Examining Humanism

Humanism is the religion of the modern West, and increasingly the religion of the modern world. However, it is not widely recognized as a religion. Its adherents view it as a pure expression of human nature that has been liberated from the dogmas of the past. They believe that it is just “rationality” and “decency”. But humanism is not a rational worldview. It is a collection of unexamined assumptions.

There are different strains of humanism. Leftism/wokism is one variant of humanism. Liberalism is another. Although they differ in many ways, they share a common framework of assumptions.

In this essay, I will examine and critique the assumptions of humanism, as expressed in the Humanist Manifesto III, a document published by the American Humanist Association. It has been signed by many famous people, including Richard Dawkins, E. O. Wilson and Oliver Stone. The motto of the American Humanist Association is “Good without a god”. I will include excerpts from the manifesto, analyze them and critique them.

Let’s begin with the opening statement.

Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.

That definition is framed by tacit assumptions. It depends on the notion of ethics/morality, and it assumes that we have moral responsibilities of some kind. Thus, it requires a theory of morality. It presupposes some notion of “the greater good of humanity”. Thus, it requires a theory of what is good for humans, as individuals and collectives. It claims to be “progressive”, and thus it presupposes a direction of progress.

Philosophy is not just affirming your intuitions. Philosophy requires bringing hidden assumptions into awareness, examining them and critiquing them. To create a rational worldview, you must go through that philosophical process. You must question morality, value and truth in the same way that atheists question religion. Have humanists done that philosophical inquiry? No, as we will see.

The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.

Note the flowery rhetoric and the lack of substantive claims. Is “guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience” supposed to define humanism? In contrast to what? What life-stance claims not to be guided by reason, inspired by compassion or informed by experience?

Humanism encourages us to live well and fully.

What does that mean? What does it mean to live well and fully? That is a philosophical question. If humanism is a philosophy of life, then it should explicitly define the purpose of life, not take it for granted.

Humanism evolved through the ages and continues to develop.

So what? That is true of every religion. That is true of Christianity and Islam, for example. It is true of most belief systems.

Humanism continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people.

No belief system claims to have been developed by thoughtless idiots. But where is the thought? What intellectual achievements does humanism claim for itself? Is it just atheism? Or is there more to it?

Humanists recognize that values and ideals are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.

How do values and ideals change as a result of knowledge and understanding? Practical values might change over time. For example, we might place greater value on hygiene after learning that many diseases are caused by microbes. But are all values open to being changed? On what basis would we change them? We value hygiene because we value health. Could a core value be changed by knowledge? How would that happen? These are interesting philosophical questions. Does humanism try to answer them? No, of course not.

Maybe this claim is an excuse for the manifesto being on its third version. It also suggests that future versions might override this one.

This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:

Okay, now we are getting to the meat of the document: its core affirmations.

Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

I agree that our brains can acquire knowledge from experience, and that science works.

They don’t say how science works, or how our brains work, or what the possible limitations might be. But they affirm science and basic mental operations: observation, experimentation and rational analysis. (They left out induction.)

What is missing here is a philosophical theory of truth/knowledge.

Humanists recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience.

I guess this means that they value mental activities other than science. They don’t say why, however.

Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

Yes, human beings were created by evolution, and are part of nature.

Humanists recognize nature as self-existing.

I guess this is a rejection of a cosmic deity that nature depends on. I agree. There is no need to posit a magical being who created nature or sustains nature.

Humanists accept their own lives as all and enough, distinguishing reality from wishful thinking.

Those are two separate claims. One is the rejection of an afterlife. Yes, there is no soul and no afterlife. I have no choice but to accept the limited nature of my existence. The other claim is about the truth | value distinction: that the truth is not determined by our desires. I agree with that too. Let’s not confuse our desires or ideals with reality. Let’s try to understand reality as it is.

Is humanism devoid of wishful thinking? Is humanism realistic about nature and human nature? Realism is more than just rejecting the delusion of God. There are other delusions.

Humanists welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

I also welcome the future and want to expand knowledge, but I am less optimistic than most humanists.

