaching "the religion of secular humanism" in
the public schools.
The most obvious point to clarify
in this context is that some religions hold to doctrines that
place their adherents at odds with certain features of the
modern world which other religions do not. For example, many
biblical fundamentalists, especially those filling the ranks of
the "Religious Right," reject the theory of evolution.
Therefore, they see the teaching of evolution in a science
course as an affront to their religious sensibilities. In
defending their beliefs from exposure to ideas inconsistent with
them, such fundamentalists label evolution as "humanism" and
maintain that exclusive teaching of it in the science classroom
constitutes a breech in the Jeffersonian wall of separation
between church and state.
It is indeed true that Religious
Humanists, in embracing modern science, embrace evolution in the
bargain. But individuals within mainline Protestantism,
Catholicism, and Judaism also embrace modern science--and hence
evolution. Evolution happens to be the state of the art in
science today and is appropriately taught in science courses.
That evolution has come to be identified with Religious Humanism
but not with mainline Christianity or Judaism is a curious quirk
of politics in North America. But this is a typical feature of
the whole controversy over humanism in the schools.
Other courses of study have come
to be identified with Humanism as well, including sex education,
values education, global education, and even creative writing.
Today's Christian fundamentalists would have us believe that
"situation ethics" was invented by 1974 Humanist of the Year
Joseph Fletcher. But situational considerations have been an
element of Western jurisprudence for at least 2,000 years!
Again, Secular and Religious Humanists, being in harmony with
current trends, are quite comfortable with all of this, as are
adherents of most major religions. There is no justification for
seeing these ideas as the exclusive legacy of Humanism.
Furthermore, there are independent secular reasons why schools
offer the curriculum that they do. A bias in favor of "the
religion of secular humanism" has never been a factor in their
development and implementation.
The charge of Humanist
infiltration into the public schools seems to be the product of
a confusion of cultural humanism and Religious Humanism. Though
Religious Humanism embraces cultural humanism, this is no
justification for separating out cultural humanism, labeling it
as the exclusive legacy of a nontheistic and naturalistic
religion called Religious Humanism, and thus declaring it alien.
To do so would be to turn one's back on a significant part of
one's culture and enthrone the standards of biblical
fundamentalism as the arbiter of what is and is not religious. A
deeper understanding of Western culture would go a long way in
clarifying the issues surrounding the controversy over humanism
in the public schools.
Once we leave the areas of
confusion, it is possible to explain, in straightforward terms,
exactly what the modern Humanist philosophy is about. It is easy
to summarize the basic ideas held in common by both Religious
and Secular Humanists. These ideas are as follows:
Though there are some who would
suggest that this philosophy has always had a limited and
eccentric following, the facts of history show otherwise. Among
the modern adherents of Humanism have been Margaret Sanger,
founder of Planned Parenthood and 1957 Humanist of the Year of
the American Humanist Association; humanistic psychology
pioneers Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow, also Humanists of the
Year; Albert Einstein, who joined the American Humanist
Association in the 1950s; Bertrand Russell, who joined in the
1960s; civil rights pioneer A. Philip Randoph who was the 1970
Humanist of the Year, and futurist R. Buckminister Fuller,
Humanist of the Year in 1969.
The United Nations is a specific
example of Humanism at work. The first Director General of
UNESCO, the UN organization promoting education, science, and
culture, was the 1962 Humanist of the Year Julian Huxley, who
practically drafted UNESCO'S charter by himself. The first
Director-General of the World Health Organization was the 1959
Humanist of the Year Brock Chisholm. One of this organization's
greatest accomplishments has been the wiping of smallpox from
the face of the earth. And the first Director-General of the
Food and Agricultural Organization was British Humanist John
Boyd Orr.
Meanwhile, Humanists, like 1980
Humanist of the Year Andrei Sakharov, have stood up for human
rights wherever such rights are suppressed. Betty Friedan and
Gloria Steinem fight for women's rights, Mathilde Krim battles
the AIDS epidemic, and Margaret Atwood is one of the world's
most outspoken advocates of literary freedom--Humanists all.
The list of scientists is legion:
Stephen Jay Gould, Donald Johanson, Richard Leakey, E.O. Wilson,
Francis Crick, Jonas Salk, and many others--all members of the
American Humanist Association, whose president in the 1980s was
the late scientist and author Isaac Asimov.
The membership lists of Humanist
organizations, both religious and secular, read like Who's Who.
Through these people, and many more of less reknown, the
Humanist philosophy has an impact on our world far out of
proportion to the number of its adherents. That, I think, tells
us something about the power of ideas that work.
This may have been what led George
Santayana to declare Humanism to be "an accomplishment, not a
doctrine."
So, with modern Humanism one finds
a philosophy or religion that is in tune with modern knowledge;
is inspiring, socially conscious, and personally meaningful. It
is not only the thinking person's outlook, but that of the
feeling person as well, for it has inspired the arts as much as
it has the sciences, philanthropy as much as critique. And even
in critique it is tolerant, defending the rights of all people
to choose other ways, to speak and to write freely, to live
their lives according to their own lights.
So, the choice is yours. Are you a
Humanist?
You needn't answer "yes" or "no."
For it's not an either-or proposition. Humanism is yours--to
adopt or simply to draw from. You may take a little or a lot,
sip from the cup or drink it to the dregs.
It's up to you.>>
Gene
http://www.religioustolerance.org/humanism.htm web
mekânına bakarsanız gay humanism, lesbian humanism, physian
assisted suicide humanism, Judaistic humanism... gibi bir alay
ilginçlik de bulursunuz.
Mustağriplerimiz hemen
benimsemiştir kelimeyi ve onlara göre gönül eri ve Allah âşığı
Yûnus Emre, Mevlânâ, Hacı Bektaş Velî
de su katılmamış birer hümanisttir. Hakk ve hak âşığı olan,
Peygamberi’ne “ben senin ayağının tozu olamam” diyen bu insanlar
nasıl olur da hümanist addedilebilir!
Bir ilginçlik de,
ekstatik transandanslar yaşayıp “En’el Hakk” (Hallâc- Mansur)
diyecek kadar kendinden geçen bu gönül ehline “düşünür” denmesi…
El insaf, bâri bu
muhterem zevâta hakaret etmeyin.
Biyolojik anlamda diğer
hayvanlar da düşünür. İnsanoğlu yâni Homo sapiens sapiens
eşref-i mahlûkat mıdır yoksa eşşek-i mahlûkat mı, bunu zaman
gösterecek ama bu büyük mistiklere, bu tefekkür, tefelsüf ve
mükâşefe erenlerine “düşünür” demek en hafifinden
ayıptır! Aynı şey Buda, Lao Tse ve daha nice
mistik için de, Hz. Musa, Hz. İsa, Hz. Muhammed
gibi peygamberler için de geçerli. Bu insanlar hayat
gâileleriyle boğuşurken tabii ki düşünüyorlardı ama yaşadıkları
transandans ve ekstaz “serial processing” ile, rasyonel fikir
yürütmeyle ulaşılabilecek şuûr hâlleri değildi.
