Just for the record, I want to state up front that I do happen to be at once an Atheist and a Humanist.

Both the AHA and the Cape Fear Humanists and Freethinkers often equate Humanism and Atheism. It is true that many Humanist are Atheists, but it is NOT TRUE that ALL Humanists are Atheists. My view is that Humanism is the ethical system that often accompanies Atheism, but that the overriding message of Humanism is that people (humans) are going to have work to make our world better. It's up to us!

So, who cares? Society does! The term "Atheist" has a very negative connotation for many in the religious community, while for many of those same people Humanist is a neutral term. I believe that, if we Humanists would like to get a message out like "get out there and do something useful", then that message is most likely to be accepted without distain, if it is not so closely associated with Atheism.

For example, I would bet that the now infamous billboard vandalism in Moscow, Idaho, would never have occurred, if that billboard had said nothing about God, but had somehow encouraged people to help make things better in some way.

What do you think?

Hi Ron, welcome! First of all, good luck finding Humanists who believe in the supernatural, you will probably need it. There are quite a few of us raising the same question you are, from P.Z. Myers over at Pharyngula, to the National Center For Science Education, all asking the same thing: Are the "New Atheists (Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, etc..) making things worse or better for those of us who don't believe?

I think the appropriate message is kind of dependent upon what the message is designed to accomplish, and the term "Humanism" has virtually the same connotation as "atheist" among most of the religious right. Personally, I don't care what they think of the term, for the purpose of the signs and billboards going up all over has nothing whatsoever to do with them. We aren't trying to convert anyone, we're reaching out to people who already think the same way we do. This is also why we do the street fairs, and with a mostly positive message, by the way.

Four years ago, a Pew survey found less then 7% of the US population self-identified as "no religious affiliation." A similar survey done recently showed 15% self-identified in that category. Now, it's doubtful that twenty-five million people decided in four years time that they didn't believe in god. It's much more likely that the doubling of "nones"occurred as a direct result of "End of Faith," The God Delusion," "Breaking the Spell," and other "New Atheist" popular works making it possible for many to realize that they were not alone in their disbelief.

Personally, I take kind of a firm position where coddling the religious is concerned. I see no reason whatsoever to respect delusion in any form, and I don't. The religious should not get a pass when one of their absurd beliefs, which makes an inaccurate or misleading statement concerning reality, is allowed to influence decisions that effect others in addition to themselves.

When they attempt to enlist the police power of the state to enforce the warped moral dictates of a bunch of bronze age nomads, I think it's time for us to take whatever action we can to try and create a political force to counter the still growing influence of those who would subvert the Constitution. If you think the religious right in this country is after anything less then a theocracy, you should read some of Huckabee's speeches.

I agree that you will have a tough time finding modern humanists who hold supernatural and "spiritual" beliefs, and even fewer that partake in any religious practice.

Recently I have come into contact with several christian individuals who see a humanist outlook as not only contradictory to their faith, but damaging and threatening to believers as a whole.

One of the central tenets of faith is the concept that humanity is a flawed empty shell, only given purpose and positivity by some interaction or force presence from their deity or his various representatives. This belittling and demeaning viewpoint is in direct contradiction to any humanist outlook that emphasizes the singular qualities and potentials we all have as a result of the abilities and strengths of our life.

The more emphasis you place on the "power" and control of any deity, the more you take from the value of mankind, and in the opinion of many deists, particularly those of a more fundamentalist viewpoint, the opposite is true. The more we place intrinsic value on the wonder of humanity and the natural world, the more we are seen to undermine and detract from their supernatural object of worship. This makes a humanist world philosophy particularly anathema to many religions. They see any outlook that places strength and worth solely in the human as hubris and heretical to their view that anything achievable and positive can only stem directly from their non-human "higher power". A humanist stance therefore becomes a direct threat in their eyes.

I truly believe that, for the reasons above, atheism is an intrinsic part of modern humanism. You cannot fully believe in the human power to create and shape a better world if you are giving any or all of that power away to some intangible supposed supernatural entity.

My own personal viewpoint, based somewhat on experience, is that in reaching out to those who are curious about humanist ideals, or who are doubting a previously accepted deistic philosophy, is that we must continually emphasize and focus on the rational and the positive. Once an individual begins to value human abilities and potentials, and starts to exercise their powers of skeptical inquiry and reason, that path of thinking regularly leads away from unquestioning acceptance of the contradictory, vastly outdated, and often unsatisfying concepts of the supernatural. By offering a full philosophy of life action and experience, rather than merely a critique of the supernatural position, we are showing a wider path to those searching for something more tangible and fulfilling.

