Definitions of non-theists

source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/at_ag_hu.htm

HASSNERS.org highlights

HASSNERS.org comments

Useful list of defintions - sell 'Labels' for terms defined.



This work by crabsallover is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share Alike 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.

Re-Launching Humanism by Humanist Academy

What is Humanism for?
Humanism purports to be a comprehensive life stance for human beings. It focuses on the rational analysis of evidence as the means of solving all problems. For a considerable period now, it has stood for the proposition that humanity is an evolved, not a created, species, and that there is no evidence for any kind of supernatural agency controlling the Universe.

It is necessarily directed to the survival of humanity as a species. Its principles must therefore be defined in light of the need to determine the forms of conduct, individual and collective, which will enable individuals and societies to maintain the species successfully into the indefinite future.

It accepts that all human knowledge is provisional at any given point in time and that human conduct must be based on what appear to be the strongest probabilities at any given time.

What has Humanism achieved thus far?

Very little.

Humanism has had great difficulty in getting the general population to understand what it is or why they should adopt it.

Partly this comes from a name which has been used in different contexts and with different meanings over a period of centuries.

Partly it comes from a failure to make it clear that Secularism and Humanism are two different things though you cannot have the second without the first.

Partly it springs from the essentially defensive nature of the Secular/Humanist movement as a struggle for tolerance against the legal, social and institutional oppressions of religion.

Most important, perhaps, Humanism has never presented itself as something humanity needs, as distinct from merely being an option for those who reject religion.

This last deficiency is not easy to cure. Although religion, from its earliest days, has been manipulated to suit the needs of the predominating groups in societies, the task of those manipulating groups has been made easy by the fact that, at least

until recently, most of humanity has felt a need for belief in a supernatural power who could lay down rules, protect from the chances of life, and be placated when those chances seemed to suggest that a supernatural agency had been displeased.

The massive loss of religious belief because of the spread of knowledge and consequent scepticism has not meant a transfer from one form of felt need to another, but from a felt need to a cessation of the feeling of need; from a sense of being watched and judged to a sense of being free to do whatever one likes.

Humanism as presented to date can be expected to have an enduring appeal to a limited proportion of the population, but a completely new kind of case for it will have to be made if humanity in general is to be convinced that Humanism is something humanity needs.

The Modern Humanism which has evolved over the last couple of centuries or so has always tended to be inward looking, its development conditioned by the sense of obligation to demonstrate that religious sceptics were at least as moral as religious adherents.

The intellectual quality of Humanists and of the philosophical content of Humanism has been high, but

little thought and effort has been devoted to the problem of getting the message across to the mass of philosophically disinclined citizens

, accustomed to deriving their moral and social compass from a simple and vivid historical narrative.
2
These pressures have had an effect on the predominant character of those attracted to Humanism, who have been mostly highly independent in their personal attitudes, and allergic to mass movements and the intellectual compromises they entailed. This has led to ill-coordinated organisation and diffuse, usually abstract, public utterances unlikely to interest a wide public. Such public campaigns as were undertaken, e.g., by and on behalf of Bradlaugh, attracted wide attention at the time, but in the context of constitutional freedoms rather than Humanist belief systems. Few opportunities for such campaigns occur. Meanwhile, the constitutional position of religion is untouched, its assumption of superior moral status unchanged, and both are still substantially supported by Government, sometimes covertly, and directly or indirectly propagated by the education system.

Making Humanism Happen
The above ambition was stated many years ago by Prof. H.J.Blackham and for a period the BHA adopted it. But nothing done by Humanist organisations since has looked remotely like realising the ambition and most current Humanists seem to have quietly forgotten it.

Only a complete relaunch of Humanism will provide any basis for reviving it. The relaunch must start from the objectives of Humanism as set out in the second paragraph of this paper.

Given that Humanism accepts that humanity is a species evolved by Darwinian processes to its present state, the questions arising are; is humanity’s evolution complete, is it wholly adapted to its present circumstances, if not, what needs to be done and how can it be done? No less important is the question, what are the consequences likely to be if it is not done?

