Humanism

Rev. Amy Russell - 2008-05-04

This spring, a group of us participated in an Adult RE discussion called “The Four Faiths”. It’s a curriculum based on a book by a UU minister, Fred Campbell, Religious Integrity. The book describes all faith as falling into four basic categories, Humanism, Theism, Mysticism, and Naturalism. The curriculum asks basic questions about faith dealing with such questions as what you believe about life after death, about the nature of being, about what you consider to be your authority about religion, and what you believe about the creation and ending of the world. The way that you answer these questions helps you to create a faith system that might lead you to explore one of these four faith categories, or more than one. Many of us in the discussion felt that we didn’t fall into just one of these faith categories and could in fact, find similarities in our thinking within more than one of these categories. But exploring the categories seemed helpful in clarifying what we believe.

One of the faith categories is Humanism, which historically is a system of thought that has developed from many Unitarian thinkers as well as having roots in Greek thought, in Renaissance awareness, and in the beginning of scientific endeavor during the Enlightenment. The Greeks idealized the products of human creation such as philosophy, art, music, mathematical formulations, and all manner of human discussions. In fact, human discussion itself was glorified by the Socratic technique of asking questions to generate new thought. In the Renaissance, while religious ideas were paramount in art and literature, it was the creations of humans that were being lifted up as glorious in architecture, art, literature, and music. Then when scientific ideas began to gain some acceptance during the Enlightenment, human reason and intellect began to be glorified by such writers as Voltaire.

These traditions came together in the early twentieth century by a myriad of thinkers who began to question traditional religion by asking questions such as, “Is there a God who created humanity and continues to control and order the universe?” or “Are the magnificent qualities of humanity that were developed by a continuous evolutionary process simply evidence of natural forces at work?” Some of these thinkers came together to create the Humanist Manifesto in 1933, an outline of a set of principles based on a belief in the goodness and strength within humanity which could eventually change history toward a vision of peace within a just world community. The first Humanist Manifesto was written and signed by a small group of revolutionary thinkers, led by some of our outstanding Unitarians, such as John Dietrich and Curtis Reese.

The first Manifesto was written to outline a movement of thought prompted by modern scientific thought, economic development, and political changes that called for a new look at what religion meant to humanity. The thinkers who put together this statement, including John Dewey who was a major influence on education reform in his time, believed that the universe is “self-existing” not created. They believed in the importance of humanity as a part of nature that has developed as a result of a continuous, evolutionary process. They rejected the dualism of mind or spirit and body which had long influenced religious thought. And they rejected the type of religion that they considered supernatural replacing it instead with an understanding of life as an organic natural process that can be explained by science. The emphasis was placed on human endeavor to create and maintain a world of human unity and human progress. In fact, many of the early humanists were idealists who saw human social action as the most important facet of historical change, not relying on any force outside of humanity for change in the world.

Humanity is seen as a product of its culture and natural environment and not a product of a controlling God. In fact, any supernatural “guarantees” of human values are rejected, although the statement does say that “the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered” are not denied. (Humanist Manifesto, p. 8.) Values are created by humans in assessing their needs and satisfactions.

In the Humanist Manifesto, religion is seen as the arena for humankind, not for supernatural beings. Everything human is seen as sacred, not just certain rituals and beliefs. The emphasis is on the “here and now” as in Buddhism. The possibility of a life hereafter is seen as not relevant.

Reason is the main instrument of humanity’s assessment of reality and education is seen as tantamount to understanding the world. All activities that are worthwhile exist for the fulfillment of humans, not for the glory of some unseen being.

The statement even suggests that “profit-motivated society” is “inadequate” and that humanity should be working toward an equitable distribution of goods. (Humanist Manifesto, p.10) This sounds remarkably Communist and probably was viewed in that light, later, by the opponents of the statement. But all in all, the statement affirms the possibilities of human life and the positive contributions that all humankind can make toward its progress.

The Humanist Manifesto II was written in 1973, forty years after the first one. The Humanist Manifesto II further emphasized the technological and social changes that had occurred in history. The excerpt that I read today shows you the idealistic aims of this group of people toward world unity and peace. Reading it today in the face of our newly changed world, it sounds timely and appropriate. The emphasis on a world unity that overcomes ideological differences and ends terror and hatred based on race and religion sounds as though it could have been written for us today.

John Dietrich, the well-known humanist of the early twentieth century, outlines a philosophy of humanism in his Ten Sermons. He speaks to a modern audience about how science and modern thought has changed the paradigms of viewing reality that no longer can contain what he considers mythological views of reality such as Christianity maintains. He sees the power of changing reality in the hands of humankind, not in the realm of the kingdom of God. “Thus, when the world goes humanist, we may have lost God, but we will have discovered man. We never knew ourselves before. We never knew what power and wealth we had – potentially.” (Dietrich, p. 112) Humankind has the power to shape and mold the universe, he says, and there is no supernatural power working to shape history.

Dietrich in his sermon, “Unitarianism and Humanism”, outlines several basic tenets of humanism. First, he says, humanity is of supreme worth. Humanism does not recognize any existence of the supernatural and doesn’t need anything but the existence of humanity as its’ basis. Humans exist as an end, he says, not a means to an end, such as a statement of a God’s desires for life. This tenet Dietrich says he takes directly from one of the founders of Unitarianism, William Ellery Channing. Channing said that humanity was made “for his own virtue and happiness, not for the virtue and happiness of another.”

