Modern humanism, as defined by one of its leading proponents, Corliss Lamont, is “a naturalistic philosophy that rejects all supernaturalism and relies primarily upon reason and science, democracy and human compassion.” Modern humanism has a dual origin, both secular and religious.
The critical irony in dealing with “modern humanism” is the tendency for its advocates to disagree on whether or not this worldview is religious. Those who see it as philosophy are the “secular humanists” while those who see it as religion are “religious humanists.” This dispute has been going on since the beginning of the 20th century when the secular and religious traditions converged and brought “modern humanism” into existence.
Religious humanists often maintain that most human beings have personal and social needs that can only be met by religion. They do not feel that one should have to make a choice between meeting these needs in a traditional faith context versus not meeting them at all. Individuals who cannot feel at home in traditional religion should be able to find a home in non-traditional religion.
Religious humanists make sure that doctrine is never allowed to subvert the higher purpose of meeting human needs in the here and now. This is why humanist memorial services focus, not on saving the soul of the dear departed but on serving the survivors by giving them a memorable experience related to how the deceased was in life. This is why humanists don’t proselytize people on their death beds. They find it better to allow them to die as they have lived, undisturbed by the agendas of others.
Humanism teaches us that it is immoral to wait for God to act for us. We must act to stop the wars and the crimes and the brutality of this and future ages. We have powers of a remarkable kind. We have a high degree of freedom in choosing what we will do. Humanism tells us that whatever our philosophy of the universe may be, ultimately the responsibility for the kind of world in which we live rests with us.
Only a humanist can suggest that, even if there be a god, it is ok to disagree with him, her or it. Socrates shows that God is not necessarily the source of good or even good himself. Socrates asks if something is good because God ordains it, or if God ordains it because it is already good. Yet, since the time of the ancient Greeks, no mainstream religion has permitted such questioning of God’s will or made a hero out of a disobedient character. It is humanists who claim this tradition.
After all, much of human progress has been in defiance of religion or of the apparent natural order. When we deflect lightning or evacuate a town before a tornado strikes, we lessen the effects of so called “acts of God.” When we land on the Moon we defy the earth’s gravitational pull. When we seek a solution to the AIDS crisis, we thwart “God’s punishment of homosexuals.”
Politically, the defiance of religious and secular authority has led to democracy, human rights, and the protection of the environment. Humanists make no apologies for this. Humanists twist no biblical doctrine to justify such action.
Another aspect of the secular humanist tradition is skepticism. Skepticism’s historical exemplar is Socrates. Why Socrates? Because after all this time he still stands alone among all the famous saints and sages from antiquity to the present. Every religion has its sage. Judaism has Moses, Buddhism has the Buddha, Christianity has Jesus, Islam has Mohammad, etc. Every one of these individuals claimed to know the absolute truth. It is Socrates who claimed to know nothing. Each devised a set of rules or laws save Socrates. Instead, Socrates gave us a method – a method of questioning the rules of others, of cross-examination. Moreover, Socrates didn’t die for truth; he died for rights and the rule of law. This is why Socrates is the quintessential skeptical humanist.
The positive side of secular humanism is liberation, best expressed by American agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll: “When I became convinced that the universe is natural, that all the ghosts and gods are myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles became dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space. I was free-free to think, to express my thoughts-free to live my own ideal, free to live for myself and those I loved, free to use all my faculties, all my senses, free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess and dream and hope, free to judge and determine for myself… I was free! I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.”
The fact that humanism can at once be both religious and secular presents a paradox of course, but not the only such paradox. Another is that both religious and secular humanism place reason above faith, usually to the point of eschewing faith altogether.