Humanity regards itself as a huge success. It dominates all other species, it has hugely altered its own environment and its technology has revolutionised its patterns of life. In the process, however, humanity has altered its conditions of living far more than it has altered itself.

Prima facie, according to Darwin, there should be signs of stress. There are. Humanity is subject to general stress because, over the last two hundred years, and at an ever accelerating rate, it has been subject to change in patterns of life, family and sexual relations, economic relations and types of employment far exceeding any genetic and cultural change it has achieved in that time. This has been made worse by the fact that, although cultural change is potentially much faster than genetic change, human culture has always incorporated a substantial element of resistance to change. The changes described above have brought about globalisation, which makes economic activities footloose in a way they never were previously. It makes societies geographically far apart interdependent as they never were in the past. It causes events in one place to have effects over far wider areas than such events would have had formerly. It makes the deprived more aware of their deprivation and more impatient to relieve it, partly because of which it greatly accelerates the planet-wide human demand for resources and the planet-wide indulgence in activities causing the global warming which is now such a justifiable cause of alarm. It puts human survival far more at risk and makes it an issue for the whole species, not merely for individual societies pursuing their own interests regardless of consequences elsewhere.
3
Technological change and economic growth have bred expectations of lifestyle which cannot be realised given present human population levels. But the political systems of the advanced societies have encouraged a view that electorates can, by their votes, ensure that Governments deliver the vision. Traditional cultures are breaking down under the pressure of changing economic and social structures and of the scepticism arising from increased knowledge. No cohesive new cultures are emerging. Hence, in spite of increased overall resources and improved administrative techniques, societies are becoming less manageable. In spite of increased overall material prosperity, they are not becoming more contented. Hedonism is promoted because commercial interest demands it and technology and finance permits at least a much publicised minority to indulge it. Cynicism is promoted because of a split running through the heart of culture. Official culture is religion bound. Actual culture is secular and hedonist. Because official culture is institutionally supported with ample resources, it is hard to dislodge. Because hedonist culture has the vast resources of commerce behind it, it too is hard to dislodge. While both are unmoved, a culture calculated to support constructive human adaptation cannot be established. It is the responsibility of Humanism to try to break this logjam. What is Wrong with Humanity? Humanists almost invariably applaud Darwin but have mostly accepted him without digesting the implications of his work for the human species, which they tend to regard as of purely historic relevance. This is mistaken. There is no reason to believe that humanity cannot adapt further and much to suggest that it needs to do so in the interests of survival. The extent and nature of human adaptation to date is cardinal to understanding humanity’s present position on the Planet and the risks it currently runs. Humanity has achieved the significant control and alteration of its world and is still doing so. But it has altered that world further and faster than it seems capable of altering itself. And if it cannot adapt its behaviour to the demands of the changes it is itself causing, it threatens its own survival. Humanity’s adaptation thus far has been exceptional but unbalanced. Overall, we continue to regard violence, often in horrific forms, as a natural and effective way of achieving ends. We are selfish not only to the extent necessary for self preservation but to a degree encouraging the ruthless exploitation of other human beings as well as animals, and the reckless destruction of natural resources. No less dangerously, we have a powerful capacity and inclination for the acquisition and retention of prejudice in defiance of evidence. Further, collective behaviour tends frequently to be worse than individual. These defects are now a threat to human survival because of the changes which humanity has brought about with great rapidity in recent times. They have survived genetically thus far because thus far they have almost always proved a route to success in human societies. Since human social cultures have been largely defined by humanity’s successful groups, those cultures have always accommodated the defects, even if they were not openly admired. Culture is potentially a faster route to human adaptation than biology, but because of its domination by the most successful groups in societies has done little to effect change except when leadership was changing, and leadership has usually been changed by traditional methods.
4
In the situation faced by humanity now, all these characteristics need to be modified to render human patterns of behaviour compatible with the needs of long term survival. Humanity’s behaviour has not been consistent. Its best has been magnificent, its worst appalling. Its experience and evolution to date have never served to make the best more than marginal or to prevent the worst being widespread. The need now is to reverse these proportions. It is a huge task and the odds are probably against its achievement. But the interests of humanity demand that we make the attempt. How do we go about it?

