HUMANIST FAQs

A. No. Humanists want to have the best possible foundation for their beliefs and values, and so they demand good evidence for all of their convictions, religious or otherwise. Religious humanists believe in the existence of God, but don't accept claims of Biblical inerrancy, and, indeed, don't accept the scriptures of any religion as being fully authoritative. Secular Humanists generally don't think the evidence for the existence of a God is very good, so many are atheists or agnostics (people who haven't committed to a definite belief).

But just as a Christian isn't simply someone who believes in God, a Humanist isn't just someone who rejects inerrancy, or who doesn't believe in God (or who thinks the jury is still out). Humanism has a many-centuries-old tradition of values that pre-dates Christianity by some five hundred years. (Indeed, most of what people have come to think of as "family values" is actually Humanist in origin. For most of its existence Christianity rejected concern for the life lived in this world, instead emphasizing an eternity to be spent in hell, or, in the case of a tiny few, with God.) If you sincerely believe that the best available evidence provides a convincing case for the existence of God, and you endorse Humanistic values, you are a theistic (or religious) Humanist. For a presentation of this position, see "How to Think About God," by Mortimer Adler.

Note that, of itself, atheism has nothing at all to say about either morality or life purpose. It is simply, and exclusively, the doctrine that there is no God. In a sense, Humanism begins where atheism ends, because, unlike atheism, Humanism is primarily concerned with ethics, not with the debate concerning the existence of God. (For a more in-depth discussion of that debate, including an explanation of why it is a far less important issue than many people assume, follow this link.)

A. No. Very far from it.

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is derived from the theory of evolution originally proposed by Charles Darwin.

The mistaken notion that Humanists believe in "the survival of the fittest" as a moral code probably follows from several sources:

Darwin's statement of the theory of evolution stands in stark contrast to the Biblical "Book of Genesis," and Humanism is often misunderstood to be primarily concerned with challenging Biblical inerrancy.

Values, in one Christian perspective, depend upon the existence of a supernatural being; and Secular Humanists are doubtful about the existence of such a being.

Darwin, a scientist, is sometimes taken to be a spokesman for Humanism; and is sometimes also presumed (falsely) to have subscribed to "the survival of the fittest" as a code of morality.

The need felt by some Christians to demonize Humanism.

Of course, Humanists do believe that human beings, like every other living thing, evolved from simpler organisms; but the evolutionary process is amoral, and doesn't of itself provide an ethical standard. Humanists instead share with most of the religions of the world a belief in the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Notice that this rule doesn't have anything to do with the existence or non-existence of supernatural beings. (A more complete statement of Humanist morality can be found in the work of the philosopher Immanuel Kant; and a Humanist theory of the purpose of life can be found in Aristotle's book Nicomachean Ethics.)

Ironically, however, many 19th century political conservatives thought they saw in the concept of the "survival of the fittest" lessons to be learned about how to frame American society, as well as a justification for the greed and misconduct of businessmen. (This was true most notably of such Social Darwinists as Herbert Spencer and William Graham Sumner.)

And Niccolo Machiavelli, a Renaissance-era conservative, subscribed to views with which parallels to the "survival of the fittest" may be drawn.

A. Among the best-known secular Humanists are Isaac Asimov, Confucius, Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, and many Nobel-prize winners. Perhaps the most eminent contemporary religious Humanist (though he might well dispute this label) is Huston Smith. Liberal Christian Protestant theologians such as Paul Tillich are also in the camp of the religious Humanists. Finally, some Existentialists, such as Jean-Paul Sartre, have also been Humanists.

A. Humanism doesn't have a "bible" which codifies, once and for all, all of the beliefs that Humanists must have in order to be Humanists. However, the writings of many eminent figures over thousands of years comprise a kind of Humanist canon, which spells out a complex tapestry of evolving values. Important early figures in Humanism were Socrates, Aristotle and Confucius, all of whose work remains seminal today. Among the most important modern Humanist philosophers have been Brand Blanshard, a professor of philosophy at Yale University, and Thomas Hurka, a professor of philosophy at the University of Toronto in Canada, whose work provides an exciting new foundation for ethics and values.

In general, Humanists place a great deal of emphasis on living a full life, with a rich variety of experiences and accomplishments, and in contributing to the quality of life of others as well. If you try to live each day of your life in such a way as to try to make the world a little bit better place, you are living humanistically. If it seems strange that Humanists don't all believe the same thing, perhaps an analogy with science might help. Physicists are currently debating some eight or nine different theories concerning quantum mechanics. There is strenuous disagreement about which theory is correct. Yet all of the theorists still consider themselves physicists, because their deepest commitment is to science itself rather than to any particular theory. Similarly, the most fundamental ideological commitment of Humanists is to rationalism, regardless of whether they find more truth in Aristotle, Confucius, Blanshard, Hurka, or some other philosopher.

