So therefore, as I want to argue, humanism needs a re-boot. Its not that a key element of humanism isn’t atheism (or agnosticism), it’s just that the negative and combative stance of humanism-as-atheism (or secularism) wins us no friends, and even more enemies. And as for the perhaps arrogant notion that all humanists need to do is educate the masses and they will leave their silly beliefs behind, science has shown us that religion is an evolutionary part of who we are, and much of what it offers folks will not go away even if people become experts in the arguments against God or in science.
Humanism needs to rediscover its ethical and naturalistic foundations, and allow the metaphysics to become part of the overall movement, and not its core and face. By ethical, I am referring to the egalitarianism of humanism which has been one of its defining characteristics long before the scientific revolution replaced religion as the best way to understand reality. These can be found, in part, in the Humanist Manifestos I and II. Where there are atheists or other “freethinkers” who defend the politics or economics of oppression and regression - from war to capitalism to neo-liberalism to neo-conservatism - there must be humanists to point out that atheism is not the same thing as humanism.
Humanism is wholly and unabashedly progressive in its understanding of the human condition and what sort of society bests allows our species to be mentally, emotionally and spiritually healthy. What this means in detail will require a longer essay – and such may be forthcoming on this website – but for starters, authors from Alfie Kohn and Franz De Waal to Doug Fry and Ashley Montagu would be good to read.
Much of Western religion (Christianity, Judaism & Islam) has failed to lead the way because they promote authoritarian, Hobbesian, and highly hierarchal societal systems. To the extent that “liberal” religionists interpret these as otherwise, is the extent that they wish to unify their progressive ideals with their particular mythistory ... and though perhaps as intellectually problematic as this might be, at least they understand the problems with such religion. Why then should it be that atheists, having broken free from the need to believe in supernatural entities, realms or ideas, should otherwise subscribe to the same authoritarian, Hobbesian, and hierarchal societal systems most religions teach?
By naturalistic, I do not mean the mere defense of the hard sciences or the methodology of science, but a fully integrated naturalism obtained by us from all the sciences (natural and social), a naturalistic understanding of the origins and evolutionary reasons for religion (which needs to be understood if we wish to address supernaturalism and how to separate spirituality from supernaturalism), and from an understanding of philosophical determinism which would allow us to exorcise the most dangerous element of religion, the belief in counter-causal free will. This too needs more explanation. For starters, visit the the Center for Naturalism.
In short, a re-booted humanism would recognize ethics and naturalism as its core. It would then be best defined as a sociopolitical philosophy, both democratic and non-hierarchal, which is informed by scientific naturalism, and promotes individual freedom, economic and social equality, human cooperation and planetary peace. It is time for humanists to, as Dr. King said more than forty years ago, take a position which stands out sharply and clearly from the prevailing opinion (opinions from within as well as from without humanist circles). Humanism is a positive, politically progressive, socially cooperative, scientifically sound worldview. It’s time to define humanism as such.
