What is Humanism and the Importance of an 'Open Mind' ?

[JackDaydream]

I read a 'Humanist Anthology: From Confucius to David Attenborough (ed Margaret Knight) yesterday in conjunction with the thread which I had started on the idea of 'God'. However, that thread may have become rather disjointed after I requested to change the title. So, I am writing a new thread with the main focus being on humanism and the idea of an 'open mind', which may be more helpful for thinking about as there are so many threads on religion and 'God' on the forum already.

The anthology contains writings of many significant thinkers throughout the course of history, including some Stoic writers, David Hume, Bertrand Russell, John Paul Sartre and Richard Dawkins. The issue of religion is not straightforward because it is possible to believe in God or not and be committed to the philosophy of humanism, despite the common usage of the term secular humanism as a contrast to religious perspectives. In her introduction,

Margaret Knight points to the long tradition of humanism prior to Christianity, and how it based on certain values and principles. She suggests that it is a basis for thinking, not being established on the idea of the 'supernatural', especially that 'man must face his own problems with his own intellectual and moral resources.' One important essay is Sir Julian Huxley's, 'A Humanist Faith', which focuses upon the human being as a 'natural phenomenon' and the importance of knowledge and faith in reason as well as enjoyment of of rapture, physical, mystical and aesthetic' experience and development of all these potential aspects. I cannot go into all the many ideas in humanism in this outpost. The one which I am choosing to focus on is that of HJ Blackman in his essay, 'The Open Mind' because it seems important.

Blackman says that humanism involves 'the three sides of human nature usually spoken of as 'intellect, will and feeling.' He emphasises the importance of reason and he queries the idea of the open mind as 'empty' as false. He says that humanism is based on being able to build strong foundations. He says,
'An open mind means a candour to which trickery is repugnant. It means exposure, not covering up the vulnerable places. An open mind is vulnerable to evidence.'

Based on this, it is not surprising that humanism involves appreciation of science. However, an open mind involves an ongoing willingness to revise and modify in the light of new knowledge or evidence. This is the ideal and I wonder about neuroplasticity in this respect, especially whether it easier to change ideas earlier than later in life. Perhaps, it is less difficult in the context of a background of uncertainty and it may be that philosophy is a practice for enabling fluidity rather than more fixed ideas. What do you think about the idea of an open mind? To what extent is it possible and desirable? Also, I wish to open up discussion on the humanist tradition and its value in philosophy.

[ITkorea]

Hello JackDaydream,
Science never claims to be absolute. The best we get with science and the scientific method, in general, is "maybe" because science claims to find evidence supporting claims/hypotheses. Note that science has an assumption in which it must have the possibility of being proven wrong.
If intellect you describe is how we can describe and explain the world around us, then open-mindedness is absolutely necessary to update and revise our perspective of the world through the lens of science; as the problem arises when we cannot simply observe and compile things that result in certain phenomena.

However, I'd like to focus more on humanistic intellect on the human mind and its interactions. I see humanism as the study of simply oneself and their interaction with the world.
I see that Blackman highlights the significance of reason. However, the human "heart" such as emotions, conflicts between our "values" and how we should act, shouldn't have reason at its center. Reason can surely be found as a consequence of actions; as even seemingly unreasonable actions could be traced with some sort of precursor. What I believe is to think about fundamentals; whether we should pursue the "good" or whether to "make sensible decisions" or why I should make a sensible decision in the first place, why should we be "happy?" Why should we "solve" the problems? What is a problem? and so on.
I think humanists should tackle the fundamental assumptions, emotions, and decisions we make in everyday life and reevaluate what it actually means from an individualistic and communal perspective. These perspectives, I believe should be respected between persons, meanwhile maintaining the "possibility to influence" one another, as different people are bound to observe things and react differently.

[Pattern-chaser]

However, an open mind involves an ongoing willingness to revise and modify in the light of new knowledge or evidence. This is the ideal and I wonder about neuroplasticity in this respect, especially whether it easier to change ideas earlier than later in life. Perhaps, it is less difficult in the context of a background of uncertainty and it may be that philosophy is a practice for enabling fluidity rather than more fixed ideas. What do you think about the idea of an open mind? To what extent is it possible and desirable?

The 'true' scientist is always willing and able to "revise and modify in the light of new knowledge or evidence." Thus, for science, at least, an open mind is essential. I have always felt that a certain flexibility of thought is a great help to those who seek knowledge and understanding, whether they be scientists, philosophers, prophets, or poets. Rigid, dogmatic, thought is the nemesis of discovery and novelty. A 'closed' mind is a static mind, incapable of change (i.e. learning).

IME, an open mind is perfectly possible, and my judgement is that it is also highly desirable.

[Pattern-chaser]

I wonder ... whether it is easier to change ideas earlier than later in life.

