IS HUMANISM A RELIGION?

The answer depends on what we mean by ‘religion’. See Appendix A for various approaches to defining it. Of course, ‘humanism’ also has a variety of meanings. I capitalise Humanism in these notes to denote the life stance/belief system/world viewdescribed here– from which the following opening statement is taken:
Throughout recorded history there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side, and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have trusted to the scientific method, evidence, and reason to discover truths about the universe and have placed human welfare and happiness at the centre of their ethical decision making.Today, people who share these beliefs and values are called humanists and this combination of attitudes is called Humanism.

This clearly relates to ‘religion’ in the widely accepted sense that, for example, main-stream Christianity, Islam, Judaism and Hinduism are religions, incorporatingan element of supernaturalism. In this sense, Humanism is clearly NOT a religion. But this is not the only meaning of ‘religion’ – think, for example, of some forms of Buddhism. On some definitions, Humanism does at least potentially count as a religion, as recognised in this quote from Julian Huxley, first President of the BHA:
"How can a Humanist be religious? Is not religion necessarily concerned with supernatural powers. The answer is `No'. Religion of some sort seems always to have been a feature of man's life: but some religions are not concerned with God, and some not with any supernatural beings at all. Religions are of many kinds, good and bad, primitive and advanced: but they all have one thing in common - they help man to cope with the problem of his place and role in the strange universe in which he lives. Religion...aims at helping people to transcend their petty or selfish or guilty selves."

Noel Cheer in The Religion of the Wilful Disbelievers claims that it is quite reasonable to say that Humanists have a religion even though they deny it. The whole paper is worth reading: the main points are summarised in Appendix B (to which I have added some comments on ‘spirituality’). Of particular relevance to us regarding the meaning of ‘religion’ is this extract:
In the following passage by Richard Dawkins, that voluble scourge of all things religious, he refers to Ursula Goodenough’s book, The Sacred Depths of Nature:
“Yet, by the book's own account, Goodenough does not believe in any sort of supreme being, does not believe in any sort of life after death. By any normal understanding of the English language, she is no more religious than I am. She shares with other atheistic scientists a feeling of awe at the majesty of the universe and the intricate complexity of life. ... . If that is religion, then I am a deeply religious man. But it isn't. And I'm not. As far as I can tell, my 'atheistic' views are identical to Ursula's 'religious' ones. One of us is misusing the English language, and I don't think it's me.” But I think that he is either deliberately misusing language or is, at least, insisting that it may not be brought into line with recent developments.

Of course, many Humanists baulk at the word ‘religion’. Here, for example, is a recent comment made by a GMH member (and Humanist celebrant):
‘I still think that Humanists should separate our activities fromreligious ones. I do not agree that we should join in events and activities alongside religions, as though we are another religion, albeit an unusual one. I think we are something like a philosophy, an approach to life, an ethical set of ideas.I do not think we belong on RE syllabuses, at cenotaphs, in inter-faith dialogues etc - such things are what religions do: they imply that life is guided in some great purpose. Without necessarily agreeing with any of the following, we are more akin to vegetarians, socialists, artists, environmentalists, equality campaigners, pacifists, internationalists and so on - and none of them wants to join in with the religions.’

In view of all this, I think it can plausibly be argued that:

  • Humanism IS a religion according to a reasonable modern definition - which raises issues as to the extentto which particular aspects of ‘religion’ are or should be incorporated into Humanism in future. What are they? Howare we doing? What more needs to be done? See Appendix C for some ideas about this.
  • Nevertheless, at the present time, it is best not to call Humanism a religion, in view of the prevailing connotations of the word. This is likely to remain the case for the foreseeable future, until there is more general recognition of the wider meanings of the word ‘religion’, perhaps also unless Humanism takes on more of the attributes of religion and until there is less focus on the supernatural in mainstream religions.

John Coss – June 2016

APPENDIX A: Defining religion

It seems very difficult to define ‘religion’ in such a way that itincludes everything that would be generally accepted as a religion whileexcluding everything that would NOT generally be accepted as a religion. See, forexample,this abstract of an academic article:The Pragmatics of Defining Religion ina Multi-cultural World.

Few seem to have difficulty in distinguishing between religious and secular institutions, yet thereis widespread disagreement regarding what “religion” actually means. Indeed, some go so far asto question whether there is anything at all distinctive about religions. Hence, formulating adefinition of “religion” that can command wide assent has proven to be an extremely difficulttask. In this article I consider the most prominent of the many rival definitions that have beenproposed, the majority falling within three basic types: intellectual, affective and functionaldefinitions. I conclude that there are pragmatic reasons for favouring the formerly popular viewthat essentialist definitions of “religions” are inadequate, and that religions should be construed,instead, as possessing a number of “family resemblances”. In so arguing, I provide a response tothe view that there is nothing distinctive about religions, as well as to the recent claim thatreligions do not exist.

