Secular humanism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Part of Philosophy series on
Humanism
(humanist philosophies)


Happy Human
Humanism (life stance)

International Humanist
and Ethical Union (IHEU)
American Humanist Association
Amsterdam Declaration
British Humanist Association
National Secular Society
Secular humanism

Council for Secular Humanism
A Secular Humanist Declaration
Religious humanism

Christian humanism
Jewish humanism
Buddhist humanism
Related articles

Ethical Culture
Integral humanism
Marxist humanism
Cosmic humanism
Posthumanism
Transhumanism
List of humanists
History of humanism

Renaissance humanism
Humanism in Germany
Humanism in France
Humanist Manifesto
Philosophy Portal · v • d • e 

Secular humanism is a humanist philosophy that upholds reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects the supernatural and the spiritual as the basis of moral reflection and decision-making. Like other types of humanism, secular humanism is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead good, happy and functional lives.

The term "secular humanism" was coined in the 20th century to make a clear distinction from "religious humanism". A related concept is "scientific humanism", which biologist Edward O. Wilson claimed to be "the only worldview compatible with science's growing knowledge of the real world and the laws of nature".[1]

Contents

[edit] Tenets

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

  • Need to test beliefs – A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
  • Reason, evidence, scientific method – A commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
  • Fulfillment, growth, creativity – A primary concern with fulfillment, growth and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
  • Search for truth – A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
  • This life – A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
  • Ethics – A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
  • Building a better world – A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.

A Secular Humanist Declaration was issued in 1980 by The Council for Democratic and Secular Humanism (CODESH), now the Council for Secular Humanism (CSH). It lays out ten ideals: Free inquiry as opposed to censorship and imposition of belief; Separation of church and state; the ideal of freedom from religious control and from jingoistic government control; ethics based on critical intelligence rather than that deduced from religious belief; moral education; religious skepticism; reason; a belief in science and technology as the best way of understanding the world; evolution; and education as the essential method of building humane, free, and democratic societies.[3]

[edit] Comparison with religious humanism

There are a number of ways in which secular and religious humanism can differ:[4]

  • Some religious humanists may seek profound "religious" experiences, such as those that others would associate with the presence of God, despite interpreting these experiences differently. Secular humanists would generally not pursue such experiences solely for their own sake.[5]
  • Some varieties of nontheistic religious humanism may conceive of the word divine as more than metaphoric even in the absence of a belief in a traditional God; they may believe in ideals that transcend physical reality; or they may conceive of some experiences as numinous or uniquely religious. Secular humanism regards all such terms as, at best, metaphors for truths rooted in the material world.
  • Some varieties of religious humanism, such as Christian humanism include belief in God, traditionally defined. Secular humanists reject the idea of God and the supernatural as irrational and believe that these are not useful concepts for addressing human problems.

[edit] Modern secular humanism

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

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

[edit] Criticism

Religious people criticize secular humanism for excluding ideas related to religious beliefs. It does not refer to a relationship with the divine, or a belief in eternal life, reward, or punishment.[9][10] Critics allege that a philosophy bereft of these beliefs[11] "leaves humanity adrift in a foggy sea[12] of postmodern cynicism and anomie." Critics argue that this philosophy has always been anti-religious and refer to it as an atheistic philosophy.[13] Critics perceive secular humanism as antagonistic to religion.

Humanists respond that such criticisms reflect a failure to look at the actual content of humanist philosophy, which far from being cynical and postmodern, is rooted in optimistic,[14] idealistic[15] attitudes about the future of human society that trace back to the Enlightenment,[16][17][18] or further, back to Pre-Socratic Greek philosophers and Chinese Confucianism.[2]

[edit] Legal mentions in the United States

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

[edit] Case law

[edit] Torcaso v. Watkins

The phrase "secular humanism" became prominent after it was used in the United States Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins. In the 1961 decision, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." Such footnotes, known as obiter dicta, are personal observations of the judge, and hence are incidental to reaching the opinion.[19]

[edit] Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda

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

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

[edit] Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia

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

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

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

[edit] Peloza v. Capistrano School District

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

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

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

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

[edit] Controversy

Some religious groups argue that secular humanism--and, by association, secularism--have a religion-like legal status despite the separation of church and state, that secularism in government and in the schools constitutes state favoritism towards a particular religion (namely, the denial of theism), and a double standard is used in granting protections to these groups while allowing the teaching of their non-theistic views such as evolution which are consistent with secularism.[22]

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

  • Beliefs involved are about more than secularism: Religious status has been granted to various non-theistic humanist organizations. Such organizations typically favor various aspects of secularism. However, humanism embraces a variety of ideas which are not part of secularism, for example, affirming human dignity. Even if a particular brand of humanism were to be regarded as a religion, that would not necessarily make particular positions, such as secularism, religious, as religious status could be based on other considerations.
  • Beliefs of a religious group can be non-religious: Even if a group did assert secularism in isolation to be its religion (no instances of this are known), this would not mean that secularism is in general a religious idea. ("Just because people count something in what they say is their religion does not make it inherently religious. If some people start worshipping chairs chairs shouldn't be kept out of school."[citation needed])
  • Court rulings have not been about beliefs: No court rulings on particular non-theistic groups being religious have ever actually ruled that the ideas of these groups were religious per se. Instead, rulings have generally said the groups in question functionally acted like other religious institutions and therefore were entitled to similar protections. (This fact has been obscured by imprecise comments, such as those of Justice Black, but is reflected in the text of particular rulings.)
  • Most advocates do not regard their belief in evolution as religious:[citation needed] Ideas such as the scientific method and evolution are advocated primarily by people who do not regard these ideas as being part of their religions, lending credibility to the claim that these ideas are not inherently religious.