The Problem of Improving Humanity
Social and political studies have hitherto treated human nature as an axiom, something which could not be changed, but the manifestations of parts of which could be affected by a combination of teaching, discipline, incentives and deterrents. This attitude has been taken both by those believing humanity to have been created by God and those viewing it as evolved through Darwinian processes. The latter have assumed evolution in humanity to be too slow a process to be a relevant planning consideration for any given generation. This assumption needs re-examination. A completely new field is opening up in the form of the life sciences, based on the assumption that human nature can be changed by the manipulation of the chemistry of the human body. These activities are still at an early stage and their ultimate potential is unknown, but it is already obvious that that potential is a hostage to the existing inadequacies of human nature and culture. The objectives currently pursued in these investigations do not include any intention, or expectation, of improving the social and moral behaviour of human beings. Primarily the results sought are improvements in the health of individuals and the targeted diseases are primarily encountered in the advanced countries. If successful, these researches are likely to increase the health gap between the advanced and developing countries. The incentives of the researchers and the preoccupations of the citizens interested in their work alike suggest that improvement of social performance anywhere, even if practicable, will not be pursued in the foreseeable future. Whatever their ultimate fruits, the life sciences are and are likely to remain controversial. The Humanist attitude towards them must be open minded, but with the objective that improvement of the social performance of humanity should be the primary and constant objective. For the indefinite future however, culture seems the only vehicle available for the improvement of the social performance of humanity.
Essentially our problem is that the unbalanced evolution of humanity, together with the rapid advance of globalisation in the broadest sense of that word, has produced a failure in the workings of natural selection. The demands of human survival should have produced modifications in humanity to restrict violence, selfishness and exploitation, to strengthen regard for evidence and reasoning and to reinforce the human psyche to face the absence of supernatural guardianship. But because we are evolutionarily developed only for the human societies of long ago, and because our living conditions have changed so quickly, these now essential changes have not even been begun and there is as yet no sign of acquiring
5
a short and secure route to achieving them through the life sciences. This problem defines the task for Humanism. Religion: Ignore it or Attack it? There is some debate among Humanists as to whether presentation of, and campaigning for, Humanism should concentrate entirely on its merits, leaving the defects of religion to emerge by implication, or whether our campaigning should devote heavy emphasis to the flaws of religion. I am in no doubt that the latter is the course to be followed. Religion reflects, reinforces and perpetuates one of the major adaptational inadequacies of humanity. It rests on a failure or refusal to face up to humanity’s responsibilities for its own survival. In that respect the religious are inadequates. It is founded on and cannot be maintained without intellectual dishonesty. No scientific or philosophical enquiry can be honestly pursued by the religious because the religious cannot accept that any such enquiry can lead to conclusions incompatible with their assumptions about god. History has proven religion to be unreliable as a yardstick and control of moral behaviour and demonstrated that it offers no effective means of resolving disputes as to the priorities of moral behaviour. By supporting faith as a priority over reason and evidence, it gives sustenance to the maintenance of prejudice. In short, religion is a bulwark of a series of flaws which Humanism declares it essential to breed out of human nature so far as practicable. Can religion simply be left to linger? Apart from the desirability of discrediting religion as far as possible and as soon as possible, religion is unlikely to go away. Too many inadequates who cannot face the need for human self reliance are likely to be with us indefinitely. The religious are also dangerous, potentially far more formidable than Humanists. Their psychological need makes them more motivated than Humanists, who do not have the same inner compulsions, and certainly more motivated than mere secularists who may think that their own abandonment of religion is sufficient. For this reason graphs purporting to show that within a specified period of time religion will disappear are sure to prove a delusion. There are already signs of a regrouping of the forces of faith and unreason. Further, circumstances may change in such a way as to assist a religious revival. If global warming and competition for diminishing natural resources intensify human conflict, this is likely to promote irrational prejudice and with it religion in its more unattractive forms. The sooner we can detach humanity from its religion related defects the better our prospects of averting conflict or surviving it if it comes. Humanism does not accept or practice censorship or the suppression of thought. And there would be no question of outlawing religion. But the removal of all and every form of public institutional support of it should be the top priority of Humanism. The Humanist Academy expects to be a charity and cannot therefore campaign for the discrediting of religion and its deprivation of public support. But it can and should analyse and articulate the arguments on which that campaign can most effectively be based. Undermining religion will not deal with all the adaptational inadequacies of humanity, but establishing the point that there are human adaptational inadequacies to be dealt with will itself be an advance.
6
Rational Humanism for a new Situation

