Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Doug Thomas

GET UPDATES FROM Doug Thomas
 

Humanists Are Not Your Average Atheists

Posted: 01/19/2013 11:52 am

Some people think that "humanist" is just the new word for "atheist." That is not quite true. Humanists, at least the secular variety, are all atheists, but not all atheists are humanists.

Humanism can trace its western roots back to Thales, an Ionian Greek (c. 624-546 BCE), who contradicted the religion of Mythos that said the gods gave mankind all its knowledge. Thales said that mankind was capable of Logos, the discovery of knowledge through scientific inquiry and logic. In effect, he said that knowledge and ethics were humanos -- human centred.

Humanists, and yes, the word is correctly capitalized because it is an organized movement, have a well developed set of ethical codes laid out in the Amsterdam declarations of 1952, and 2002 and generally quoted or referenced in most Humanist organizations across Canada.
These ethical codes are available online (IHEU Amsterdam declarations) and they add up to being good without gods.

Sometimes people ask whether Humanism is not just another religion. In fact, it exhibits many of the characteristics of religion: social interaction, mutual support, fellowship, charitable work, and ethical guidelines. Humanism, however, lacks two characteristics of religion: it does not demand that members swear to obey supernatural beings and it does not bring dogma top down upon its members.

Humanists do look at various philosophers for ideas. However, it does not see them as people to follow blindly or worship. These philosophers have simply elucidated Humanist ideals in clear ways. They are philosophers that Humanists hold up as having useful ideas.

For example, when Humanists look at Epicurus' three paths to pleasure: learning, knowing, senses, Humanists can see that he left one source of pleasure out. All these actions stimulate dopamine in our brain, thus giving us that little pleasure jolt of which he speaks. Modern neuro-scientists have confirmed that human beings also get the same kind of jolt from helping others -- an action Epicurus ignored.

Were Epicurus alive today, Humanists would feel no compunction about bringing this to his attention and would hardly expect him to try hurling a thunderbolt. They might expect to lose any ensuing debate, because of Epicurus' intellect, not any superhuman attributes.

Secular Humanists look at philosophers' ideas more as touchstones than as moral imperatives. Humanists will often encounter an idea and judge it by a built in sense of right and wrong. In other words, while Humanists may respect one person's opinion over that of the general population, they do not see it as infallible.

That built in sense of right and wrong comes from the evolved dopamine reaction, balanced by tribalism, governed by reason. In other words, will the action allow the Humanist to help another through some logical exercise of effort without becoming vulnerable?

Humanists do have moral values and ethics and a definable philosophy and social structure just like any other social group. Those ethics and values go beyond the simple atheist statement that supernatural beings do not exist. Humanists are not interested in attacking other religions or philosophies. When religious people attempt to force their religious practices on others and Humanists in public forums, Humanists will oppose that action, but not the religious beliefs of the proponents.

In short, Humanists are here. It is a definable group with definable ethics and philosophies. Humanism is a philosophy that may be atheist based, but the word Humanist does not replace the term atheist.

 
FOLLOW CANADA
 
 
  • Comments
  • 35
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
09:54 PM on 01/24/2013
The Humanist value system, even secular Humanist values, is extremely similar to a Christian value system, because it is derived from Christianity. Mostly, it places humans (and their representations, such as gods) at the centre of all purpose.

I am an atheist, and I disagree with the Humanist value system. Homo sapiens has been the centre of attention for 3 millennia, it's time we stopped our belly button gazing, and started to coexist with our ecosystem more efficiently, we'd be better off for it.
09:45 AM on 01/25/2013
The Humanist value system, as you call it, predates Christianity by about 6 centuries. It comes from Greek philosophers like Thales and Epicurus who pointed out that we can be good without gods and argued for science and reason as ways to the truth. Epicurus wrote his 40 principles about 3 centuries BCE. Other Eastern writers predate that. If anything, Christian values are borrowed from Humanist values, not the other way around.

I have no idea how you get the notion that Humanism places human beings at the centre of all purpose since Humanists understand that we are at the centre of responsibility for our actions in world and universe that tolerates us, barely.

That Humanist value system puts the responsibility for co-existing with our ecosystem and the responsibility for any other decisions squarely on human shoulders since there are no gods to be realistic scapegoats. I agree that we need to take on that responsibility.
photo
jarnakak
fava beans and sweet breads are for sissies
11:46 AM on 01/22/2013
i'm a humanist with a spiritual bent (though decidedly secular in most of my views). though i believe in scientific rationalism i don't see it as an all-purpose implement and am extremely leery of it when it comes to questions of ethics and morality (and political/ideological discourse). i believe in the writings of the masters (major and minor philosophers in all the ages) as a good basis of reflection, and i actively seek contrary views because of my faith in the dialectical method(s) if only to become aware of and better to appreciate the breadth and depth of objects and issues of human(ist) concerns. i don't think i'm an atheist because when i'm taken up by a subject i swear i have mystical experiences (the like that einstein talks about extensively in his popular writings)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tony Pepperoni
Where did all the good Republicans go?
03:43 PM on 01/22/2013
Does the mystical require a deity though? When Einstein refers to quantum entanglement as "spooky action at a distance" could this not be described as mystical but yet perfectly scientific?
10:44 PM on 01/22/2013
Strictly speaking mystical does require a deity or deities. Mysticism is the attempt to attain unity with such an entity. Since there is no evidence for such beings, the quest doesn't appeal to me as a non-believer.

