Ask a Humanist, Vol. 4: Isn't Humanism a Faith?

(Part 4 of an ongoing, meandering stream of undefined scope.)

There was a period of several years between the point when I accepted my lack of religious belief and the point in which I referred to myself as a Humanist/Secular Humanist. I honestly didn't know how to refer to myself, and I probably would not have settled on anything if it weren't for the fact that I kept running into situations where I was asked about my religious affiliation. Human beings love to classify things, including ourselves, and each other. 

Those several years where I wasn't sure how to classify my religious views were not unlike trying to self-diagnose a nagging chronic illness. (To extend the metaphor, as a formerly religious person, it did feel at times that something was wrong with me.) Most of us have plugged symptoms into a search engine in order to pinpoint a diagnosis. And most of us have been overwhelmed with the array of returned possibilities. There was atheism, agnosticism, pantheism, Humanism, and Universalist-Unitarianism. There was Ignosticism, Skeptcism, Secularism, Naturalism, and so on. And to complicate matters, many of the aforementioned philosophies have any number of definitions, or serve as an umbrella for any number of other, more specific philosophies.

At about the same the time that I was starting to figure out how to classify my beliefs, or lack of beliefs, Atheism was beginning to see a surge, specifically in bookstores, as tomes by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens enjoyed considerable success (and ignited quite a few discussions in the media). Although these books were instrumental in making non-belief less of a taboo (and helping non-believers feel less of a minority), their perceived antagonistic tones, as well as the backlash from religious figures and institutions, only seemed to further associate "Atheism" with negative characteristics.

As someone who has many wonderful religious friends and family members, the last thing I wanted to do was to seem hostile towards religion (something with which I haven't had tremendous success.)  Although, I had lost my faith, I had not lost my faith in humanity.  In fact, during the period in which I came to terms with my non-belief, my appreciation of humanity, of nature, and of life, grew.  I felt that if I had to label myself, I wanted not to focus on what I didn't believe, but rather what I did believe. 

The American Humanist Association describes Humanism as follows:

1. Humanism is one of those philosophies for people who think for themselves. There is no area of thought that a Humanist is afraid to challenge and explore.
   
2. Humanism is a philosophy focused upon human means for comprehending reality. Humanists make no claims to possess or have access to supposed transcendent knowledge.
   
3. Humanism is a philosophy of reason and science in the pursuit of knowledge. Therefore, when it comes to the question of the most valid means for acquiring knowledge of the world, Humanists reject arbitrary faith, authority, revelation, and altered states of consciousness.
   
4. Humanism is a philosophy of imagination. Humanists recognize that intuitive feelings, hunches, speculation, flashes of inspiration, emotion, altered states of consciousness, and even religious experience, while not valid means to acquire knowledge, remain useful sources of ideas that can lead us to new ways of looking at the world. These ideas, after they have been assessed rationally for their usefulness, can then be put to work, often as alternative approaches for solving problems.
   
5. Humanism is a philosophy for the here and now. Humanists regard human values as making sense only in the context of human life rather than in the promise of a supposed life after death.
   
6. Humanism is a philosophy of compassion. Humanist ethics is solely concerned with meeting human needs and answering human problems -- for both the individual and society -- and devotes no attention to the satisfaction of the desires of supposed theological entities.
   
7. Humanism is a realistic philosophy. Humanists recognize the existence of moral dilemmas and the need for careful consideration of immediate and future consequences in moral decision making.
   
8. Humanism is in tune with the science of today. Humanists therefore recognize that we live in a natural universe of great size and age, that we evolved on this planet over a long period of time, that there is no compelling evidence for a separable "soul," and that human beings have certain built-in needs that effectively form the basis for any human-oriented value system.
   
9. Humanism is in tune with today's enlightened social thought. Humanists are committed to civil liberties, human rights, church-state separation, the extension of participatory democracy not only in government but in the workplace and education, an expansion of global consciousness and exchange of products and ideas internationally, and an open-ended approach to solving social problems, an approach that allows for the testing of new alternatives.
   