Pursuing novelty is not always easy. To seek out new ideas, and simply adopt them, is easy, but scientifically/philosophically inadvisable. It's hard work sorting the wheat from the chaff, as we plough through new ideas and concepts, looking for those that seem to have merit. As we get older, we get tired. I know well that I am less enthusiastic for novelty than I used to be. My enthusiasm remains undimmed, but my mental stamina is diminished by Chronos. Such is life!

[Consul]

Here's Corliss Lamont's list of humanist tenets:

QUOTE:
"What, then, are the basic principles of Humanism that define its position and distinguish it from other philosophic viewpoints?
There are, as I see it, ten central propositions in the Humanist philosophy:

* First, Humanism believes in a naturalistic metaphysics or attitude toward the universe that considers all forms of the supernatural as myth; and that regards Nature as the totality of being and as a constantly changing system of matter and energy which exists independently of any mind or consciousness.

* Second, Humanism, drawing especially upon the laws and facts of science, believes that we human beings are an evolutionary product of the Nature of which we are a part; that the mind is indivisibly conjoined with the functioning of the brain; and that as an inseparable unity of body and personality we can have no conscious survival after death.

* Third, Humanism, having its ultimate faith in humankind, believes that human beings possess the power or potentiality of solving their own problems, through reliance primarily upon reason and scientific method applied with courage and vision.

* Fourth, Humanism, in opposition to all theories of universal determinism, fatalism, or predestination, believes that human beings, while conditioned by the past, possess genuine freedom of creative choice and action, and are, within certain objective limits, the shapers of their own destiny.

* Fifth, Humanism believes in an ethics or morality that grounds all human values in this-earthly experiences and relationships and that holds as its highest goal the this-worldly happiness, freedom, and progress—economic, cultural, and ethical—of all humankind, irrespective of nation, race, or religion.

* Sixth, Humanism believes that the individual attains the good life by harmoniously combining personal satisfactions and continuous self-development with significant work and other activities that contribute to the welfare of the community.

* Seventh, Humanism believes in the widest possible development of art and the awareness of beauty, including the appreciation of Nature’s loveliness and splendor, so that the aesthetic experience may become a pervasive reality in the lives of all people.

* Eighth, Humanism believes in a far-reaching social program that stands for the establishment throughout the world of democracy, peace, and a high standard of living on the foundations of a flourishing economic order, both national and international.

* Ninth, Humanism believes in the complete social implementation of reason and scientific method; and thereby in democratic procedures, and parliamentary government, with full freedom of expression and civil liberties, throughout all areas of economic, political, and cultural life.

* Tenth, Humanism, in accordance with scientific method, believes in the unending questioning of basic assumptions and convictions, including its own. Humanism is not a new dogma, but is a developing philosophy ever open to experimental testing, newly discovered facts, and more rigorous reasoning.

I think that these ten points embody Humanism in its most acceptable modern form. This philosophy can be more explicitly characterized as scientific Humanism, secular Humanism, naturalistic Humanism, or democratic Humanism, depending on the emphasis that one wishes to give."

(Lamont, Corliss. The Philosophy of Humanism. 8th ed. Amherst, NY: Humanist Press, 1997. pp. 13-15)
:QUOTE

QUOTE:
"The word ‘humanism’ has had, and continues to have, a variety of meanings. At its broadest, ‘humanism’ means little more than a system of thought in which human values, interests, and dignity are considered particularly important. Understood in this way, perhaps almost everyone qualifies as a humanist (including those of us who are religious).

However, those who organize under the banner of ‘humanism’ today, especially in the UK, usually mean something rather more focused. They embrace a particular kind of worldview that by no means everyone accepts. That worldview is the focus of this book.

So what distinguishes the humanist outlook? It is difficult to be very precise. The boundaries of the concept are elastic. But I think most humanists would probably agree on something like the following minimal, seven-point characterization (in no particular order):

First, humanists believe science, and reason more generally, are invaluable tools we can and should apply to all areas of life. No beliefs should be considered off-limits and protected from rational scrutiny.

Second, humanists are either atheists or at least agnostic. They are sceptical about the claim that there exists a god or gods. They are also sceptical about angels, demons, and other such supernatural beings.

Third, humanists believe that this life is the only life we have. We are not reincarnated. Nor is there any heaven or hell to which we go after we die. Notice that the humanist’s sceptical position regarding both gods and an afterlife is not a dogmatic ‘faith position’, but a consequence of their having subjected such beliefs to critical scrutiny and found them seriously wanting.

Fourth, humanism involves a commitment to the existence and importance of moral value. Humanists also believe our ethics should be strongly informed by study of what human beings are actually like, and of what will help them flourish in this world, rather than the next. Humanists reject such negative claims as that there cannot be moral value without God, and that we will not be, or are unlikely to be, good without God and religion to guide us. Humanists offer moral justifications and arguments rooted other than in religious authority and dogma.