People seem to confuse the complexities of the brain with things supernatural. The experiences that religious people call mystical are explainable with modern neuroscience. In that sense I find "mystical" and "scientific" as opposites. While complex theories that deal with things like quantum entanglement may seem to require some kind of supernatural events, they are really explainable scientifically - I just don't understand most of it. That just makes it a challenge, not mystical.
photo
jarnakak
fava beans and sweet breads are for sissies
07:45 AM on 01/23/2013
my mystical experiences aren't religious; they're 'aha' moments like seeing relations at the structural level all at once. i'm a linguist/analyst and utterly addicted to seeking out the abstract relations of things
04:35 PM on 01/22/2013
Certainly reading as many philosophers as one can is a great exercise. We Secular Humanists tend to use them as a touchstone in that we will decide whether what a given writer says fits with our gut feeling or makes sense when tested rationally. The pleasure of learning, a dopamine generating experience, is often explained as mystical, but since there is no evidence for the supernatural forces that the term implies, I tend to just think of the experience as a positive neurological experience. Whatever works for you is what is important.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steve Lives
The Venus Project ... look it up
11:02 PM on 01/21/2013
I'm with them on everything except the Democracy bit. I prefer the scientific method as the underlying process of managing society. There would be no need to vote on anything. Unless everyone is highly educated on the matters at hand, democracy is no way to run a society. Even then its questionable.
12:45 PM on 01/22/2013
Agreed. Democracy is messy and inefficient. However, even scientists don't agree on everything immediately and while the peer review system is not quite the same as political democracy, it is a form of democracy just as questioning the likes of Epicurus is a form of democracy.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Steve Lives
The Venus Project ... look it up
05:11 PM on 01/22/2013
Thanks for the reply Doug. I'll grant you that the peer review system has its warts, but it would still be preferable to the type of democracy we practice today. Of course a system that applied the scientific method to social concerns would be a jarring shock to a lot of people. No need for money, no need for politics, no need for war , no need of religion, no need for prisons and so on. Are you aware of the work of Jacque Fresco? Just curious. He is the one who got me started with this train of thought. And I hope you don't mind, but I'm fanning you. Look forward to more articles from you.
photo
AcunningDisguise
magnus gigas caput
09:42 PM on 01/21/2013
"supernatural beings do not exist."

What would you call a sentient robot? Or an alien solid state brain?
Just to be difficult.
11:11 AM on 01/22/2013
I would call them non-existant.
12:33 PM on 01/22/2013
I would think these entities would follow laws of physics and science and, in that sense be natural rather than supernatural.
02:52 PM on 01/21/2013
It doesn't matter if you label yourself an athist, humanist, christian, muslim, or anything else.

Every group has a bunch of jerks who are intolerant to those with different opinions.
11:12 AM on 01/22/2013
So what?
12:38 PM on 01/22/2013
Yes. Constant reminders to oneself that reason is the basis for dealing with these people are necessary.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:38 PM on 01/21/2013
Wow, a mention of Thales? Highly respectable! Most people think philosophical thought started with Socrates.
12:39 PM on 01/22/2013
I wouldn't be surprised if it started long before any written records, but Thales seems to be the earliest that has any written record in Western thought.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:17 PM on 01/21/2013
Even if there is a god (there isn't) he for sure doesn't care about the following things - How you dress, whether or not you drink or eat pork, your facial or head hair, that you build a special building in his honor, that you go to said special building on a random day of the week, that you argue with everyone about how real he is, that you only have sex after your married, whether or not you get screwed or screw others in their ass, whether or not you question it's existence and most importantly about you in general. In the grand scheme or the earth and the universe people are no more or less special than the tape worm eating shit in your gut at you read this.
photo
duggyg
Situation normal.....
04:15 PM on 01/21/2013
So true. Amen.
12:48 PM on 01/22/2013
Thank you.
11:13 AM on 01/22/2013
Bon appetit., then.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tony Pepperoni
Where did all the good Republicans go?
01:10 PM on 01/21/2013
Apparently, I am Humanist.
07:40 PM on 01/21/2013
Apparently, after reading the IHEU Amsterdam declaration, so am I.
12:44 PM on 01/22/2013
You probably were before reading it, but now you understand why.
photo
AcunningDisguise
magnus gigas caput
09:43 PM on 01/21/2013
I'm a primate-ist I refuse to abandon the Orangutans!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tony Pepperoni
Where did all the good Republicans go?
01:34 PM on 01/22/2013
They have always been there for us haven't they? I too stand with the Orangatans!
10:37 AM on 01/23/2013
We shouldn't consider abandoning any of our fellow fauna. However, I guess I have biases toward our primate cousins too.