10. Humanism is in tune with new technological developments. Humanists are willing to take part in emerging scientific and technological discoveries in order to exercise their moral influence on these revolutions as they come about, especially in the interest of protecting the environment.
11. Humanism is, in sum, a philosophy for those in love with life. Humanists take responsibility for their own lives and relish the adventure of being part of new discoveries, seeking new knowledge, exploring new options. Instead of finding solace in prefabricated answers to the great questions of life, humanists enjoy the open-endedness of a quest and the freedom of discovery that this entails.

They say if the shoe fits, wear it.  The above set of descriptors were already aligned with the philosophies that I had come to slowly over my entire life.  Are there other descriptions for other philosophies with which I would also feel aligned? Yes, I'm sure of it. And I would probably not deny any relationship with that philosophy. (I feel perfectly fine referring to myself as an atheist, an agnostic, a Universalist-Unitarian, and other descriptors.)

If one follows a particular code, and aligns oneself with a philosophy that has a Web presence, a Wikipedia entry, and a presence in the public sphere, then isn't that just like any other faith or religion?  That's a perfectly fair question.

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines faith as:

Inner attitude, conviction, or trust relating man to a supreme God or ultimate salvation.

If a philosophy of belief system does not concern itself with a god or gods, it isn't a faith.  Humanism does not involve entertaining concepts related to the supernatural.  It is a naturalistic, nonreligious worldview.

Some might say that, regardless, Humanism certainly smells like faith/religion. I wouldn't deny that there are some similarities.  For example, just like religious folks, non-religious folks like to congregate at times with those who share their worldview.  The non-religious might form informal groups, or unite behind a particular cause that is important to their worldview.  They might lobby for (or oppose) particular legislation due to their worldview in the same way that many religious groups might. They might even seem to evangelize, whether by writing a letter to the editor, sporting a bumper sticker, or promoting the separation of church and state.  However, none of these instances are efforts to promote belief in a supernatural being. They are usually efforts to promote critical thinking, to honor the Constitution's Establishment Clause, to stress the need for improved science education, etc.  

The Oxford English Dictionary defines Religion as follows (definitions 1-4):

1. Action or conduct indicating a belief in, reverence for, and desire to please a divine ruling power; the exercise or practice of rites or observances implying this.
2. A particular system of faith and worship.
3. Recognition on the part of man of some higher unseen power as having control of his destiny, and as being entitled to obedience, reverence, and worship; the general mental and moral attitude resulting from this belief, with reference to its effect upon the individual or the community; personal or general acceptance of this feeling as a standard of spiritual and practical life.
4. Devotion to some principle; a strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment.

Definitions 1-3 are definitions which speak to the supernatural, and therefore do not apply to any form of non-belief.  One could argue that some non-religious folks could be described as having "devotion to some principle," as in definition 4.  If that were the case, we would need to also classify any form of activism and many political movements as religious. But one could not accurately describe Humanism as a religion in the sense that we describe the Abrahamic faiths.

Although I describe myself as a Humanist, I do not attend a church.  I don't belong to any formal Humanist organizations.  I own no t-shirts or bumper stickers that pronounce my alignment with Humanism.  I have no Humanist text. I have no mantra, prayer, or meditation. There are no belief requirements I must meet in order to be part of the Humanist collective. It simply helps to describe who I am and what I do and don't believe. But it also helps to communicate (I hope) that by being godless, I am not without morals, and that I care tremendously about the world in which we live, and the people who inhabit it.  I do have faith in people.  I have seen the great good, and the unspeakable evils, of which they are capable.

Although I sometimes refrain from quoting Sam Harris, for fear of turning off people who already have a poor impression of him, but he has a great quote that demonstrates the type of faith that Humanists embody:

"I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too desirous of evidence in support of their core beliefs." 