Fifth, humanists emphasize our individual moral autonomy. It is our individual responsibility to make our own moral judgements, rather than attempt to hand that responsibility over to some external authority – such as a political leader or religion – that will make those judgements for us. Humanists favour developing forms of moral education that emphasize this responsibility and that will equip us with the skills we will need to discharge it properly.

Sixth, humanists believe our lives can have meaning without it being bestowed from above by God. They suppose that the lives of, say, Pablo Picasso, Marie Curie, Ernest Shackleton, and Albert Einstein were all rich, significant, and meaningful, whether there is a God or not.

Seventh, humanists are secularists, in the sense that they favour an open, democratic society in which the state takes a neutral position with respect to religion, protecting the freedom of individuals to follow and espouse, or reject and criticize, both religious and atheist beliefs. While humanists will obviously oppose any attempt to coerce people into embracing religious belief, they are no less opposed to coercing people into embracing atheism, as happened under certain totalitarian regimes.

There are a number of other views sometimes also associated with humanism that I have not included here. Note, for example, that, as characterized here, a humanist need not:

• be a utopian, convinced that the application of science and reason will inevitably usher in a Brave New World of peace and contentment.

• believe that only humans matter, morally speaking. Many humanists consider that the happiness and welfare of other species are also important.

• be a utilitarian – supposing that maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering are all that matter, morally speaking. While some humanists embrace utilitarianism, and almost all believe that happiness and suffering are morally important, not all humanists are utilitarians.

• embrace those brands of naturalism that say that the natural, physical universe is the only reality there is, and/or that the natural, physical facts are the only facts that there are. Many humanists, perhaps the majority, embrace some form of naturalism. Some even define their brand of ‘humanism’ as involving naturalism. However, the looser definition employed here allows humanists to criticize naturalism if they wish. Yes, humanists reject, or are at least agnostic concerning, belief in gods, angels, demons, and so on, but that doesn’t require that they sign up to naturalism. Take, for example, a mathematician who believes that mathematics describes a non-natural, mathematical reality (a sort of numerical heaven). This mathematician rejects naturalism, but that does not entail they cannot be a humanist. Or take a philosopher who believes they have established that, say, moral facts, or the facts about what goes on in our conscious minds, are facts that exist in addition to all of the natural, physical facts. Again, I see no reason why such a philosopher cannot be a humanist. A recent survey revealed that while only 14.6% of professional philosophers believe in God, just under 50% of them are committed to naturalism. I consider it unnecessarily restrictive to define ‘humanism’ in such a way as „automatically to exclude the significant proportion who fail to believe in either gods or naturalism.

• embrace scientism, believing that every genuine question can in principle be answered by science. Take moral questions, for example. Humanists can, and often do, accept that, while scientific discoveries can inform our moral decisions, science and reason alone are incapable of determining what is morally right or wrong. A humanist may suppose that other questions – such as ‘Why is there anything at all?’ – are also bona fide questions that science cannot answer. Humanists are merely sceptical about one particular answer – that the universe is the creation of one or more gods.

In order to refute humanism as I have characterized it, then, it is not enough that one refute utopianism, utilitarianism, scientism, or naturalism. A humanist can reject, or remain neutral concerning, all these philosophical stances.

Humanists are sometimes criticized for not being ‘for’ anything. They are often caricatured as naysayers, defined entirely by what they oppose – belief in a god or gods.

However, notice that even the theist rejects belief in the countless other gods people have believed in down through the centuries (such as those of the Ancient Romans, Greeks, Norse, Mayans „, Egyptians, and so on). The humanist merely remains unconvinced of the existence of one or two more.

Moreover, notice that, as outlined here, humanism goes far beyond mere atheism or agnosticism, and is clearly for a great deal.

For example, humanism is for freedom of thought and expression and an open society. Humanism is for forms of moral education that stress our moral autonomy and the importance of thinking critically and independently. Humanists don’t just reject dogma-based approaches to answering moral, political, and social questions, they are very much for developing positive, rational, and ultimately more life-affirming and life-enhancing alternatives.

Humanist thinking is also sometimes caricatured as a hodgepodge of disparate, unconnected ideas – but again, this is untrue. Humanism’s focus is on the ‘big questions’, for example of what ultimately is real; of what ultimately makes life worth living; of what is morally right or wrong, and why; and of how best to order our society. While religion typically addresses such questions, they are clearly not the unique preserve of religion. Such questions also belong to philosophy, and were being addressed in a rational, non-religious way before the appearance of Christianity. What pulls our seven views together into something like a system of thought is (i) their shared focus on the ‘big questions’, (ii) a degree of interconnectedness (for example, if you are sceptical about gods, that will lead you to be sceptical about the claim that our moral sense was placed in us by a god), and (iii) the over-arching role played by the first: these views on the ‘big questions’ are collectively embraced, not as a dogmatically held ‘faith position’, but because, having subjected the various alternatives to rational scrutiny, the humanist considers these the most reasonable positions to adopt."

