Harry Greenberger's Talk for Community Unitarian Universalist Church
July 29, 2001

ELUSIVE SECULAR HUMANISM: What it is and where its values originate

Your program committee, in inviting me to talk to you today, suggested that they were most interested in the definition of humanism, both religious and secular, and particularly the humanist basis for establishing moral and ethical values. I'll try to provide some answers, as I see them, to those pertinent questions. Note that my title is "Elusive Secular Humanism," because just when I think I have the answers to your questions, I read something more on the subjects and find myself reviewing that which I thought I already knew, generally finding a little more insight into some areas. To give you an idea of the difficulty of providing verities for secular humanism, I refer to your flyer "We are Unitarian Universalists," which concludes the panel headed "We believe" with the following: "We know that our relationships with one another, with other peoples, races and nations, should be governed by justice, equity and compassion." I ask you: HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT?

Various factions in the Humanist movement are still arguing over the definition of Humanism. I was content with the "general concept of humanism" as presented in an American Humanist Association's flyer 'Impacting Society." I requested copies for distribution today. They sent "The Voice of Humanism" which is in your packet of materials. There are a few differences between the two, suggesting that even they continue to refine or redefine the definition of Humanism. Some of their "general concepts of humanism" read: "Humanism affirms the dignity of every human being, and asserts that humanity is responsible for its own destiny..." "Humanism contends that human beings are a part of nature, that all their values-religious, ethical, political, and social-have their source in the human experience and are the product of culture." "Humanism sees science and reason as the best tools for the discovery of knowledge and the achievement of goals." Their original flyer continues "Humanists therefore place no confidence in arbitrary faith, ancient authority, religious experience, and other alternative ways of knowing." This does not appear in the one you have. "Humanism finds freedom from religiously inspired guilt and related punitive attitudes to be a prerequisite for happiness and living the good life. " The first pamphlet, but not the next one further includes: "It is we humans-not gods or gurus, not demigods or demagogues-who give substance to this life." "...happiness is its own justification and requires no sanction or support from supernatural sources..." A similar list is found in the Council for Secular Humanism flyer "The Affirmations of Humanism." They, too, write "we deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation."

So how do we address the question of morality without attribution to the "word of God?" For most of those who accept the supernatural as the arbiter of right and wrong, such as the commandments of the decalogue, all others who do not are considered to be amoral, anything goes, relativists, with no basis for our behavior. But, on the contrary, we secularists have developed codes of conduct which we support regardless of whether or not God exists. This gives us a much stronger moral foundation than the believers, whose morals are only valid if God, in fact, exists. Interestingly, a study by Public Agenda, a secular, non-partisan think tank, reports that 58% of respondents said it was not necessary to believe in God to have good values. Still public figures, especially politicians, feel safe in making the assumption that being religious is somehow better (more virtuous and more moral) than not being religious. In an article by James Underdown, who heads up the Center for Inquiry-West, he wrote: " In my personal experience, secular humanists are at least as honest, compassionate, and law-abiding as any other large group-probably more so." A writer in the Journal for Scientific Study of Religion, refers to a Lawence Kholberg study "Stages of moral development as basis for moral education," which makes it "clear that moral and religious development are quite separate, and that the two should not be confused. He has suggested that it is a fallacy to think that basic moral principles are dependent upon a particular religion, or any religion at all. We have found no important differences in development of moral thinking between Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, Moslems and atheists."

So, from where do we Secular Humanists derive our codes of behavior, our ethics and morals? Albert Einstein, in 1941, wrote: "In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True and the Beautiful in humanity itself. That is, to be sure, a more difficult task but an incomparably more worthy task."

In an article in Free Inquiry magazine entitled "Morality Requires God... or Does It?" the author says: "Good people do good because they want to do good-not because they will personally benefit from it or because someone has forced them to do it. People who do good solely for personal gain or to avoid personal harm are not good people. Someone who saves a drowning child, for example, only because he was offered a reward or was physically threatened, does not deserve our praise." So, it would seem you must consider motivation to determine whether an act is ethical.

A recent article in the International Herald Tribune reporting the massive secularization throughout European countries, writes: "...Europeans now draw their norms for moral behavior from humanism, from reason rather than religious commandments" and "nowadays, public codes of conduct, such as the European Convention on Human Rights, tend to come not from holy scripture, but from reports by blue-ribbon committees."

As many of you know, you can now find out everything about everything on the internet, so I went there in preparation for today. After entering the two words "secular morality," I learned that there were 1,226 sites dealing with this subject, and at each of those you could "click" on a tab which read "show me more like this."

I read some of those philosophical treatises on the subject and realized that I am too uneducated to understand most of what they write, when they ask such basic questions as to the "meaning" of "meaning."