That section was a mish-mash of different claims and positions that are not logically related.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

Now, we’re getting into some very dubious territory. It’s one thing to affirm science and reject mysticism. It’s another thing to affirm morality.

Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience.

What does that mean? One interpretation is that ethical values derive from selfish individual values. But does “human need and interest” refer to individual need and interest, or social need and interest? Those are different things. If the former, how would selfish individual values give rise to (altruistic) ethical values? If the latter, how do social values arise from individual values? A theory of moral value is necessary here, not just hand-waving in the direction of “the good”.

Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns.

What is human welfare? The word “welfare” contains the word “well”, which means “good”. So, the word presupposes some definition of what is good for humans, as individuals. To have a philosophical theory of ethical value, you first need a philosophical theory of individual, selfish value. But humanists just presuppose the notion of “welfare”, and then claim that their (presumably ethical) values are grounded in that notion. This is not solid ground. It is more like mist or a cloud of smoke. They also refer to circumstances, interests and concerns. Two of those words — “interests” and “concerns” — just mean “values”. So they ground values in values. It’s a circular “grounding”.

Let’s assume that hedonism is their implicit theory of individual value (which it is). By “welfare” they mean hedonic utility: more pleasure and less pain. How would hedonism, which is intrinsically tied to a subject, ground ethical values? They might subscribe to hedonic utilitarianism. But why?

Humanists do not deal with philosophical questions of individual, social or moral value. They just skip over them with rhetoric.

Humanists are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity.

Why? How does an individual have inherent worth? “Worth” is another word that means value, so they believe that people have inherent value. To whom do they have value? Why do they have value? Where does this value come from? Those are philosophical questions that an actual philosophical life-stance would try to answer. But humanists just beg the question in their rhetoric.

Humanists are committed to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

What does that mean? As individuals, we have limited freedom and responsibility within a social context. Do they believe that we have (ethical) responsibilities outside a social context? Where does that responsibility come from? In what ways are we free? Those are unanswered philosophical questions.

Clearly, humanism has no explicit theory of moral value. They do not define moral good and bad. They just presuppose the existence of moral values and imperatives. Likewise, they have no explicit theory of individual value. They just appeal to unexamined notions, such as “welfare”.

Recall that the motto of the American Humanist Association is “Good without a god”. And yet, “good” is an unexamined notion in their worldview.

In the next essay, The Humanist Value Theory, I will describe the implicit value theory of humanism.

Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

It is hard to extract any meaning from that word salad. It doesn’t say what the purpose of life is, so it doesn’t define life’s fulfillment. It just claims that life’s fulfillment somehow emerges from individual participation in humane ideals. What does that mean? What are humane ideals? Why would participating in such ideals make life meaningful for an individual?

Humanists aim for our fullest possible development.

Toward what?

Humanists animate their lives with a deep sense of purpose.

What is the purpose?

Humanists find wonder and awe in life.

Wonder and awe are mental states. Is having those mental states part of life’s purpose? Or do wonder and awe have some other significance?

Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture (except, of course, for traditional religion) and the life-stance of Humanism to provide comfort and encouragement.

How does humanism provide those things? How does it provide comfort? Does it provide comforting illusions? Or just comforting rhetoric?

If humanism is a philosophical life-stance, then it should clearly define the purpose of life, or at least engage with the question. But there is no engagement with philosophical questions. Instead, there is flowery rhetoric.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.

Yes, humans are social by nature, and find meaning in relationships. Humans can also find meaning in war and murder. We find meaning in behaviors that were adaptive for our ancestors. As a social species, we form cooperative groups: societies. A society is not fully cooperative. There is competition between individuals within a society. Societies also compete with other societies.

Being social does not make us altruistic. Humans are selfish individuals with the capacity to cooperate and compete, depending on the circumstances.

Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern (a world of altruism).

Why? Why should we strive toward an altruistic utopia? Is such a thing possible? How could we create it?

Humanists believe in resolving differences cooperatively without violence.