(Law, Stephen. Humanism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011. pp. 1-6)
:QUOTE

[Consul]

Contemporary humanism (as described above) seems to be a combination of the following isms:

1. atheism (negative atheism at least: agnosticism, skepticism)

2. secularism

3. critical, scientific rationalism (as opposed to irrationalism, not to empiricism, and to dogmatism and occultism)

4. liberalism

5. individualism

6. humanitarianism (promotion of human welfare and the advancement of social reforms)

[JackDaydream]

Hello JackDaydream,
Science never claims to be absolute. The best we get with science and the scientific method, in general, is "maybe" because science claims to find evidence supporting claims/hypotheses. Note that science has an assumption in which it must have the possibility of being proven wrong.
If intellect you describe is how we can describe and explain the world around us, then open-mindedness is absolutely necessary to update and revise our perspective of the world through the lens of science; as the problem arises when we cannot simply observe and compile things that result in certain phenomena.

However, I'd like to focus more on humanistic intellect on the human mind and its interactions. I see humanism as the study of simply oneself and their interaction with the world.
I see that Blackman highlights the significance of reason. However, the human "heart" such as emotions, conflicts between our "values" and how we should act, shouldn't have reason at its center. Reason can surely be found as a consequence of actions; as even seemingly unreasonable actions could be traced with some sort of precursor. What I believe is to think about fundamentals; whether we should pursue the "good" or whether to "make sensible decisions" or why I should make a sensible decision in the first place, why should we be "happy?" Why should we "solve" the problems? What is a problem? and so on.
I think humanists should tackle the fundamental assumptions, emotions, and decisions we make in everyday life and reevaluate what it actually means from an individualistic and communal perspective. These perspectives, I believe should be respected between persons, meanwhile maintaining the "possibility to influence" one another, as different people are bound to observe things and react differently.

I definitely agree that science is not 'absolute' and this may be a concrete error of thinking when any theory, even if based on evidence is taken too concretely. Science, grounded in rationality and empiricism may be one of the best means of establishing facts, but it may be going too far to see it as the absolute, and that may point to the limits of empiricism and epistemology.

The issue of rationalism, without attention to emotions is limited too. This interplay in life was recognised in the philosophy of romanticism and, in the present time, it is also crucial. The importance issue may not be about emotions or reasoning but of balancing the two may be extremely important, especially in applying the idea of rationality to the understanding of emotions. The many different writers within humanism pointed to reason and human values, as being important. Also, in the present time humanist psychology incorporates the two. In particular, within clinical psychology there is an emphasis on mindfulness in paying attention to sensations, which are the basis for emotions, alongside the stream of conscious thoughts which enter into an individual's mind.

[JackDaydream]

However, an open mind involves an ongoing willingness to revise and modify in the light of new knowledge or evidence. This is the ideal and I wonder about neuroplasticity in this respect, especially whether it easier to change ideas earlier than later in life. Perhaps, it is less difficult in the context of a background of uncertainty and it may be that philosophy is a practice for enabling fluidity rather than more fixed ideas. What do you think about the idea of an open mind? To what extent is it possible and desirable?

The 'true' scientist is always willing and able to "revise and modify in the light of new knowledge or evidence." Thus, for science, at least, an open mind is essential. I have always felt that a certain flexibility of thought is a great help to those who seek knowledge and understanding, whether they be scientists, philosophers, prophets, or poets. Rigid, dogmatic, thought is the nemesis of discovery and novelty. A 'closed' mind is a static mind, incapable of change (i.e. learning).

IME, an open mind is perfectly possible, and my judgement is that it is also highly desirable.

I have always seen the idea of an 'open mind' as important but some may regard it as being a bit 'wishy washy. In many ways, it can be regarded as the principle of objectivity. However, as you are probably aware from.some discussions on this forum, the idea of objectivity is in itself open to question. There is an emphasis on standing back and seeing the wider picture, which may be about understanding, beyond biases. This may be difficult because biases are deeply rooted and it may require the understanding of one's subjectivity, including values and one's own attitudes to be explored as self awareness, in order to think about objectivity. Sometimes, objectivity may be seen as consensus, but, even this may include aspects of cultural biases. It may be hard to stand outside of the subjective and intersubjective, as a basic lens for perception. Even though an 'open mind' as a basic source of accurate judgment, it is likely that to involve both rationality and a certain amount of reflective awareness of one's own views, as a starting point for thinking about the nature of life and its dilemmas on a critical, or perhaps, a deeper level of understanding.

[JackDaydream]

I wonder ... whether it is easier to change ideas earlier than later in life.