In article in Modern Maturity magazine titled "Rethinking Thinking" reads "In pursuing philosophical questions like 'What is truth?' or 'What is the Mind?' or 'What is justice?' philosophers have had to become actively interested in science, linguistics, artificial intelligence and contemporary political culture." I am more interested in the recent studies of how we know what we know, as a function of our brains and neural networks. In the search to understand what we think we know and believe to be true, cognitive psychologists, linguists, anthropologists and philosophers joined in an inter- disciplinary effort that became known as cognitive science-now even refined into cognitive neuroscience. There is a new field called "neuro-theology" which concludes that spiritual experiences are the inevitable outcome of brain wiring-that the human brain has been genetically wired to encourage religious beliefs.

These studies of the mind, the brain and genome makeup, support a strong genetic component of human behavior and attitudes. Richard Dawkins, observes, "We are not blind genetic machines. Genes may predispose us to a behavior; nurture, environment and free will determine whether we will give in to the genetic tendency." Early childhood experience, unrecalled consciously, have such indelible effect on our thinking, that they become almost impossible to reverse. Not only religious indoctrination, but "morality" learned by word and deed of parents and others, remain as permanent parts of adult behavior. I believe that that is where most individual concepts of right and wrong originate. But that does not explain how these concepts came to be in our parents and their parents. It is the opinion of many philosophers, with whom I agree, that a system of morals can be developed without divine decree. From The Atheists Handbook, I quote: "What, if anything compels good behavior in a Materialist? The answer is Self-preservation and the realization that this life is the only one there is. By self-preservation, I mean that the genuine Materialist under- stands that any irresponsible actions on his part ultimately undermine his own personal security. If he abuses others in any way, he undermines the social fabric within his community, making it more probable that he will be abused at some time." Sounds like the Golden Rule, although I prefer the older Confucian version: Don't do to others what you would not have done to you. The handbook continues: "It is important to understand three things: (l) this ethic excludes supernatural postulates from consideration; (2) the values derived are demonstrated to be objectively testable and efficacious in promoting good, and (3) they are subject to change or evolve as conditions on the planet change."

Now, here is my answer to your question as to the basis for our values. In a pamphlet entitled, A New Global Ethics, the Council for Secular Humanism writes: There are...basic moral decencies that are commonly recognized as binding in virtually all civilized communities of the world. These ethical principles embody the collective heritage of humankind. They have been tested in the crucible of human experience by their consequences for human good. They include the need to be truthful; to keep our promises; to be sincere, honest, loyal and dependable; to act with good will; to forbear from injuring other persons or their property; to be beneficent, compassionate, and fair; to show gratitude; to be just, tolerant and cooperative; and to use peaceful methods to negotiate differences.

While I have tried to provide my understanding of the basis for our differentiating right from wrong and good from bad, which has developed through human experience and tradition, most often the moral questions we face are not between those extremes, but rather in having to choose between two conflicting "rights" or two "wrongs" --"the higher good" or "the lesser of the evils." Therein lies another realm for inquiry and subject for debate.

Now to your question about differentiation between "religious" and "secular" humanism. Under the descriptions of humanism which I gave at the outset, it appears to me that secular humanism is redundant. The definitions of humanism from various sources attribute nothing to the supernatural. That leaves us with the necessity to explain "religious humanism" since there are claims to that title, including an organization named "Friends of Religious Humanism," founded in 1962 "to advance humanism within the Unitarian-Universalist denominations and to promote religious humanism in general." There is a religious philosophy known as Ethical Humanism, about which is written: "Commitment to the supreme worth of human life is the core of the Ethical Humanist faith. This recognition of a spiritual obligation to treat human life as sacred persuades Humanists that their belief can, with justification, be considered a religious faith." Ethical Humanism, as espoused by the American Ethical Union, is part of a global movement: International Humanist and Ethical Union.

There are also "theists" --that is non-atheists--who believe, or accept, the concept of a supreme being, a creator, who is not necessarily controlling the actions of humans on this particular planet. It is an alternative to the concept that everything in the universe came from nothing, without an intelligent design, such as the Big Bang theory, and is more psychologically satisfying to them. One can even believe that there is an all-knowing God, who observes our lives and to whom we can address our prayers, but that this God provided mankind with free will, leaving him to determine rules of human conduct, separating good from bad and right from wrong. However,Michael Martin, in his Modern Library book Atheism and Humanistic Value Theory, wrote: ".. it is perhaps theoretically possible for theists to consistently adopt a humanistic value theory. However, at least up till now, no theists have done so." And, obviously those of traditional religion who believe that morality comes from God's own words, would not qualify for inclusion under any definition of Humanism. So I see that there are two ways to claim validity for Religious Humanism. One is by deviation from the generally used definition of Humanism, omitting only its disclaimer of all things supernatural, thus allowing the concept of religious humanism to be valid. OR, its validity can be claimed by an uncommon definition of religion. Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary defines religion: (1) belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe. (2) expression of this belief in conduct and ritual. (3a) any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy; as the Christian religion, the Buddhist religion, etc.; (3b) loosely, any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of, or likened to such a system; as humanism is his religion.

So--there you have my answers to your questions.

Thanks for inviting me to express my views. I invite you to attend our meetings as often as you can.

Back to Essays & Editorials

Home
Calendar
News
Who's Who
Congrats/Thanks
Essays & Editorials
Photos
Links
Library