What is Secular Humanism? One Humanist’s View

It is a common pastime among secular humanists to argue about the definition and meaning of Secular Humanism. But as every secular humanist has their own definition, nothing is ever agreed upon. That being said, the best short definition of Secular Humanism that I have found is the following:

Secular Humanism is that moral philosophy which teaches that the goal of all political and moral action should be the protection and promotion of individual human welfare.

Some people object to stressing secularism as a necessary part of humanism. I stress the secular nature of humanism because I believe that an absolutely essential feature of humanism is that it focuses solely on human dignity and welfare. If once you introduce “God” into humanism – as many religious humanists try to do – you create a second focal point, which draws your concern away from the individual. Eventually you must choose between your concern for people and your obedience to God. There is only one choice that humanism can make if it is to remain humanism. Since the focus of humanism is, and must be, the individual human being, “God”, as a concept, is at best irrelevant to humanism. Stressing the secular nature of humanism merely acknowledges this fact.

Other people object to the stress on human dignity and welfare. “What about other species? What about the environment?” they ask. But the stress on human welfare merely reflects the fact that we experience our lives as human beings. It is only natural for us to be concerned about our own dignity and welfare. To paraphrase Rabbi Hillel, if we are not for ourselves, who will be? And if we don’t take care of our own welfare, how can we hope to take care of the welfare of the rest of the planet? Ultimately, our human welfare is bound up with the welfare of the rest of our environment. In being concerned for our own welfare, we will also be concerned for the welfare of our entire planet.

Finally, some people object to this definition’s stress on individual human welfare. “What about our human community?” they ask. “Aren’t you just being selfish?” Well, no! This is not a call for unmitigated selfish individualism. Of course, Secular Humanists recognize that belonging to a community of fellow human beings is absolutely essential to our welfare, but “dignity” and “welfare” are experienced only by the individual, never by the group.

The great moral tragedies of the Twentieth Century – the Nazi Holocaust, the Soviet Gulag, and too many others – occurred not because the people involved were necessarily evil, but because they tried to promote the welfare of the group by sacrificing the welfare of the individual. Whether this is done in the name of “Der Volk” or “The Proletariat” or some other idealized group, once you begin sacrificing the dignity and welfare of individuals, you destroy the dignity and welfare of the entire community. It is only by defending the dignity and welfare of the individual that you can defend the dignity and welfare of the group.

Why am I a Secular Humanist? It is because I acknowledge the value of every individual. This value is not arbitrarily imposed from the outside by some higher authority. It is innate – a natural part of every person. It arises out of our sensitivity to the world around us, our empathy and compassion for others, and our capacity for rational and creative thought. Secular Humanism is based on a recognition of this innate value, and seeks to build a philosophic and practical framework around which we can live our lives.

What is Secular Humanism? Postscript: One Humanist’s Experience

I often share my essay “What is Secular Humanism?” with Christian believers. One common reaction to my essay is, “If that’s all there is to Secular Humanism, then I’m a Secular Humanist, too.” I don’t find this too surprising because this definition is based on the ideals of the Enlightenment. It is not surprising that people who love their country, Christians included, would want to embrace the ideals upon which our country was founded. But what I do find surprising is how many Christians will make this statement. I find this surprising because Christians should not be able to agree with this definition.

When Christians claim to accept this definition as a statement of their own beliefs, I have to point out to them that they have not understood what this definition of Secular Humanism is saying. They have failed to grasp the significance of one word – one simple common word – that makes it impossible for them, as Christians, to fully accept this definition as a statement of their beliefs.

The word I am referring to is the word “the” in the phrase “…the goal of all political and moral action…” To fully understand this definition, this phrase should be understood to mean “…the one and only goal of all political and moral action…” Read in this light, it should be clear that no Christian can unreservedly accept this definition. In fact, it is that single word “the”, which defines the true difference between Christianity and Secular Humanism.

To understand why this is, it is only necessary to remember that Christians accept the Bible as the word of God. In it, God reveals His plan for the World and for Humanity. Christians, if the term Christianity is to have any meaning at all, must accept this as a foundational belief of their religion. The problem with this is that the Bible also includes a long list of commandments – many more than a mere ten – for us to obey.

Christians, if they are to be true to their God’s will, must believe that, to be moral, they must follow these commandments. For Christians, therefore the promotion and protection of individual human welfare cannot be the one and only goal of political and moral action. It can only be a goal and, perhaps, not even the most important one. For Christians, obedience to God’s Will must always be another.

But what happens when obedience to God’s will conflicts with the obligation to promote and protect the welfare of the individual? When faced with this conflict, which of these two goals will Christians sacrifice? I doubt that any Christian can really know which goal they will betray until they have actually lived this dilemma. It is here that the Secular Humanist has the advantage over the Christian because this conflict can never arise for the humanist. The humanist has only one goal to seek.