Pursuing novelty is not always easy. To seek out new ideas, and simply adopt them, is easy, but scientifically/philosophically inadvisable. It's hard work sorting the wheat from the chaff, as we plough through new ideas and concepts, looking for those that seem to have merit. As we get older, we get tired. I know well that I am less enthusiastic for novelty than I used to be. My enthusiasm remains undimmed, but my mental stamina is diminished by Chronos. Such is life!

The search for new and original ideas may involve many factors. Despite your querying of your own ability to do this, it seems that you are often willing to dive into so many questions. Many people are so closed that they are dogmatic and it may be for this reason that many are not inclined to philosophy at all, because it involves questioning.

The search for new and original ideas may depend on what leads one to seek them. Is novelty to be valued for itself? Many follow trends and fashions but this may be different from the actual spirit of innovation. It may be that some who are comfortable in life have no need to look for the new because the ideas or philosophy they have works for them. It may be that those who experience greater angst and conflict need to explore further, digging for new ideas and ways of seeing.

[Ecurb]

Contemporary humanism (as described above) seems to be a combination of the following isms:

1. atheism (negative atheism at least: agnosticism, skepticism)

2. secularism

3. critical, scientific rationalism (as opposed to irrationalism, not to empiricism, and to dogmatism and occultism)

4. liberalism

5. individualism

6. humanitarianism (promotion of human welfare and the advancement of social reforms)

You are correct in stating that "humanism" has been coopted by atheists, a trend to which I object. I object mainly because the humanist tradition in the Renaissance offered no objections to religion; indeed, the great humanists were devout Christians like Erasmus and Thomas More. In those days, the humanists thought the divine could be revealed through the great works of pre-Christian antiquiity. According to the World History Encyclopedia:

The main elements of Renaissance humanism include:

an interest in studying literature and art from antiquity
an interest in the eloquent use of Latin and philology
a belief in the importance and power of education to create useful citizens
the promotion of private and civic virtue
a rejection of scholasticism
the encouragement of non-religious studies
an emphasis on the individual and their moral autonomy
a belief in the importance of observation, critical analysis, and creativity
a belief that poets, writers, and artists can lead humanity to a better way of living
an interest in the question 'what does it mean to be human'?

Of course words evolve. Nonetheless, the emphaisis on atheism included in modern "humanism" seems to me an insult to Erasmus and others.

[JackDaydream]

Here's Corliss Lamont's list of humanist tenets:

QUOTE:
"What, then, are the basic principles of Humanism that define its position and distinguish it from other philosophic viewpoints?
There are, as I see it, ten central propositions in the Humanist philosophy:

* First, Humanism believes in a naturalistic metaphysics or attitude toward the universe that considers all forms of the supernatural as myth; and that regards Nature as the totality of being and as a constantly changing system of matter and energy which exists independently of any mind or consciousness.

* Second, Humanism, drawing especially upon the laws and facts of science, believes that we human beings are an evolutionary product of the Nature of which we are a part; that the mind is indivisibly conjoined with the functioning of the brain; and that as an inseparable unity of body and personality we can have no conscious survival after death.

* Third, Humanism, having its ultimate faith in humankind, believes that human beings possess the power or potentiality of solving their own problems, through reliance primarily upon reason and scientific method applied with courage and vision.

* Fourth, Humanism, in opposition to all theories of universal determinism, fatalism, or predestination, believes that human beings, while conditioned by the past, possess genuine freedom of creative choice and action, and are, within certain objective limits, the shapers of their own destiny.

* Fifth, Humanism believes in an ethics or morality that grounds all human values in this-earthly experiences and relationships and that holds as its highest goal the this-worldly happiness, freedom, and progress—economic, cultural, and ethical—of all humankind, irrespective of nation, race, or religion.

* Sixth, Humanism believes that the individual attains the good life by harmoniously combining personal satisfactions and continuous self-development with significant work and other activities that contribute to the welfare of the community.

* Seventh, Humanism believes in the widest possible development of art and the awareness of beauty, including the appreciation of Nature’s loveliness and splendor, so that the aesthetic experience may become a pervasive reality in the lives of all people.

* Eighth, Humanism believes in a far-reaching social program that stands for the establishment throughout the world of democracy, peace, and a high standard of living on the foundations of a flourishing economic order, both national and international.

* Ninth, Humanism believes in the complete social implementation of reason and scientific method; and thereby in democratic procedures, and parliamentary government, with full freedom of expression and civil liberties, throughout all areas of economic, political, and cultural life.

* Tenth, Humanism, in accordance with scientific method, believes in the unending questioning of basic assumptions and convictions, including its own. Humanism is not a new dogma, but is a developing philosophy ever open to experimental testing, newly discovered facts, and more rigorous reasoning.

I think that these ten points embody Humanism in its most acceptable modern form. This philosophy can be more explicitly characterized as scientific Humanism, secular Humanism, naturalistic Humanism, or democratic Humanism, depending on the emphasis that one wishes to give."