Saying that, the religion industry has a powerful reactionary, and often harmful, influence on modern life, and using strong terms such as atheism demonstrates a clear protest and rebuttal of this. I am proud of my atheism (and not believing in sin can be openly proud of my pride). I reached my position through long and careful thought, and I will defend it because as a human, and a humanist, I have the intrinsic natural reason to do so.

By grovelling in submission to an empty mythology, or unquestionably accepting the instructions of the modern shaman, we reduce our humanity, the struggles and achievements of our species, and devalue ourselves.

For the reasons above I believe that modern humanism should not only align itself with an atheist perspective, but openly embrace the challenge to any harmful and outdated dogma.

"One of the central tenets of faith is the concept that humanity is a flawed empty shell, only given purpose and positivity by some interaction or force presence from their deity or his various representatives. This belittling and demeaning viewpoint is in direct contradiction to any humanist outlook that emphasizes the singular qualities and potentials we all have as a result of the abilities and strengths of our life."


Well said! I would add that a further central tenet of faith is that in addition to purpose and positivity, humanity must also draw a moral compass from the divine, else we would be free to rape and pillage to our heart's content. Theists see us, whether we call ourselves Humanists or Atheists, as amoral agents ultimately responsible for most of the ills in our current society. Never mind that the areas of the US with the highest divorce, teenage pregnancy, child molestation, and domestic violence rates are in the areas with the highest concentrations of fundamental Christianity.

Our message should counter, directly and relentlessly, the central tenets of faith noted above, and I think the various organizations are doing a pretty good job at it. The whole point, in my view, is to demonstrate that the supernatural is unnecessary to anyone who wants to live a fulfilled, purposeful and moral life. We are the largest and most despised minority in this country, and the only way we can change our status is by aggressively promoting the positive advantages of a naturalistic worldview.

Hi Pete and Han,

I appreciate your replies. However, I disagree that few Humanists believe in any supernatural power. Within the Wilmington UU Fellowship alone, I can find you a dozen people who are Humanists, but still believe in some sort of higher power - call it God, or whatever you will. There is an entire flavor of Humanism, Religious Humanism, which holds that there is a good deal of mystery to life, and does not discount the possibility of a higher power of some sort. This view has nothing to do with the Christian Fundamentalist belief that humans are flawed or that God will fix everything. The Religious Humanist belief is more of a deistic one, in which no one expects for the higher power to intervene in natural laws and fix things. Religious Humanists still believe that it is up to us to make the world better.

So, I stick by my original assertion that not all Humanists are Atheists.

Pete, it has not been my experience that Society as a whole treats the word "Humanist" with the same negative connotation as is the case for the word "Atheist". I guess I hope that is not actually true. If it is a common misconception, perhaps we should be trying to change it!

"I disagree that few Humanists believe in any supernatural power."

That may be, but quoting from "Humanism and its aspirations: "Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives." I don't care what folks call themselves, but the term "Humanist" assumes a secular worldview, and the AHA is certainly a secular organization. Personally, I consider any worldview that includes a supernatural power of ANY KIND to be a delusion differing only in degree from that of a religious fundamentalist, and totally unsupported by empirical evidence of any kind. Does that sound harsh? I suppose it does, but the moderate quasi-religious provide support and cover for the right-wingers by helping to make delusion and irrationality socially acceptable.

Carl Sagan once wrote: "The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... It does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity." This is the god of Einstein and Spinoza, and perhaps a "god" that most of us could support as well.

"it has not been my experience that Society as a whole treats the word "Humanist" with the same negative connotation as is the case for the word "Atheist""

Whenever a leader of the fundies wishes to refer to those who are "causing the ruin of our great country," their favorite form of reference is "Secular Humanist." They don't like to admit that atheists exist in large numbers, so they use the term as a euphemism. I read all the right-wing crap, and debate on several mixed and xtian boards, and Secular Humanist is the reference of choice of most of the theist respondents, and that's been my experience.

I guess I don't understand your reluctance to accept what they choose to call us, 'cause believe me, the terms are absolutely interchangeable to them. Now, there are many "mainstream xtians" who are not familiar with the term "Humanist," I would admit that, but those pushing the reconstructionist agenda don't consider those christians to be christians at all.

Pete,

Perhaps you are right about the idea that "Humanist" has the same negative connotation to most of society as "Atheist". If so, that is unfortunate.

However, the phrase " without supernaturalism" in no way implies Atheism. It simply means that there is nothing about the ethical lifestyle of a Humanist, which requires a supernatural power. Humanism does not address the possibility of a supernatural power at all. Perhaps we Humanists and the AHA would be well served by making that sort of distinction more clear to society as a whole.