I have watched the eyes of many Christians as they grapple with this conundrum. Some try to evade the implications of these conflicting goals by claiming that God’s Will always promotes and protects the welfare of the individual. But to make this claim, these Christians must deny much of what is in their Bible and a significant portion of Christianity’s history. Others simply refuse to discuss it further. But there are some Christians who seem to understand what that word “the” really implies and – although I may be fooling myself – in those Christians, I believe I have seen a dawning humility and a greater willingness to accept Secular Humanism as a valid moral alternative to religion.

The “Feed My Sheep” organization is a terrific one, but an obvious question comes to mind when reading stories like this: how important was the religious motivation for the charity? Can secular humanists and non-theists serve others in their community, or are they naturally more self-centered? Can they be willing to help other people if God isn’t prompting them from the inside or threatening them from the outside? If so, why are there so many religious charities?

Part of the answer to these questions lies in simple statistics. If over 80 percent of Americans claim to be Christians, a majority of charities will naturally be affiliated with that group. In fact, there is a surprising number of secular charities (percentage-wise) in America, and I will provide a few links at the bottom of this entry.

I also won’t discount the positive humanitarian prompting that can emerge from verses like John 21:17. Along with phobias and genocides, religion has also supported positive actions and outreaches like “Feed My Sheep,” especially here in a country that thankfully cherry picks its religious mottoes from the more benign and moral parts of its holy book. Most religions are an accumulated mass of teachings that represent both the best aspirations and the worst atrocities of humanity–all tied together with the common thread of supernatural involvement. This leads to good things as well as bad. Black and white pictures of religious consequences are inaccurate.

Nevertheless, as secularists who don’t believe that God is there in the background supporting people who are performing any actions (good or bad), can we still see value in having a religious text to help prompt positive social action? “Yes” and “No.” Yes in the sense that community and feeding the hungry are good things; “No” in the sense that religion is both unnecessary and adds unfortunate baggage to the positive root action. In other words, many religious charities are good, but they could be far better (and safer) without the religion.

I’ve worked in two different religious “soup kitchens” before, and both of them proselytized as they distributed food. Part of their teaching was about love, but a lot of it was also about “faith” and praying for God to help the homeless find jobs or ways to elevate themselves beyond their current circumstances. Not only is prayer statistically worthless, but giving people false hope or taking their focus off of real ways to elevate their status (such as working at it instead of wasting time in prayer and wish-thinking) is morally questionable in and of itself. Many of Christianity’s most famous and popular teachings (e.g., the Sermon on the Mount) dish out plenty of questionable advice (e.g., Matthew 6:25-34: “do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear,” etc). Is this really a good way to live, not giving a thought to the concerns of tomorrow?

Besides these concerns, however, I object to spreading religion because it’s not true. Arguments are made frequently about the relative harm done by religion, and people come to various conclusions. In the end, religion isn’t primarily bad because of the harm it does. It’s bad simply because it’s wrong. And that alone is a good reason to support secular charities over religious ones: help promote the spread of verified truth instead of superstition. (There are also legal [and therefore moral?] concerns about church/state separation for government-sponsored charities and the Faith-Based Initiatives mess, but that’s a topic for another time.)

So what are these secular charities? Is it actually possible for people to do good without divine prompting? I think anyone who has ever enjoyed a simple friendship or wanted to return a favor after benefiting from the selfless action of someone else will innately know the answer to this question. Occam’s Razor neatly slices away the need for supernatural explanations of goodness. Helping others can be fulfilling, it promotes welfare and does good in the world, and it is evolutionarily explicable. Here are a few good secular charities:

• The Fred Hollows Foundation is inspired by work of the late Professor Fred Hollows, whose vision was for a world where no one was needlessly blind. This Foundation has worked in 29 countries and has restored sight to more than a million people. Hollows passed away 11 years ago from cancer, but he was always outspoken on his atheist beliefs. His widow, Gabi Hollows took over the Foundation after his death.

• S.H.A.R.E., the Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort, was developed about twenty years ago by the Council for Secular Humanism to provide an alternative for those who wish to contribute to humanitarian efforts without the intermediary of a religious organization. S.H.A.R.E. has contributed most recently to the Tsunami disaster relief effort and victims of Hurricane Katrina.

• Second Harvest is a food bank and the nation’s largest charitable hunger-relief organization. The Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank is a similar organization specific to our own home city!

If you wish to contribute to a charity but are concerned about religious proselytizing, ActivistCash.com is good resource for finding out if organizations may be using donations in ways you aren’t aware of.

On the whole, however, it’s important for secular humanists to break the negative stigma that surrounds the non-religious and demonstrate that humanism is about supporting and appreciating humanity, not destroying the world with subversive, evil philosophies. In general, I find charity work to be very rewarding–for both myself and others–and I’m an atheist….