Ministers Musings
Love and Reason: Exploring Humanism
Are you a humanist?
In a congregational survey from a year and a half ago, 58% of you stated that you were.
Of course, the congregation has grown by over 25% since then, but I’d guess that number still remains high.
In the survey, humanism was defined for you as:
“I believe that human beings are responsible for ‘goodness’ and ‘meaning’, and that we must rely on one another for support.”
While that statement describes a part of humanism, it also soft-pedals an essential element of this belief system. All humanism, even what is called ‘religious humanism’ does not believe in any supernatural, transcendent being or force that is beyond our reasoned comprehension.
Now, I don’t want to confuse atheism with humanism, for they are not the same. Humanism holds that humans have a responsibility to respond to the world ethically and with love and compassion. Atheists simply do not believe in any supernatural deity. Humanists are technically atheists — although unlike some atheists, humanists do not place their focus on whether one believes in God or not but rather what is the social impact of your belief. But not all atheists are humanists – an atheist murderer would not be exhibiting a conflict in values, but an humanist murderer would.
Humanism has a richness that dates back thousands of years, that is central to the American spirit, and that has inspired millions of people to live rich, fulfilling lives. Humanism has provided a welcome alternative for millions of people to belief systems that have limited their sense of control over life, and simply not made sense to them.
In short, a humanist says:
What you see is what you get!
We’re it!
We are the meaning-makers, and we have a responsibility to create a world of justice and beauty, because there is no other force in the universe that is going to do that for us, or even with us!
And that assertion has provided a sense of freedom and joy to many of Humanism’s adherents.
Popular 19th Century political leader and orator Robert Ingersoll said this about his then heretical humanist thought:
When I became convinced that the Universe is natural – that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. For the first time, I was free. I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously, faced all worlds. And then my heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness – and went out in love for all the heroes, the thinkers who gave their lives for the liberty of hand and brain. And then I vowed to grasp the torch that they had held and hold it high that light might conquer darkness still.
Talk about a conversion experience! He sounds like Paul on the Road to Damascus! I’d like to add his energy to the UUA’s Growth initiatives!
The ‘heroes’ of humanism date back to ancient Greece, when men like Protagarus dared to challenge the Pantheon of Gods with statements like:
Man is the measure of all things, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not.
Humanists today can also trace their lineage back to a Greek emphasis on the power of individual attainment — the beauty that was created in this life in the arts and architecture, even though much of their ideological thought was centered on a host of Gods.
Humanists look back to the Renaissance as historic roots — with its revolt of the other-worldly focus of medieval Christianity, and again its contributions to the attainment of beauty in this life – in art, literature, and music.
But, most obviously, we can see the roots of humanism in the politics and ideologies that created this country. Although our forefathers may not have used the term, they were committed to an ideological spirit that relied on the power of the individual, the capacity of humanity to create systems that enabled personal freedom, and the ideal of the separation of one’s person belief in God from public life – no matter what conservative Christians have to say about our past – this country is not and never has been a theocracy!
In their book, Humanism As the Next Step, Lloyd and Mary Morain, long-time humanists and scholars write:
Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin were all deists or freethinkers. At the time they lived, deists – [those who believed that God did not intervene in the affairs of humanity or the natural laws of the universe] – were considered little different from those without belief.
We do know that these founding fathers were not interested in identifying the government of this new country with a religious concept of any specific kind.
At the Constitutional Convention it was voted after some discussion that the word “God” would not have a place in the Constitution. Later on, George Washington, while president, signed this statement in the name of the United States: “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” . . . It was only in 1954 that our Congress inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance the phrase, ‘under God”.
It’s not only that they didn’t want God-language in the founding documents that is so remarkable, its that our founding fathers had such faith in humanity’s capacity to build the common good. Look at the system of ‘checks and balances’. It shows an understanding of the fallibility of humanity –absolute power corrupts absolutely, as Lord Acton said – but it also relies on human being to be the adjudicators, not interpretations of ancient sacred texts nor divine revelation from sages or kings.
This country was founded on a doctrine of: “We’re it! And its our moral responsibility to take care of ourselves and our nation.”
This was radical stuff. I’m amazed they got away with it in that age of Calvinist oppression!
Of course, with its non-creedal stance and emphasis on respect for the individual, Unitarian thought and humanism go hand in hand. For years, humanism remained on the edges of what was then a Christian Unitarianism. But in the mid-1800’s those pesky Transcendentalists created a ruckus when Henry Bellows, a minister from All Souls Unitarian Church in New York City asserted that the National Conference of Unitarian Churches develop a Christian creed, albeit a liberal one, as a way to expand liberal religion.