I believe that societies are capable of making decisions based on evidence (and not based on ancient texts or religious doctrine), and that people are capable of acting with the intention of reducing suffering (without relying on scripture).

If that's faith, I'm guilty as charged.

Ask a Humanist

• Vol. 1: What Happened To Make You Angry At God?
• Vol. 2: Aren't You Denying Your Children the Opportunity to be Religious?
• Vol. 3: What About Death?
• Vol. 4: Isn't Humanism a Faith?
• Vol. 5: Why Do You Care What People Believe?
• Vol 6: Isn't It Sad To Live Without Faith?

Pennsylvania Pastor Fabricates Navy SEAL Past

In the wake of the killing of Osama Bin Laden, Newville, PA pastor Rev. Jim Moats told The Patriot News of his days as a Navy SEAL during the Vietnam War. He had been telling his congregation these stories for five years.

The problem was that Jim Moats was never a Navy SEAL. He had never even set foot in Vietnam.

After the newspaper received several letters claiming Moats was lying about his past.  The Patriot News did some investigation and found that Moats had fabricated his stories.  Moats came to the offices of the paper to come clean on Sunday, stating that he was never offered SEAL training, and was never accepted into the program.

“I never was in a class, I never served as an actual SEAL. It was my dream. ... I don’t even know if I would have met the qualifications. I never knew what the qualifications were."

Don Shipley, an area retired SEAL stated that specific aspects of Moats’ stories were lifted directly from Hollywood blockbusters: A story about being re-assigned to kitchen duty and about being waterboarded were lifted from the Steven Seagal movie “Under Siege,” while his reference to being hit by SEAL instructors was vintage “GI Jane.”

According to Moats, the whole thing started when his sons, who served in Iraq together, had made their father a Navy SEALs plaque, which he hung up. When church members began asking about the plaque, and whether Moats had indeed been a Navy SEAL, he didn't deny it. As the word started spreading around the congregation, Moats took no steps to correct the misconception.

"I have allowed people to assume that, and I have not corrected it. Probably at this church for the last five years do people assume that. It’s an ego-builder, and it’s just simply wrong. In that sense I’ve been living this lie for the past five years," he said. "I bring a shame and a reproach upon the name of Christ, I bring a shame and a reproach upon my church, and I bring a shame and a reproach upon my family."

Shipley, the local retired Navy SEAL stated:

"We deal with these guys all the time, especially the clergy. It’s amazing how many of the clergy are involved in those lies to build that flock up. I don’t lump him in with the worst of the worse. He’s just despicable. Some of these guys are total criminals. I think just having his ass spanked is enough for him that he won’t do it again any longer."

The original piece on Jim Moats, in which he makes the claims to the paper, can be read here.

LGBT Mother's Day Ad Rejected by Sojourners (A Pro-Diversity, Anti-Prejudice Christian Organization)

Believe Out Loud, a project of Intersections International, is a "collection of clergy and lay leaders, LGBT activists, and concerned individuals, working together to help the Protestant community become more welcoming to gays and lesbians."  The organization has launched a campaign to get one million Christians to "break the silence and join the burgeoning chorus for full LGBT equality in the church."

The initiative has gained much of its recent support, in part, from the following video, which has a special Mother's Day message.  A family comprised of a boy and two moms, enter a church for the first time, and, after unwelcoming glares from the congregation as they search for a pew, are welcomed by the pastor of the church. 

The video serves as an introduction to the Believe Out Loud project, which aims to urge silently supportive clergy and church members to speak out and stand up in favor of welcoming LGBT Christians into the fold.

"Jesus Christ called each of us to love one another," claims the Believe Out Loud Web site. "It’s not enough for us to silently believe that all are equal in God’s eyes.  It is time for us to put our beliefs into action."

Seems reasonable enough.

Unfortunately, however, the progressive Christian Website Sojourners, refused to run the ad, claiming, “Sojourners position is to avoid taking sides on this issue. In that care [sic], the decision to accept advertising may give the appearance of taking sides.”