Why? Is violence intrinsically bad? To answer that question requires a moral theory, which humanism lacks. Is it always possible to resolve differences without violence? If 10,000 people live on an island that can only support 5,000, how can they resolve their differences without violence?

Violence is part of life, because organisms compete for the resources necessary to reproduce. We might be able to change the form that violence takes, but we can never eliminate violence from life.

See Life is Violent.

The joining of individuality with interdependence is enriching.

Cooperation makes labor more efficient, so it can enrich us materially. However, I think they are referring to emotional or spiritual enrichment. They don’t acknowledge the tension that exists between society and the individual: that the individual must sacrifice some of his individuality and autonomy to be a member of society.

Humanists hope for peace, justice and opportunity for all.

Well, that’s nice, but what exactly does it mean? We can probably agree on what peace is, but there are different notions of justice. We can hope for peace, but wishful thinking doesn’t determine reality (that was part of the second affirmation). Peace isn’t a natural consequence of our social nature. Humans have always fought wars.

Humanism conflates being social with being altruistic. It assumes that humans are altruistic by nature, and that we can create an altruistic utopia by striving toward it, or (perhaps) by simply believing in humanism.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

That is a rather strange belief, since there is no evidence for it. Why would altruism make you happy? Would a life of toil in a labor camp produce happiness if it benefited society? That seems rather dubious. Why would it?

Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community.

It would be more accurate to say that the industrial revolution, including the rise of capitalist economic systems, has generated material abundance, while also consuming nonrenewable resources. However, that is not related at all to the previous claim that altruism makes you happy. They seem to be conflating the material benefits of modern civilization with the supposed hedonic benefits of altruism. And the material progress of recent history had nothing to do with altruism. Economic progress is generated by people pursuing their own interests within a system of constraints (the rule of law).

There is no evidence that anything can increase individual happiness over a lifetime. Modern civilization has created a lifestyle of relative material abundance, compared to the way that our ancestors lived. It has lengthened lifespans, reduced child mortality, mostly eliminated hunger, and given us many comforts and conveniences. But there is no evidence that people are happier today than they were in the past.

Humanists seek to minimize inequities of circumstance and ability.

Why? What counts as an inequity of circumstance or ability?

Humanists support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

What is a just distribution? A philosophical theory of justice seems to be required here. Would a just distribution be an equal distribution? Or would it reflect the individual’s contribution to producing the fruits of human effort? Again, they mention a good life, but they have not defined the purpose of life.

Humanists are concerned for the well being of all, are committed to diversity, and respect those of differing yet humane views. We work to uphold the equal enjoyment of human rights and civil liberties in an open, secular society and maintain it is a civic duty to participate in the democratic process and a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Humanists are concerned for the well-being of all.

Why? Like “welfare”, the term “well-being” is not defined.

Humanists are committed to diversity.

Why?

Humanists work for human rights and civil liberties.

Why? What are human rights and civil liberties? What is a right? Where does it come from? What rights should people have? How do we balance rights and responsibilities? A theory of society is required here.

We have a civic duty to participate in the democratic process.

Why? Is democracy the best form of government? Have humanists considered any critiques of democracy? Again, a theory of society is required.

We have a planetary duty to protect nature’s integrity, diversity, and beauty in a secure, sustainable manner.

Why? Where does this duty come from? Is it a cosmic duty? Is it a social obligation? How do we resolve conflicts between human interests and the natural world? How much of the biosphere should we set aside, and how much should we use to produce goods for human use?

Thus engaged in the flow of life, we aspire to this vision with the informed conviction that humanity has the ability to progress toward its highest ideals. The responsibility for our lives and the kind of world in which we live is ours and ours alone.

We would need to define those ideals before we could work toward them. We would also need to figure out how to attain them. We can’t actualize a vision just by aspiring to it.

I agree that we humans, as individuals and as societies, are responsible for our lives and our future. There is no higher authority that tells us what to do.

✦ ✦ ✦

The point of this analysis and critique was to demonstrate the unexamined, quasi-religious, highly mystical and highly rhetorical nature of humanism. It is not a rational philosophy of life. It is a bunch of unexamined assumptions, wrapped up in flowery language.