A. Because many Humanists are reared in cultures that are religious (in the authoritarian, non-Humanistic sense), and because organized religions have a long and disgraceful tradition of persecuting Humanists (often perceiving in Humanism a threat to their own prestige, power, and wealth), many don't even know that they are Humanists, and tend to keep their opinions to themselves. This makes it difficult to know precisely how many Humanists there are. As a very rough measure, approximately ten percent of the populace in any nation inclines toward Humanistic convictions, most having reached such convictions on their own. Perhaps another twenty percent are, in effect, religious Humanists, who believe in God, but are skeptical of the dogmas of their religion, while nevertheless broadly accepting of its values. However, these proportions vary from one cultural area to the next. A majority of Western Europeans could probably be described as being of broadly Humanistic persuasion, while Africa has few Humanists.

A. That varies from Humanist to Humanist. Some Humanists, having been persecuted for their convictions, or seeing in religion a propensity to superstition, have an active dislike of all forms of religiosity. Some are quite religious, though in a very questioning, seeking way. Others are somewhere in between, seeing religion as mixed blessing, offering some valuable guidance and insight, but at the same time cultivating a subservient attitude of submission to authority, an unquestioning acceptance of dogmas, and a refusal to abandon medieval, spirit-haunted views of the world long since disproven, at least in anything resembling their original form.

If this viewpoint is correct, then religious reforms are badly needed. The sciences didn't advance beyond a very rudimentary stage of development until they developed a very tough-minded attitude toward the facts and worked out a methodology to systematically check those facts. In many ways, values seem to be in precisely the same position today. Philosophers have painstakingly worked out ways of validating viewpoints, including ways of evaluating values; but until these are widely known and accepted by both religious institutions and ordinary people, our values will remain confused and poorly grounded.

Because cultivation of the sciences led to incredible improvements in our standard of living, and indirectly generated vast fortunes, it became very difficult to ignore or suppress them. Philosophy, on the other hand, has generated few, if any, fortunes, and has therefore had few benefactors in the business sector. The consequence has been that we have become spiritual barbarians in possession of tremendously powerful weapons and tools.

A. Surprisingly, perhaps, although arguments of this kind have often been made, history has shown decisively that they're false. For example, the Japanese people developed an ethic known as Bushido that had nothing of any importance to do with supernatural beings, but nevertheless served as a code of conduct which, although a mixed blessing, was at the very least no worse in its consequences than organized religion. Similarly, the Chinese philosophy of Confucianism served as a non-theological code of ethics for the Chinese for millennia, on the whole with very beneficial effects.

Of course, like conventionally religious individuals, Humanists too have their occasional moral lapses, but these have less to do with Humanist doctrine than with a fallible human nature. And, of course, not all Chinese or Japanese had an appreciation of all of the subtleties of Bushido or Confucianism, just as many conventionally religious individuals have only a very basic understanding of their religious doctrines. Nevertheless, both of these non-religious doctrines served large numbers of people well for long periods of time.

If morality was closely tied to the existence of God, there would be much to fear for morality, for the existence of God has never been proven. However, the Humanist view is that the legitimacy of morality has little to do with either the existence or non-existence of a supernatural being, and everything to do with a simple principle: do unto others as you would have them do unto you, because that's the right thing to do.

A. Again, Humanism takes no firm stand on the existence or non-existence of God, insisting only that whatever one's beliefs may be that they be well-grounded and rational. However, many Humanists would point out that life is meaningful because of good relationships, meaningful work, and so on; and these things are meaningful whether or not there is some cosmic plan for mankind. Presumably, God would commend these things because they are meaningful; and they could not be made meaningful if they were otherwise meaningless merely because God commended them.

Some people take comfort in the idea of a personal God, with a plan laid out for their lives. This concept ignores the enormous number of lives that have come to tragic and early endings through AIDS, childhood cancers, and so forth. But, setting this aside, the existence of such a plan would seem to undermine both personal initiative and personal responsibility, and also raises the question of the desirability of someone other than oneself determining the course of one's life.

Lastly, it would be desirable for there to exist some moral order in the universe. Moral chaos has, indeed, little to recommend it, and evil triumphant still less; but if we find ourselves in the midst of moral chaos, as we do, then we must resolutely accept this, and do our best to effect some order.