So, is this the same Sojourners whose tagline is "Christians for justice and peace?" The same one that claims in their Diversity Statement that they "believe that unity in diversity is not only desirable, but essential to fulfilling God's ultimate desire for God's people," and that, "We confess that both personal prejudice and systemic oppression are sin?"

Good luck with that, Sojourners.

'Here it is. I am dead': Blogger Derek Miller's Graceful Exit

I became aware of Derek K Miller's blog, Penmachine, due to his widely circulated last post, simply titled, "The last post."  The Canadian musician, writer, and photographer died on May 3 at age 41. He had been diagnosed with colorectal cancer in 2007 and had chronicled his illness online.

Miller arranged for a friend to post his final words posthumously.  His last post went live the morning after his death.

A few snippets:

Here it is. I'm dead, and this is my last post to my blog. In advance, I asked that once my body finally shut down from the punishments of my cancer, then my family and friends publish this prepared message I wrote—the first part of the process of turning this from an active website to an archive.

I haven't gone to a better place, or a worse one. I haven't gone anyplace, because Derek doesn't exist anymore. As soon as my body stopped functioning, and the neurons in my brain ceased firing, I made a remarkable transformation: from a living organism to a corpse, like a flower or a mouse that didn't make it through a particularly frosty night. The evidence is clear that once I died, it was over.

So I was unafraid of death—of the moment itself—and of what came afterwards, which was (and is) nothing. As I did all along, I remained somewhat afraid of the process of dying, of increasing weakness and fatigue, of pain, of becoming less and less of myself as I got there. I was lucky that my mental faculties were mostly unaffected over the months and years before the end, and there was no sign of cancer in my brain—as far as I or anyone else knew.

******************************

It turns out that no one can imagine what's really coming in our lives. We can plan, and do what we enjoy, but we can't expect our plans to work out. Some of them might, while most probably won't. Inventions and ideas will appear, and events will occur, that we could never foresee. That's neither bad nor good, but it is real.

I think and hope that's what my daughters can take from my disease and death. And that my wonderful, amazing wife Airdrie can see too. Not that they could die any day, but that they should pursue what they enjoy, and what stimulates their minds, as much as possible—so they can be ready for opportunities, as well as not disappointed when things go sideways, as they inevitably do.

I've also been lucky. I've never had to wonder where my next meal will come from. I've never feared that a foreign army will come in the night with machetes or machine guns to kill or injure my family. I've never had to run for my life (something I could never do now anyway). Sadly, these are things some people have to do every day right now.

******************************

The world, indeed the whole universe, is a beautiful, astonishing, wondrous place. There is always more to find out. I don't look back and regret anything, and I hope my family can find a way to do the same.

Miller's entire post can be read here, where you can also find his archive of posts. I'm thankful that Miller chose to share his thoughts with the world, including his very personal final thoughts on living and dying.  I wish that I had stumbled across his blog earlier, but he's left behind a great deal of wisdom, insight, and humor for us to explore. He will be missed.

How Many Gays Must God Create Before We Accept That He Wants Them Around?

Representative Steve Simon (DFL Hopkins/St. Louis Park) says a proposed Minnesota constitutional amendment is largely about religion. He asks how many gay people must God create before we accept that he wants them around.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill 8-4, with, all Republicans in favor and all Democrats opposed.

The More Money Americans Make, The More Jesus Digs Capitalism

Throughout the history of religion, people have found ways to reconcile views that might be at odds with their religious doctrine.

According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus said, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Matthew 19:21)

He followed up with, "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew:19:24)

A new Public Religion Research Institute survey reveals some interesting things about American's ability to reconcile their love of Jesus with their love of money.

Overall more Americans believe that Christian values are at odds with capitalism and the free market than believe they are compatible. This pattern also holds among Christians. Among Christians in the U.S., only 38% believe capitalism and the free market are consistent with Christian values while 46% believe the two are at odds. Religiously unaffiliated Americans look similar to the general population and to Christian Americans, with a plurality (40%) saying capitalism is at odds with Christian values, compared to 32% who say they are compatible; 14% say they do not know. There are significant differences by gender, party and income.