OK, Ron, I'm starting to get a picture, I think. Why are you concerned about Humanists trying to make it clear that we aren't necessarily atheists? What possible difference could that make? Unless you think that we should be encouraging irrationality. I think we're probably at a dead end, 'cause my interest is in promoting humanism to those who have an rational worldview, not in coddling and encouraging those that don't.

Sorry, but I think you can tell from my prior statements that I consider those who insist on a supernatural crutch as part of the problem we have to deal with, and if they are offended by the actions of other atheist groups, or even our group, so much the better if it encourages them to question their own beliefs.

I was headed for bed, but had an additional thought. This is a good topic you raised, and one that perhaps the group should debate as a group. The tone of our relations with the theistic world is a hot topic throughout the atheist community currently, and one that I think we should all be concerned about. Mike Werner is currently VP and in charge of programs, but he will be replaced at our next meeting. Perhaps the new programs person would be interested in staging a discussion, or even a series of discussions. I don't know, but I always find it useful to hear other viewpoints.

Ron, perhaps you would like to run for the board, if you're not considering it already. You would be good for us. If you are interested, contact Suzanna.

Hi Ron.

I believe it is fair to say that you are Unitarian, and I respect that as a stance.
However, as far as the Humanist movement goes there really is no compromise between a belief in a deity, and a belief that we are fundamentally a product of the natural world and that we, as the sentient species living on this planet, ourselves have the ability to shape our world and our future.

The Humanist movement (and I capitalize that for a good reason) has struggled with the concepts of the supernatural and firmly agreed that we hold no supernatural truths evident or reasonable.
By it's very nature the Humanist movement affirms the nature of mankind as a force in the universe to make or break of its own future as it will and that we are alone in this without supernatural aid or push.
If you believe in a higher power than man you are simply not a humanist. You are a deist, a Unitarian, or some other believer. You believe there is a supernatural force beyond man. (I am not saying you do, I am postulating)

Humanists, in as far as the Humanist movement is concerned, do not and cannot believe this. Atheism means without god and as Humansists we are such... and proudly and openly so.
It is very true that unitarians embrace many humanist values and principles, that each man should and can be a force for good in society. The difference is that Humanists believe the force for good, the motivation for good comes from, and only from, the species, the natural drives and ability of mind.
Humanists, as a group and a movement, do not and cannot believe in any irrational supernatural phenomenon. This is a movement or rationality, of science, of personal experience, not of speculation or imagination.
The concept of a deity devalues the nature of our existence and conflicts with the rationality we bring to our world philosophy.
I would suggest and hope that you read "The New Atheism" by Vic Stenger and the new book "Good without God" by Greg Epstein.
These are both strong authors that approach the movement with a very different perspective BUT both without any need for the supernatural.
As Humanists we do not accept the supernatural as it has no basis in reality as defined by experience and proof, the only true judges of sense. Many say we lack the poetry of the universe because of this. I argue that the poetry of science and nature is more beautiful than a thousand million psalms or prayers.
Humanism IS considered the foe of faith because we offer a rational, solid and assured counterpoint to the empty desperate praises of the fearful.
You can be Unitarian and embrace all that Humanists do and champion, but you can never be Humanist without giving up the shackles finally and totally, of the unproven wistfulness and longing for supernatural realm in all it's forms.
I for one am beginning to embrace New Humanism. It about time we took a stand, stood proud, and brought in the many millions seeking a true and positive philosophy of life.
A natural world, a human hope.

Pete,
“Fundies” – cool term! I’ve never heard that before. If you are right that the fundies consider “Humanist” and “Atheist” to be synonymous, then you’re also right that this whole discussion that Humanists are not necessarily Atheists, is really for nothing.
I think your suggestion that the Cape Fear Group should have a discussion about this question is a very good idea. I plan to be at the next meeting, and I’ll suggest it, if I get the chance, or you're welcome to. I’m not sure I’m ready for the Prime Time (i.e., The Board), but that would be a really interesting discussion to lead.

By the way, I failed to mention your Carl Sagan quote in my reply to you last night. Let me say that I think Sagan is one of the finest men who ever lived, and is clearly one of my heroes. I have every book he ever wrote on my bookshelf. But he was also an Atheist, just like we are. The quote reflects that fact.

Han,
I think we agree on essentially every point you raise. It just seems to me that the definition of Humanist does not make it synonymous with Atheist. Still, if what Pete says about the common usage of the term, “Humanist” is correct, then the strict definition of the term doesn’t really matter very much. That’s why I think the idea of the Group discussing this further might be a good one. Thank you much for the book suggestions. I haven’t read either one, and I will make a point to do that.