(Lamont, Corliss. The Philosophy of Humanism. 8th ed. Amherst, NY: Humanist Press, 1997. pp. 13-15)
:QUOTE

QUOTE:
"The word ‘humanism’ has had, and continues to have, a variety of meanings. At its broadest, ‘humanism’ means little more than a system of thought in which human values, interests, and dignity are considered particularly important. Understood in this way, perhaps almost everyone qualifies as a humanist (including those of us who are religious).

However, those who organize under the banner of ‘humanism’ today, especially in the UK, usually mean something rather more focused. They embrace a particular kind of worldview that by no means everyone accepts. That worldview is the focus of this book.

So what distinguishes the humanist outlook? It is difficult to be very precise. The boundaries of the concept are elastic. But I think most humanists would probably agree on something like the following minimal, seven-point characterization (in no particular order):

First, humanists believe science, and reason more generally, are invaluable tools we can and should apply to all areas of life. No beliefs should be considered off-limits and protected from rational scrutiny.

Second, humanists are either atheists or at least agnostic. They are sceptical about the claim that there exists a god or gods. They are also sceptical about angels, demons, and other such supernatural beings.

Third, humanists believe that this life is the only life we have. We are not reincarnated. Nor is there any heaven or hell to which we go after we die. Notice that the humanist’s sceptical position regarding both gods and an afterlife is not a dogmatic ‘faith position’, but a consequence of their having subjected such beliefs to critical scrutiny and found them seriously wanting.

Fourth, humanism involves a commitment to the existence and importance of moral value. Humanists also believe our ethics should be strongly informed by study of what human beings are actually like, and of what will help them flourish in this world, rather than the next. Humanists reject such negative claims as that there cannot be moral value without God, and that we will not be, or are unlikely to be, good without God and religion to guide us. Humanists offer moral justifications and arguments rooted other than in religious authority and dogma.

Fifth, humanists emphasize our individual moral autonomy. It is our individual responsibility to make our own moral judgements, rather than attempt to hand that responsibility over to some external authority – such as a political leader or religion – that will make those judgements for us. Humanists favour developing forms of moral education that emphasize this responsibility and that will equip us with the skills we will need to discharge it properly.

Sixth, humanists believe our lives can have meaning without it being bestowed from above by God. They suppose that the lives of, say, Pablo Picasso, Marie Curie, Ernest Shackleton, and Albert Einstein were all rich, significant, and meaningful, whether there is a God or not.

Seventh, humanists are secularists, in the sense that they favour an open, democratic society in which the state takes a neutral position with respect to religion, protecting the freedom of individuals to follow and espouse, or reject and criticize, both religious and atheist beliefs. While humanists will obviously oppose any attempt to coerce people into embracing religious belief, they are no less opposed to coercing people into embracing atheism, as happened under certain totalitarian regimes.

There are a number of other views sometimes also associated with humanism that I have not included here. Note, for example, that, as characterized here, a humanist need not:

• be a utopian, convinced that the application of science and reason will inevitably usher in a Brave New World of peace and contentment.

• believe that only humans matter, morally speaking. Many humanists consider that the happiness and welfare of other species are also important.

• be a utilitarian – supposing that maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering are all that matter, morally speaking. While some humanists embrace utilitarianism, and almost all believe that happiness and suffering are morally important, not all humanists are utilitarians.

• embrace those brands of naturalism that say that the natural, physical universe is the only reality there is, and/or that the natural, physical facts are the only facts that there are. Many humanists, perhaps the majority, embrace some form of naturalism. Some even define their brand of ‘humanism’ as involving naturalism. However, the looser definition employed here allows humanists to criticize naturalism if they wish. Yes, humanists reject, or are at least agnostic concerning, belief in gods, angels, demons, and so on, but that doesn’t require that they sign up to naturalism. Take, for example, a mathematician who believes that mathematics describes a non-natural, mathematical reality (a sort of numerical heaven). This mathematician rejects naturalism, but that does not entail they cannot be a humanist. Or take a philosopher who believes they have established that, say, moral facts, or the facts about what goes on in our conscious minds, are facts that exist in addition to all of the natural, physical facts. Again, I see no reason why such a philosopher cannot be a humanist. A recent survey revealed that while only 14.6% of professional philosophers believe in God, just under 50% of them are committed to naturalism. I consider it unnecessarily restrictive to define ‘humanism’ in such a way as „automatically to exclude the significant proportion who fail to believe in either gods or naturalism.

• embrace scientism, believing that every genuine question can in principle be answered by science. Take moral questions, for example. Humanists can, and often do, accept that, while scientific discoveries can inform our moral decisions, science and reason alone are incapable of determining what is morally right or wrong. A humanist may suppose that other questions – such as ‘Why is there anything at all?’ – are also bona fide questions that science cannot answer. Humanists are merely sceptical about one particular answer – that the universe is the creation of one or more gods.