This is what Wikipedia has to say (links are to other Wikipedia articles):

Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence".[1] Different religions may or may not contain various elements, ranging from the "divine",[2] "sacred things",[3] "faith",[4] a "supernatural being or supernatural beings"[5] or "...some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life."[6]

Religious practices may include rituals, sermons, commemoration or veneration (of God or deities), sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trances, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation, prayer, music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human culture. Religions have sacred histories and narratives, which may be preserved in sacred scriptures, and symbols and holy places, that aim mostly to give a meaning to life. Religions may contain symbolic stories, which are sometimes said by followers to be true, that have the side purpose of explaining the origin of life, the Universe, and other things. Traditionally, faith, in addition to reason, has been considered a source of religious beliefs.[7] There are an estimated 10,000 distinct religions worldwide.[8] About 84% of the world's population is affiliated with one of the five largest religions, namely Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism or forms of folk religion.[9]

With the onset of the modernisation of and the scientific revolution in the western world, some aspects of religion have cumulatively been criticized. Though the religiously unaffiliated, including atheism (the rejection of belief in the existence of deities) and agnosticism (the belief that the truth of certain claims – especially metaphysical and religious claims such as whether God, the divine or the supernatural exist – are unknown and perhaps unknowable), have grown globally, many of the unaffiliated still have various religious beliefs.[10] About 16% of the world's population is religiously unaffiliated.[9]

Some useful websites:

- a good starting point. Following extensive discussion, religion is defined as ‘any specific system of belief about one or more deities, often involving rituals, a code of

ethics, a philosophy of life, and a world view’. Humanism is included because it contains ‘a belief about a deity’.

- includes some amusing suggestions

Jonathan Haidt inThe Righteous Mind quotes Durkheim’s definition of religion:

A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart

and forbidden – beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those

who adhere to them.

Later, he quotes an amended version attributed to David Sloan Wilson in developing the case for group selection:

A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices that unites members into one single moral community.

This seems to me to be a reasonable definition for modern times, with ethics rather than the supernatural the feature distinguishing religions from non-religious thinking and practices.

Philip Kitcher (a Welsh born American philosopher and secular Humanist) in Living with Darwin argues for ‘spiritual religion’ as opposed to ‘supernatural religion’. Buddhism is such a religion – though Sam Harris reckons that Buddhism’s philosophy, insights and practices would benefit more people if they were not presented as a religion.
APPENDIX B: Extract from The Religion of the Wilful Disbelievers (Noel Cheer – 2006)

Concluding Remarks

I hope that by now my listeners will have detected some recurrent themes. Let mebring this address to a close with the following bullet-point summary which I offer to wilfuldisbelievers as the beginning of what could prove to be a mutually beneficial dialogue:

  • We are physical creatures before we are mental creatures and we are mental creaturesbefore we are spiritual creatures. Our conscious selves crouch on top of a causal pyramid,the nature of which is slowly being understood.
  • We are contingent creatures built of atoms, defined by genes, bullied by hormones, buoyed by endorphins, tortured by nightmares and inspired by good music, good poetryand good preaching.
  • We each have a unique provenance and we each live a unique life.
  • We have two strongly-exercised capabilities which separate us from other animals to asignificant degree: a hard-wired capacity for language[58] and a hardwired capacity forspirituality and its social manifestation as religion which ascribes life-directingsignificance to people, places, events, and ideologies. This definition of spiritualityencompasses the others and it accounts for them.
  • So powerful is this urge that we feel bound (religare) to do something about it. Its formsof expression are so various as to sometimes encompass violent contradictions.The expression of religious faith does not, of necessity, require an acceptance ofsupernatural agencies or realms, even though many take that option.
  • Scientific discoveries require us to look for improved metaphors by which to express thesheer wonder of life on earth. If scientific paradigms may be modernised, why notreligious also?
  • New expressions of religious faith are constantly emerging. In recent decades there hasbeen a re-emphasis on earth-centred values and rituals. Many radically religious people, post-theistic, post-Christian, religious humanist and many others take the view that theearth is our only home. Ever. It is not merely a transit lounge in which we piously wait fordeath to waft us away to another world above the bright blue sky.
  • Although Christianity persists as the majority path of faith of the West, it is largely shornof its political clout, except in the neo-conservative United States. Christianity is sodiverse in its forms, practices and creeds and has changed so much over time, as to not bereadily described or critiqued without considerable qualification.
  • Christianity is shrinking numerically while shedding its liberals and its radicals. In acircling-the-wagons response, spokespeople are moving towards a purity model ofChristianity and away from the compassion approach of Jesus.
  • Our deepest values including the right to chose or reject expressions of faith are bestprotected by secular government.
  • While humans exist, religion will persist in one form or another because to ascribe valueand to commit utterly to it is an essential part of being human.
  • The search for better ways will go on as long as humans exist because, at rock bottom, thatis what religion is. The ambition to be radically, totally human is about as sacred as it gets.The difference in our time is that we are now free to experiment with expressions of faithas never before. We may even find that those who wilfully disbelieve are really believers,after all.