Some interesting findings:

• Half (50%) of women believe that capitalism and Christian values are at odds, compared to 37% of men. 
• A majority (53%) of Democrats believe that capitalism and Christian values are at odds, compared to 37% of Republicans.

The most interesting finding, in terms of illustrating our amazing ability to find ways to reconcile religious views with personal views, was the following:

• Nearly half (46%) of Americans with household incomes of $100,000 a year or more believe that capitalism is consistent with Christian values, compared to only 23% of those with household incomes of $30,000 a year or less.

It's understandable that those with very little would agree with Jesus' words in the Gospel of Matthew. It's also understandable that those who are well off would find ways to interpret those words differently, or deem them as irrelevant in a modern society where we have charities and government programs to assist the less fortunate. (Rush Limbaugh seems to know precisely what Jesus would do.) At the end of the day, these surveys say more about human nature than anything else.

A few other findings worth noting:

• Overall most (61%) Americans disagree that most businesses would act ethically on their own without regulation from the government. Less than 4-in-10 (37%) believe that they would. This holds true across political and religious lines, with the lone exception of those who identify with the Tea Party movement (53% agree).

• Nearly 6-in-10 Americans (58%) believe that the federal budget is a moral document that reflects national priorities while 41% disagrees.

• Overall most (61%) Americans disagree that most businesses would act ethically on their own without regulation from the government. 

There is a problem with static documents such as holy books and founding papers in that as the centuries go by, we find ourselves confronting an increasing number of ideas, conundrums, and complexities that the original writers could not have imagined in their wildest dreams. (Those who believe that The Bible is the infallible word of God would certainly disagree.)  We can no more imagine what the Founding Fathers would think about the regulation of agriculture biotechnology than we could imagine what Jesus would think of corporate tax loopholes. And when we attempt to distill the essence of a text for application in our complex modern world, we end up with wildly differing extrapolations. These extrapolations most often are self-serving and at odds with the basic philosophies exhibited in the text. 

While we can certainly look to founding documents and sacred texts for guidance, there comes a point where the text is limited by its place in time, and we start making our own rules to validate our own actions and desires.  Often a shoehorn is involved.

The PRRI media release can be found here (PDF).

Katy Perry's Born-Again Upbringing

Katy Perry opens up in Vanity Fair about growing up in an Evangelical Christian household:

“I didn’t have a childhood,” she says, adding that her mother never read her any books except the Bible, and that she wasn’t allowed to say “deviled eggs” or “Dirt Devil.” Perry wasn’t even allowed to listen to secular music and relied on friends to sneak her CDs. “Growing up, seeing Planned Parenthood, it was considered like the abortion clinic,” she tells Robinson. “I was always scared I was going to get bombed when I was there…. I didn’t know it was more than that, that it was for women and their needs. I didn’t have insurance, so I went there and I learned about birth control.”


“I think sometimes when children grow up, their parents grow up,” Perry says of her evangelical-minister parents. “Mine grew up with me. We coexist. I don’t try to change them anymore, and I don’t think they try to change me. We agree to disagree. They’re excited about [my success]. They’re happy that things are going well for their three children and that they’re not on drugs. Or in prison.” Perry’s mother confirms that she is proud of her daughter’s success, telling Robinson, “The Lord told us when I was pregnant with her that she would do this.”

Husband Russell Brand is into Hinduism and meditation, she states, but she's not locked in to any brand of faith:

“I have always been the kid who’s asked ‘Why?’ In my faith, you’re just supposed to have faith. But I was always like…why?” she says. “At this point, I’m just kind of a drifter. I’m open to possibility…. My sponge is so big and wide and I’m soaking everything up and my mind has been radically expanded. Just being around different cultures and people and their opinions and perspectives. Just looking into the sky.”