In light of all the above, I suggest that Rational Humanism needs to be redefined on the following lines:-
1. Rational Humanism challenges individuals to have the psychological strength to recognise that humanity is alone in its Universe and solely responsible for its interaction with that Universe. There is no evidence for the existence of any supernatural agency;
2. Rational Humanists recognise that all human knowledge is provisional at any given point in time, and are prepared to change their views in the light of new evidence. There are no truths known to be eternal;

3. Rational Humanists regard religion as a mistaken creation of human beings, devoid of evidence, designed to minister to certain social and psychological fallibilities of human beings and calculated to perpetuate these flaws;

4. The history of evolution shows that humanity has changed substantially over time, though slowly. It can change further and it must, in order to adapt to the alarming rate at which it is changing planet Earth. It is unlikely to be perfectible but it should be capable of improvement.

The Humanist objective is to find a way promoting this improvement. It aims to promote the construction of a framework of political, social and moral values calculated to encourage the adaptation of humanity in a direction diminishing the present socially and environmentally destructive characteristics of the species;

5. The overall objective of the framework of values will be to secure the survival of humanity, which is at present under threat from certain of its own human characteristics;

6. Survival has to be seen in the context of the whole species of humanity and will have to take account of its total environmental circumstances. Self preservation has to be viewed against that background;
7. The rest of Rational Humanism is a matter of rational analysis and sound judgment applied to all the evidence available

Humanism is not for me

From Dilys Bentley: Letter to NSS Newsline 25/4/08
These articles in the New York magazine explore what atheists, brought out of the closet by Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens, are to do next. Atheism, they say, is not enough – we need a set of values, we need some kind of ethical structure.

And so they go on to rediscover humanism, which in turn is a reinvention of, and first cousin to, religion.

It does seem that Americans can't think outside the religious box. Even the ones who have decidedly rejected the concept of "God" and have walked away from regular churches are aching to put something else in their place. But why?

Why can't they just leave it alone and stop trying to organise themselves into a group with a "set of ethical values" (which usually just amount to common sense, anyway), and then start saying to each other things like "That isn't a very humanist thing to say" or "That's not a very humanist way to behave".

Surely, having dispensed with God, it doesn't mean to say that we have to lumber ourselves with another rule book that eventually becomes the way we must live.

I notice that we are beginning to see "humanist" chaplains in prisons. And humanist weddings and funerals. Why? Why not just secular chaplains and non-religious ceremonies? Having dumped real religion, I have no desire to embrace an ersatz one. Humanism is not for me

Humanism and atheism - an analogy

http://friendlyhumanist.blogspot.com/came up with this. What do you think of this analogy?

Calling a humanist an atheist is like describing a Christian as someone who believes Leviticus is the word of God. It may almost always be true, but if that's all you know it'll be hopelessly inadequate and almost invariably misleading as a description of the person.

17 million people (36%) of people in Britian share broadly humanist values

Who shares broadly humanist values?