A Suggested Terminology ofItching and Scratching

I must confess to using some key words, especially spirituality and religion in ways thatmight seem arbitrary to some. In seeking justification I draw the reader’s attention to the widerange of usages that we find in both technical literature and the popular. My aim in this chartis to show what I take to be a causal progression from a capacity that we are all born with tothe bewildering ranging of ways in which it comes to be expressed.

Spirituality
"... the sum of all the uniquelyhuman capacities and functions:self-awareness, self-transcendence,memory, anticipation, rationality (inthe broadest sense), creativity, plusthe moral, intellectual, social,political, aesthetic, and religious
capacities, all understood asembodied." Owen Thomas / The Potential to Itch
By any reading we have a set of higher-order capabilities that
mark us out from other animals. Spirituality, in this definition, isan objectively observable phenomenon in almost all human beings.
Spirituality is not the New Age free-thinker’s alternative to
religion, but is its very source. It is the sum of our potential to rise above (‘transcend’) our animal substrate and become, in this sense, spiritual beings.
Religion
" ... the varied, symbolic expression
of, and appropriate response to, that
which people deliberately affirm as
being of unrestricted value for them."
Ronald Cavanagh
[in language that is] evocative,
expressive, or emotive in character, or
is performatory and celebrative in a
social context, or is moral in its
imperative function, or it has poetic
metaphorical meaning.
Paul Kurtz / Noticing the Itch
When we detect an itch that is, when we become aware of the
presence of this spiritual potential then there is a tendency to
scratch it to provide relief, if only to replace it with another form ofirritation.
Tillich captured the feeling when he defined religion as "the stateof being grasped by an ultimate concern, a concern which qualifiesall other concerns as preliminary".
For this analysis it is convenient to separate the method of
scratching into:
  • the urge and its expression
  • that is, the itch and the scratch
  • personal and communal (see below) religion
  • talk about religion, and participation in it

A Religion or Religions
Historical cultural phenomena such
as Christianity, Judaism, Islam ...
They each have a history and they
change slowly over time, usually in
response to other historicalphenomena which impinge on them.
The traditions are ongoing andcumulative.
after Wilfred Cantwell Smith / Scratching the Itch
Wilfred Cantwell Smith provides a useful distinction:
religion (as above) is the personal piety or faith of an
individual human being, without reference to any particular
formalised path of faith. It is the itch, looking for a scratch.
A religion is an historical cultural phenomena such as
Christianity, Judaism, Islam ... a set of self-conscious activities
on the part of a person who feels the need to honestly answer
the issues put forward by the religious attitude which grew,
like language and sexuality, from the very stuff of which we
are made.

Notes:
1)Paul Kurtz was a prominent American Secular Humanist

2)Many Humanists find ‘spirituality’ problematic, mainly because of the different meanings of the word.

Here are the definitions given in the GMH Introductory Course (Humanists need only reject the last one):

- a ‘collage’ of everyday practices which give life meaning; this collage can include art, music, personal

disciplines and practices, and religious concepts

- an openness, an opening up to other people and experiences

- a world of ‘the human spirit’ that includes emotions, enjoyment, compassion, inspiration and wonder

- the active use of our imagination and reason to find our own view of what life experiences tell us about

meaning

- experiences of a supernatural nature

APPENDIX C: Material from NWHumanists 2011 conference

Statement by Sam Norton, an Anglican priest:

‘(W)hy I enjoy engaging with sophisticated atheists so much (is that) they recognise, inter alia, that . . . Christianity and other religions engage in certain humanly essential pursuits which need to be addressed by anything purporting to replace it.’

What are these ‘humanly essential pursuits’? How does/should Humanism address them?

Response at conference break-out session:

Facilitator – Derek McComiskey Rapporteur – Janet Palmer

  • Supporting people through difficult times (‘chaplaincy’) – helping people to cope with bereavement, care of the elderly etc
  • ‘spirituality’ (emotional fulfilment – can we find a better word?)
  • Morality without authority
  • A forum for philosophical discussion and debate
  • Fellowship – community

Essentially a paradox – Humanists reject hard and fast rules describing who we are and what we do.

Comment from Michael Imison – BHA Trustee and Humanist Celebrant:

. . . there are BHA members who are quite opposed to the idea of Humanism ‘purporting to replace’ religion. They protest if the BHA seems to be trying to put Humanism on an equal footing with religions and simply want Humanists to have the right to go off and do their own things. This is, to my mind, a blind alley. You can't say that all religions are false (and often damaging) without offering something to replace them, as Sam Norton implies.I think it is essentially true that Humanism, in exposing the superstitious basis of current religions, has to provide an alternative, because religious activity clearly meets a human need. Otherwise the churches would not have survived when their intellectual basis has been destroyed. Without ‘humanly essential pursuits’ Humanism is not widely attractive.