The rebellion lead to the formation of the “Free Religious Association” founded by, among others, Unitarians Ralph Waldo Emerson and Octavius Brooks Frothingham and non-Unitarian ‘scientific theists’ such as Francis Abbott and William Potter. Founder of the Reform Jewish movement Rabbi Isaac J. Wise was also a member. The Free Religious Association embodied the notion that one could be authentically religious without being Christian. (Yes, that was a radical thought in the 1800s, and I guess its one even now in some segments of society.) Over time these free-thinkers chipped away at the creed of the National Conference of Unitarian Churches until Unitarianism became, once again a non-creedal tradition.
Humanism continued to shape and stretch the Christian, theist roots of Unitarianism into the 20th century. In the early 1900s, Unitarian ministers John Dietrich and Curtis Reese found themselves simultaneously preaching a non-theistic, yet morally empowering message. Over time, they collaborated, and raised many hackles in liberal theological movements by saying things like “theism is philosophically possible, but not religiously necessary”, as Reese preached, or Dietrich addressing the General Unitarian Conference in 1921 with “The kind of world we live in depends not upon some God outside of man, but upon man himself, or, as some of us would like to put it, upon the God that dwells in humanity. It matters not which way you put it, the responsibility clearly rests upon man . . .”
A war of ideas ensued for well over a decade, and in 1933, a concrete articulation of religious humanism emerged like Luther’s 95 theses nailed to the church door at Wittenburg. Published in their own journal, New Humanist, the 15 short theses of the Humanist Manifesto were quickly republished in other journals, and the debate continued.
Among other things, the Humanist Manifesto asserted:
• That the universe is self-existing and not created
• That humanity emerged as part of a continuous natural process
• That religious culture is clearly the product of environment and social heritage
• That modern science makes the belief in the supernatural unacceptable
• That the complete realization of human life exists in this world (and not an after-life) giving humanists a social passion.
• That in place of worship and prayer, humanists find their religious emotions expressed in personal life and efforts to promote social well-being, and
• That Religious humanists aim to foster the creative in humanity and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfaction of human life.
In short:
What you see is what you get!
We’re it!
We are the meaning-makers, and we have a responsibility to create a world of justice and beauty, because there is no other force in the universe that is going to do that for us!
What ensued were decades of debate over the question: Can there be a religion without God?
In an essay that turned the question around entitled, “Can Humanism be religious?” Rev. Peter Samson answered this question in a most poetic way:
“…YES: Humanism can be religious; indeed, the most meaningful and livable kind of humanism is itself a religious way of understanding and living life. It offers a view of [people] and [their] place in the universe that is a religious philosophy…overarching and undergirding it all, there can be a haunting sense of wonder which never leaves one for whom life itself is a mystery and miracle. Where did we come from, why are we here, where are we going with all the effort, frustration, the grief, the joy? To be caught up in this sense of wider relatedness, to sense our being connected in live ways with all the world and everyone in it, is the heart dimension of religion, whatever its name.”
Seventy-plus years after the Humanist Manifesto, we are also here to testify with a resounding “Yes!” there can be a religion without God. Moreover, we are here to attest to the fact that there can be ONE religion WITHOUT and WITH God!
One of the greatest gifts of our movement is the centrality of respect for each individual’s search for truth. It’s not always easy, and those of us who have been around Unitarian Universalism for some time know that our ideal of radical hospitality in religious thought has sometimes looked more like radical hostility. We can’t deny that our movement lives with a humanist-theist tension.
For me that tension is unwarranted, because when we hold up the Seven Principles to which we have covenanted as Unitarian Universalist congregations, especially our very first principle – respect for the inherent worth and dignity of all people – we can trace its source to both humanistic and theistic roots. When we seek to live up to those principles – the principle that encourages a free and responsible search for truth and meaning, the principle that calls us to respect the interdependent web – when we go back to those principles, the source from which each of us gets the inspiration to live into these ideals does not matter. As a matter of fact, the Principles inform us that they do not matter, because they focus on the integrity of the search.
Our Principles call us into a deeper, richer way of being – one that truly respects diversity of belief not in and of itself, but as a manifestation of the common good.