17 million people (36%) of people in Britian

Who thinks that "right and wrong" can be determined by human nature without religious teachings?
62% for human nature (only 27% for religious teachings)


What determines "right and wrong"? 62% say human nature is sufficient to decide. 27% believe religious teachings are required. (7% said Neither or Don't know)

And yet who thinks the Government pays too much
attention to religious groups and leaders?
42% of the population!

If you count yourself amongst the rapidly growing number of humanists in Britain, or resent the growing influence of unrepresentative 'faith leaders' on Government policy, please join the BHA today!

The figures above come from a Mori poll. See the poll results on humanist beliefs. See the poll results on the influence of religious groups and leaders

How should we brand non-belief?

reposted from: http://blog.newhumanist.org.uk/2007/10/new-humanist-editor-how-should-we-brand.html
Chris Street comments are in bright green; highlights in blockquotes (yellow).

New Humanist editor: How should we brand non-belief?

Our editor Caspar Melville posted on the Guardian's "Comment is Free" site late last week with a piece on Sam Harris's suggestion that atheists should ditch the term "atheist", along with the endless list of other labels the godless tend to employ - "humanist", "secular humanists", "rationalists", "brights" and so on.

Harris's words stand in stark contrast to Richard Dawkins' US-based "Out Campaign", aimed at encouraging atheists to "come out" and admit their non-belief, wearing T-shirts emblazoned with a big red "A" for Atheist. Dawkins was in the audience for Harris's speech to the Atheists Alliance International Conference, and afterwards said he was still thinking about his reaction to it. On Comment is Free our editor jokingly suggests he may be considering rebranding his "Out Campaign", and asks what "A" stands for if it no longer stands for "Atheist"? Needless to say Comment is Free's readers have weighed in with their suggestions. Take a look, it's all good fun.

Debating Humanism

Debating Humanism

edited by Dolan Cummings

Imprint Academic, November 2006

1-84540-069-0 (paperback), £8.95

Order from: Amazon.co.uk.

DEBATING HUMANISM is a collection of essays by speakers at the Battle of Ideas 2005, exploring what humanism might mean for the 21st century. More than to sleep and feed, to be human is to debate, to argue, to think out loud and to engage with the ideas and opinions of others. Over time we have developed countless languages, rituals and technologies to help us do this. And a recurring theme of debate is the very question of what it means to be human, and the nature of our relationship to the world, to each other and to gods or God. This has never been an idle debate: it is intimately bound up with how society is organised and where authority lies. Broadly speaking, the humanist tradition is one in which it is we as human beings who decide for ourselves what is best for us, and are responsible for shaping our own societies. For humanists, then, debate is all the more important, not least at a time when there is much discussion about the unexpected return of religion as a political force determining how we should live.

Contributors:

Dolan Cummings

Introduction

Dylan Evans

Secular Fundamentalism

Frank Furedi

The Legacy of Humanism

Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn

Morality and the Crisis of Secularisation

Anthony Freeman

Christian Humanism

Kenan Malik

Multiculturalism and the Politics of Identity

Daphne Patai

The Fading Face of Humanism

Andrew Copson

Humanism and Faith Schools

Dennis Hayes

Re-humanising Education

Josie Appleton

Recentring Humanity

Simon Blackburn

Humanism and the Transcendental

Bob Brecher

The Politics of Humanism

Atheism: The Important Questions

Are these the Important Questions. Do comment below.

reposted from Atheist Revolution
Atheism: The Important Questions
from Atheist Revolution by vjack

I long for a post-religious world where congregations of believers cling to private superstitions while science, education, and government are free from the toxic influence of religion. The atheist movement has done a remarkable job of demonstrating that theistic belief is both irrational and detrimental. Efforts to promote atheism are growing, and fundamentalist Christians are worried. Now, some atheists are beginning to explore potential next steps. In this post, I try to identify some of the important questions for us to consider as we work to progress beyond religion.

I do not intend what follows to be an exhaustive list. I am trying to highlight what I think are the most critical of many possible questions we must address.