In order to refute humanism as I have characterized it, then, it is not enough that one refute utopianism, utilitarianism, scientism, or naturalism. A humanist can reject, or remain neutral concerning, all these philosophical stances.

Humanists are sometimes criticized for not being ‘for’ anything. They are often caricatured as naysayers, defined entirely by what they oppose – belief in a god or gods.

However, notice that even the theist rejects belief in the countless other gods people have believed in down through the centuries (such as those of the Ancient Romans, Greeks, Norse, Mayans „, Egyptians, and so on). The humanist merely remains unconvinced of the existence of one or two more.

Moreover, notice that, as outlined here, humanism goes far beyond mere atheism or agnosticism, and is clearly for a great deal.

For example, humanism is for freedom of thought and expression and an open society. Humanism is for forms of moral education that stress our moral autonomy and the importance of thinking critically and independently. Humanists don’t just reject dogma-based approaches to answering moral, political, and social questions, they are very much for developing positive, rational, and ultimately more life-affirming and life-enhancing alternatives.

Humanist thinking is also sometimes caricatured as a hodgepodge of disparate, unconnected ideas – but again, this is untrue. Humanism’s focus is on the ‘big questions’, for example of what ultimately is real; of what ultimately makes life worth living; of what is morally right or wrong, and why; and of how best to order our society. While religion typically addresses such questions, they are clearly not the unique preserve of religion. Such questions also belong to philosophy, and were being addressed in a rational, non-religious way before the appearance of Christianity. What pulls our seven views together into something like a system of thought is (i) their shared focus on the ‘big questions’, (ii) a degree of interconnectedness (for example, if you are sceptical about gods, that will lead you to be sceptical about the claim that our moral sense was placed in us by a god), and (iii) the over-arching role played by the first: these views on the ‘big questions’ are collectively embraced, not as a dogmatically held ‘faith position’, but because, having subjected the various alternatives to rational scrutiny, the humanist considers these the most reasonable positions to adopt."

(Law, Stephen. Humanism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2011. pp. 1-6)
:QUOTE

Thank you for this full description of the philosophy of humanism, because the idea has become less central than in the past, but it is an important undercurrent in philosophy, especially in the formation of ideas, with or without belief in God. The first writer who I came across in relation to humanism was Bertrand Russell, a prominent philosopher and advocate for The Campaign For Nuclear Disarmament. It was through reading of the perspective of Bertrand Russell that I first became aware that it is possible to have moral concern without belief in God. Some may argue that morality and respect for human life and that of other life forms is more essential if the here and now of life is more important than the afterlife which was central to many religions teachings.

[JackDaydream]

Contemporary humanism (as described above) seems to be a combination of the following isms:

1. atheism (negative atheism at least: agnosticism, skepticism)

2. secularism

3. critical, scientific rationalism (as opposed to irrationalism, not to empiricism, and to dogmatism and occultism)

4. liberalism

5. individualism

6. humanitarianism (promotion of human welfare and the advancement of social reforms)

The many different isms are important in the understanding of the development of ideas which have developed. They all have their own roots and have been juggling together, leading to the many aspects of thought apparent in the twentieth first century.

The interplay of all these strands struck me when I began reading the anthropology on humanism a couple of days ago as an aspect of thinking about where the idea of God or absence o God, comes into the basis for development of understanding of reality, nature and ethics.

This ongoing debate was central in philosophy, including thinkers like JS Mill and the basis for the beginnings of social science. Of course, the debate between theism and atheism has been an ongoing one, with Nietzsche and Marx being important, as well as Darwin, although even though his ideas may have led to atheism, as far as I understand, he was not intending to advocate atheism.

One essential aspect may have been the development of scepticism, and David Hume may have contributed to this in his critical analysis, including his examination of the Christian emphasis on miracles, as a starting point for questioning the idea of the supernatural.

[Consul]

QUOTE:
"Declaration of Modern Humanism", Humanists International, General Assembly, Glasgow, United Kingdom, 2022:

Humanist beliefs and values are as old as civilization and have a history in most societies around the world. Modern humanism is the culmination of these long traditions of reasoning about meaning and ethics, the source of inspiration for many of the world’s great thinkers, artists, and humanitarians, and is interwoven with the rise of modern science.

As a global humanist movement, we seek to make all people aware of these essentials of the humanist worldview:

1. Humanists strive to be ethical

We accept that morality is inherent to the human condition, grounded in the ability of living things to suffer and flourish, motivated by the benefits of helping and not harming, enabled by reason and compassion, and needing no source outside of humanity.

We affirm the worth and dignity of the individual and the right of every human to the greatest possible freedom and fullest possible development compatible with the rights of others. To these ends we support peace, democracy, the rule of law, and universal legal human rights.