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

Author Marci Hamilton has pointed out: "Moreover, the debate is not between secularists and the religious. The debate is believers and non-believers on the one side debating believers and non-believers on the other side. You've got citizens who are...of faith who believe in the separation of church and state and you have a set of believers who do not believe in the separation of church and state."[23]

[edit] Legislation

[edit] Hatch amendment

The Education for Economic Security Act of 1984 included a section, Section 20 U,S.C.A. 4059, which initially read: "Grants under this subchapter ['Magnet School Assistance] may not be used for consultants, for transportation or for any activity which does not augment academic improvement." With no public notice, Senator Orrin Hatch tacked on to the proposed exclusionary subsection the words "or for any course of instruction the substance of which is secular Humanism." Implementation of this provision ran into practical problems because neither the Senator's staff, nor the Senate's Committee on Labor and Human Resources, nor the Department of Justice could propose a definition of what would constitute a "course of instruction the substance of which is secular Humanism." So, this determination was left up to local school boards.

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

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

[edit] Historical and modern references

The term secularism was created in 1846 by George Jacob Holyoake in order to describe "a form of opinion which concerns itself only with questions, the issues of which can be tested by the experience of this life."[24]

Historical use of the term humanism (reflected in some current academic usage), is related to the writings of pre-Socratic philosophers. These writings were lost to European societies until Renaissance scholars rediscovered them through Muslim sources and translated them from Arabic into European languages."[25] Thus the term humanist can mean a humanities scholar, as well as refer to The Enlightenment/ Renaissance intellectuals, and those who have agreement with the pre-Socratics, as distinct from secular humanists. See the article on humanism for additional history of this term.

The meaning of the phrase "secular humanism" has evolved over time. This phrase was first known to have been used in the 1950s. It was used, for example, by Leo Pfeffer and by Joseph Blau, later professor of religion at Columbia University. However, as used initially the phrase did not have the connotations it later assumed. In 1958 Pfeffer used the term to mean "Those unaffiliated with organized religion and concerned with human values."[24]

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

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

In a mockery of an Alabama judge's reference to secular humanism as a religion, the musician Frank Zappa, who was also a free speech advocate, established the "Church of American Secular Humanism."[26] The fact that the initials of the organization formed the acronym "CASH" was part of the joke. The humor columnist Art Buchwald wrote a column, "Secular Humanists: Threat or Menace?" In it, he poked fun at alarm about secular humanism.[27]

[edit] Notable secular humanists

Main article: List of humanists

Some notable secular humanists were and are:

[edit] Secular humanism manifestos

There are numerous Humanist Manifestos and Declarations, including the following:

[edit] See also

Atheism portal

[edit] Humanist and related organizations

[edit] Related philosophies

[edit] Footnotes

  1. ^ In Harvard Magazine December 2005, p. 33.
  2. ^ a b c "What Is Secular Humanism?". Council for Secular Humanism. http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=what. 
  3. ^ the Council for Secular Humanism (1980). "A Secular Humanist Declaration". the Council for Secular Humanism. http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=declaration. Retrieved on 2008-11-27. 
  4. ^ Council for Secular Humanism - "Religious and Secular Humanism: What's the difference?"
  5. ^ Council for Secular Humanism - "Religious and Secular Humanism: What's the difference?"
  6. ^ Human-Etisk Forbund
  7. ^ [1][dead link]
  8. ^ IslamWay Radio
  9. ^ Buber, Martin (1923) I and Thou (Ich und Du). ISBN 0-684-71725-5
  10. ^ Cultures et foi - Cultures and Faith - Culturas y fe - 1/1993 - Plenaria 1994
  11. ^ Schaeffer, Francis A. How Should We Then Live? The Rise and Decline of Western Thought and Culture. ISBN 1-58134-536-4
  12. ^ Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal (who would become Pope Benedict XVI) (1967) Introduction To Christianity. ISBN 1-58617-029-5
  13. ^ What is the attitude of the Muslim scholars towards humanism?, IslamOnline, 2003-07-24
  14. ^ Council for Secular Humanism
  15. ^ Humanism, Definitively
  16. ^ Just What Is A "Secular Humanist Liberal," Anyway?
  17. ^ What Is Humanism
  18. ^ Religious Humanism - Humanism Today, Volume 12
  19. ^ By: Hammond, Phillip E Year: 1995 Published in: Journal of Church & State
  20. ^ Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda, 153 Cal.App.2d 673, 315 P.2d 394 (1957).
  21. ^ a b Ben Kalka v Kathleen Hawk, et al. (US D.C. Appeals No. 98-5485, 2000)]
  22. ^ Secular Humanism is a Religion
  23. ^ Point of Inquiry podcast (17:44), February 3, 2006.
  24. ^ a b Secularism 101: Defining Secularism: Origins with George Jacob Holyoake
  25. ^ Islamic political philosophy: Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Averroes
  26. ^ Church of American Secular Humanism - Zappa Wiki Jawaka
  27. ^ Buchwald Recognized the Danger, Even Then
  28. ^ To all appearances, and by all accounts, he was what many might call a secular humanist." Professor Leon Botstein writes: "He emerged as an adult without an ongoing connection to religion."

[edit] External links

[edit] International organizations / Historical & scholarly

[edit] National organizations

[edit] Related to topic 'religion'

[edit] Other

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism"
Personal tools