I leave us again today with the question of ‘practice’. How does one live a life in response to Humanist beliefs? In a moment, Linda Dixon will share how her humanism informs her life. Although I hold to a belief of some creative mystery beyond all this, luring us into our fullest beings, I am greatly drawn to the facets of humanism that call us to engage in the responsibility and awe of this world as we see it. If I engage that part of humanist thought with the multi-faceted me, here’s how I imagine practicing Humanism –
• By not relying on something ‘other’ to create or inspire goodness
• By practicing not only ‘random’ but intentional acts of kindness to join in the common good — being our own ‘goodness gorillas’
• By opening ourselves up to the awe and wonder of the world as we experience it – nature, human kindness and intellectual achievements, the arts, and music . . .love
• And, by opening ourselves up to the real suffering we have the capacity to inflict upon one another – as a way to remain in touch with the reality of human nature, and work toward its continual betterment.
Humanism is an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity, recognizing that moral values are properly founded on human nature and experience alone. (The Bristol Humanist Group) Humanists believe that this is the only life of which we have certain knowledge and that we owe it to ourselves and others to make it the best life possible for ourselves and all with whom we share this fragile planet. (The Humanist Society of Western New York)
If these ideals, if these beliefs, speak to you, how are you called to live?
PRACTICING HUMANISM Linda Dixon
Rev. Lydia asked me to share with you on a personal level what being a humanist means in terms of how I live my life. Initially I was taken aback by this request, because I realized I had never really given this much reflective thought. I just try to act on a set of beliefs which I call humanist religious ideals. I will mention some of my humanist beliefs, and what actions follow from those beliefs.
I think for many of us who call ourselves humanists, the defining factor that sets us apart from conventional religious thought is our denial of a superhuman being as an influence in our personal lives. A corollary of this belief is a denial of the necessity for an appeal to a higher authority to explain the happenings of the natural world.
I would like to tell you a brief personal anecdote which exemplifies how these beliefs recently have affected my life. Over much of the past year and a half I have had a spate of ailments which led to chronic, sometimes excruciating, pain. When my sister-in-law informed me that her fundamentalist Christian prayer group was praying for me to get better, I thought that was very nice of them, and I thanked her. However, as a humanist I had no delusions or illusions about the outcome of my problems unless some medical treatment would work. Thankfully, for me this did occur. I know that some of you may believe that such “miracles” do occur, defying scientific methods, and I accept that you believe it, although I do not. I got better because the medical problems were taken care of by medical treatments. However, I believe those prayers did not hurt, especially since I went on with the medical treatment. Neither my sister-in-law’s prayer group, nor any of you gave me a new hip. I do not believe that my sister-in-law’s God had anything to do with what happened to me nor with what took care of my problem. But what I do believe is that the love and concern of the people who care about me was helpful to me emotionally both during my illness and in the healing process.
As a humanist, I acknowledge that no supernatural deity deserves the praise or the blame for what happens in the world. It follows that I feel I am responsible for what I do and in how I treat other people and the earth. This means I feel no sin or guilt some priest needs to absolve. Instead I feel a responsibility to right my wrongs in whatever way I can.
I believe there is no necessity for an appeal to a higher authority to explain the happenings of the natural world. We can use scientific methodology to explain naturalistic events. I believe these methods are of value in our answer to the religious question of “How do we know what we know?”
I recognize not all questions of interest to us are easily answerable by the use of the scientific method. Sometimes it is not possible to design the proper experiment. Then we need to rely on reason and logic and perhaps what we call intuition to explain what we are feeling or what has happened.
I accept that knowledge involves degrees of probability. This means that I cannot be absolutely certain about the knowledge we have right now about how things work. Every scientist works on this uncertainty. This is the antithesis of those religious people who believe God or the Bible or the Koran or some supernatural authoritarian source is going to give them THE answer to whatever.
I believe there is a spirituality to humanistic thought. This spirituality is based not on supernatural beings or events. It is based on the awe and wonder of the naturalistic world. I keep a gratitude journal and every day, even if it has been a miserable day, I find something to be grateful for to write about in my journal.
I believe that no gods are in charge of my life. It follows that they will not carry out the fight for justice in this world. Therefore, it is up to me to do what I can to right wrongs. If that involves writing a check, participating in a protest, speaking up in a forum, writing a letter, or voting, so be it; it is all up to me.
Finally, I try to spend my money on this earth wisely and in line with my principles. I believe that no gold or riches await me up there in the clouds.
QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1) As you read through this sermon and the ‘practicing Humanism” reflection, which parts of Humanism, if any, are attractive to you? Why?
2) How does the Humanist thread that runs through Unitarian Universalism impact your life, your values, and how you live?