We reject all forms of racism and prejudice and the injustices that arise from them. We seek instead to promote the flourishing and fellowship of humanity in all its diversity and individuality.

We hold that personal liberty must be combined with a responsibility to society. A free person has duties to others, and we feel a duty of care to all of humanity, including future generations, and beyond this to all sentient beings.

We recognise that we are part of nature and accept our responsibility for the impact we have on the rest of the natural world.

2. Humanists strive to be rational

We are convinced that the solutions to the world’s problems lie in human reason, and action. We advocate the application of science and free inquiry to these problems, remembering that while science provides the means, human values must define the ends. We seek to use science and technology to enhance human well-being, and never callously or destructively.

3. Humanists strive for fulfillment in their lives

We value all sources of individual joy and fulfillment that harm no other, and we believe that personal development through the cultivation of creative and ethical living is a lifelong undertaking.

We therefore treasure artistic creativity and imagination and recognise the transforming power of literature, music, and the visual and performing arts. We cherish the beauty of the natural world and its potential to bring wonder, awe, and tranquility. We appreciate individual and communal exertion in physical activity, and the scope it offers for comradeship and achievement. We esteem the quest for knowledge, and the humility, wisdom, and insight it bestows.

4. Humanism meets the widespread demand for a source of meaning and purpose to stand as an alternative to dogmatic religion, authoritarian nationalism, tribal sectarianism, and selfish nihilism

Though we believe that a commitment to human well-being is ageless, our particular opinions are not based on revelations fixed for all time. Humanists recognise that no one is infallible or omniscient, and that knowledge of the world and of humankind can be won only through a continuing process of observation, learning, and rethinking.

For these reasons, we seek neither to avoid scrutiny nor to impose our view on all humanity. On the contrary, we are committed to the unfettered expression and exchange of ideas, and seek to cooperate with people of different beliefs who share our values, all in the cause of building a better world.

We are confident that humanity has the potential to solve the problems that confront us, through free inquiry, science, sympathy, and imagination in the furtherance of peace and human flourishing.

We call upon all who share these convictions to join us in this inspiring endeavor."

Source: https://humanists.international/policy/ ... -humanism/
:QUOTE

[Consul]

Also see: Humanist Manifestos 1-3 by the American Humanist Association:

* Humanist Manifesto 1 (1933): https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-hu ... anifesto1/

* Humanist Manifesto 2 (1973): https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-hu ... anifesto2/

* Humanist Manifesto 3 (2003): https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-hu ... anifesto3/

[JackDaydream]

Contemporary humanism (as described above) seems to be a combination of the following isms:

1. atheism (negative atheism at least: agnosticism, skepticism)

2. secularism

3. critical, scientific rationalism (as opposed to irrationalism, not to empiricism, and to dogmatism and occultism)

4. liberalism

5. individualism

6. humanitarianism (promotion of human welfare and the advancement of social reforms)

You are correct in stating that "humanism" has been coopted by atheists, a trend to which I object. I object mainly because the humanist tradition in the Renaissance offered no objections to religion; indeed, the great humanists were devout Christians like Erasmus and Thomas More. In those days, the humanists thought the divine could be revealed through the great works of pre-Christian antiquiity. According to the World History Encyclopedia:

The main elements of Renaissance humanism include:

an interest in studying literature and art from antiquity
an interest in the eloquent use of Latin and philology
a belief in the importance and power of education to create useful citizens
the promotion of private and civic virtue
a rejection of scholasticism
the encouragement of non-religious studies
an emphasis on the individual and their moral autonomy
a belief in the importance of observation, critical analysis, and creativity
a belief that poets, writers, and artists can lead humanity to a better way of living
an interest in the question 'what does it mean to be human'?

Of course words evolve. Nonetheless, the emphaisis on atheism included in modern "humanism" seems to me an insult to Erasmus and others.

You are right to point to the way in which humanism is not dependent on acceptance of atheism in itself. The roots go back further, and, for a long time, I associated humanism with secular humanism. Later;I realised that just as ethics is not dependent on God, humanism is not necessarily dependent on atheism.

The nature of scepticism may have been essential as a starting point. Sometimes, the notion of agnosticism may be seen as the lack of ability to make up one's mind on the matter of God. In the anthology of writings on humanism one reading which I found useful was the agnostic position of Thomas Henry Huxley (1825- 1885), in his essay, 'On Agnosticism'. He says,
'Agnosticism is not properly described as a "negative creed", nor indeed as a creed of any kind, except so far as it expresses absolute faith in the validity of a principle, which as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this; that it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies this certainty.'

This quote shows the emergence of uncertainty, which Wittgenstein developed in his philosophy. Many argue that God is 'dead', but many people hold to religious beliefs and there is still much debate about whether consciousness can be explained by materialism or not. Humanism may have been important in the start of such areas of debate, as well as those about ethical issues, and the interplay between understanding of reality and the basis for social ethics.