The second tenet of humanism that Dietrich outlines is the belief in the possibility of improving human life. The early humanists emphasized the goodness of humanity and the possibilities of improving life on earth as a religious commitment. Even though they weren’t unrealistic idealists, they believed and committed to creating a “world united and skillfully organized, a world free from illusions and superstitions, a world proud of its developed strength and wisdom and creativeness.” (Ten Sermons, p. 63)

The third fundamental doctrine of this humanist system was a belief in “the essential unity of mankind and the necessity of bringing men to consciousness of this unity if the better world is ever to be established.” While understanding the underlying divisions of class, race, and religion, the humanists strove to seek common goals of uniting humanity into a “commonwealth of man”.

The fourth tenet strengthens even further the idealism we’ve seen in the other beliefs. It outlines a faith in humanity and a belief that the power to realize the great ideals of world community lies within humanity itself, not in a supernatural power. The future of the world lies in the hands of humanity, the humanists believe, not with the fate of the gods. Dietrich says that the suffering of the world cannot be blamed on a vengeful God but needs to be seen as our own responsibility. We are responsible for the millions who died in the world wars, for the people dying of starvation, for all human misery, Dietrich claims, and only humanity can change this reality.

Humanists don’t recognize the existence of the soul as something outside or different from the mind and body. Salvation therefore, is about the salvation of the whole of humanity, not the salvation of individual souls. Humanity is one and in order to save ourselves, we must save the world, many humanists would argue.

Dietrich, unlike many other humanists, does not deny the existence of a God; he simply says that the question of the existence of God is irrelevant. “And if there be not a God it makes no difference—there is man just the same, with his insatiable craving for something better than he has yet known…” He says that this religion of the faith in man is essentially the same thing as a faith in God, because “whatever God may be, it is quite clear that he can manifest himself only through man’s consciousness…”

Dietrich also says that perhaps the “God of humanism is simply the life spirit that animates all things.” Perhaps God is life itself as we see it in nature, acting according to natural laws.

In the uncertain world of today, many people are turning to their faith to seek comfort and explanations for what is happening. Many are asking those age old questions, “Why is this happening?” And for some fundamentalist Christians, they seek answers in ancient Old Testament prophecies—that God is punishing humanity for its sins. Others are looking to God to solve the problem, praying for peaceful solutions. So, what would a humanist say in this time of deep anguish and fear for the future? What do humanists do for comfort in these times?

A modern humanist, Frederick Edwards, talks about what humanists can promise to others as hope even in the face of a non-belief in a supernatural or an afterlife. Edwards says that this hope is expressed as “zest for living”. People who love life and savor its every morsel can find hope and salvation in just the living of each moment.

Now some of you might think this sounds like a hedonist, “eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow you shall die.” But Edwards says that it is not just physical pleasures that one enjoys, but it is the joys of solving problems, of creating, of living in loving relationships. The joy of all of life reminds us of the roots of the humanist tradition in Greek ideals of wholeness and integration of all of life. Greeks saw art, music, poetry and philosophy all as sacred events in the wholeness of life.

One humanist who lived his whole life in this sacred way was Edwin H. Wilson, a religious humanist who summed up life in this way, “The Humanist lives as if this world were all and enough. He is not otherworldly. He holds that the time spent on the contemplation of a possible afterlife is time wasted. He fears no hell and seeks no heaven, save that which he and others created on earth.”

Lloyd and Mary Morain are humanists who describe to us how to live life fully in their book, Humanism as the Next Step,

Back through the centuries whenever people have enjoyed keenly the sights and sounds and other sensations of the world about them, and enjoyed these for what they were—not because they stood for something else—they were experiencing life humanistically. Whenever they felt keen interest in the drama of human life about them and ardently desired to take part in it they felt as humanists.

One of the most important things that I see in idealistic humanists is their dedication to changing the world to become a more humane place for all. Dietrich says that even though a humanist doesn’t know anything about a future world, that a humanist must devote all his/her time and energy to the service of the world. And even though most humanists claim not to believe in any kind of life after death, many of them claim immortality—immortality in the influence that we have on those who come after us. Our lives are woven into the fabric of lives of those who experience us while living.

At the end of my seminary training, I was asked to write a “Statement of Faith” that I had to defend in front of faculty. This was a bit daunting for a UU who was attending a Presbyterian seminary. Luckily, they told me it wasn’t important what I believed just that I could defend it. I don’t consider myself a humanist, although I resonate with much of the idealism of the humanist outlook. However, that day it was my UU humanist tendencies that I fell back on that day. Since I had told them that I didn’t see the Bible as my religious authority and that I didn’t believe in a omnipotent God, they asked me what I looked to as my religious authority. I had to say that it was myself, my own reason, intellect, and deep spiritual self to whom I looked for my spiritual authority.

I think Humanism challenges us to look for the answer to meaningful existence within our own lives, within the beating of our hearts and the rising and the setting of the sun. Humanists tell us not to concern ourselves with something unseen and unproven but with the meaning we can find in the daily joys and sorrows of our lives. The great strengths that we find within ourselves—the reason, the intellect, the ability to love—humanists lift up these sacred and holy aspects of life rather than miracles of supernatural being that are not provable by our limited knowledge of the universe. We have a responsibility to using our lives as ultimate meaning, not looking outside of ourselves and humanity for ultimate meaning.

Dr. Harry Emerson Fosdick summarizes this attitude in this way, “All the people to whom life has been abundantly worth living have made it so by an interior, creative, spiritual contribution of their own. Is life worth living? Most people seem to think that is a question about the cosmos. No, my friend, that is a question about the inside attitude of you and me.”