1. What are the benefits individual believers derive (or think they derive) from theistic belief? We need to catalog the actual or imagined benefits to believers from belief itself, stripping away potential benefits derived more from the institution of religion. Secular versions of religious institutions can be created if necessary, but focusing on the potential benefits of faith itself must inform the priorities of our movement.

2. What are the secular alternatives through which people can obtain the same benefits identified above? It is naive to think that we can overcome religion without understanding it. If there are actual benefits to the believer from religious belief, can we offer secular alternatives for obtaining the same benefits? I suspect the most important example of this will concern the topic of morality.

3. What advantages are offered by atheism, secular humanism, freethought, etc.? Religion is the status quo, and it is natural to resist change. Identifying the costs of religion is not enough; we must also be familiar with the advantages of a secular worldview. Atheism needs a public relations campaign, and how we answer this question should help to shape it.

4. How do we advance the level of organization which currently characterizes the larger secular community? I've tired of the whole "herding cats" metaphor. Many atheists, secular humanists, and freethinkers are active in other causes (e.g., politics, separation of church and state, etc.). We are limiting ourselves by resisting greater organization.

It is time to build some political muscle to oppose the forces of theocracy.

5. What are the most effective ways to educate the public about atheism? We are crafting an important message, and it makes sense that we should give some thought about how best to deliver it. How should stereotypes be challenged? How might we alter public perceptions?
6. Can we learn to accept diversity within the secular community? If we're honest, I think we can agree that we've all made some mistakes here. Unless atheism is to become some bizarre cult, we need to learn how to get along and celebrate our differences. It makes me wince when I hear other atheists questioning whether so-and-so is a "real atheist." Disagreements are inevitable, but how do we make sure that they are a source of strength rather than a cause of fragmentation?

I'm sure you'll have other ideas about the most important questions we need to ask ourselves and our freethought colleagues. Share them here or on your blogs.

Tags: atheist, atheism, atheist movement, secular, humanist, humanism, religion

New Books for Humanist Parents

reposted from Atheist Revolution

Atheist parents often have a difficult time finding good resources in a country dominated by Christian mythology. Earlier this year, we saw the publication of Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion, and now another book on the subject is available, Sean Curley's Humanism for Parents - Parenting without Religion.

According to a press release, Curley's book "discusses the ramifications of parenting without reliance on religion" and "details rites, rituals, and practices that can be used in a home regardless of religious affiliation." I think this sounds interesting, especially given Curley's point about how one of the benefits of religion is the family traditions with which it is often linked. This book should be informative for secular parents seeking ways to gain this benefit without the ridiculous superstition that accompanies the religious versions.

"Parenting has always been difficult, but historically parents have had thousands of years of religious history, traditions and practices to use as a basis for their parenting. With the modern prevalence of the secular or Humanist household, this is no longer true and parents need a guide to help them understand the advantages of religion in parenting, but without reliance on religion." said Sean Curley. "The book includes information on humanism, morality, spirituality, traditions, practices, moral issues, and has sections for teens and younger children.

Humanism - a short definition - by David Pollock

Humanism is an approach to life based on humanity and reason. For humanists it fulfils much the same function as a religion does for its believers.

Humanists recognise that it is simply human nature to have moral values but that when we make moral particular judgements we need to interpret those widely shared values by the use of knowledge, reason and experience. Faced with a difficult decision, we consider and assess the available evidence and the likely outcomes of alternative actions. We do not refer to any dogma, sacred text or fashionable but unsubstantiated theory.

Humanists find the best available explanations of life and the universe in the naturalistic and provisional answers provided by scientific enquiry and the use of reason. We think it folly to turn to other sources - such as religion or superstition - for answers to unanswered questions. Humanists are therefore atheists or agnostics - but Humanism is a philosophy in its own right, not just a negative response to religion.

Humanists believe that this is the only life we have and we see it as our responsibility to make life as good as possible not only for ourselves but for everyone - including future generations. We strongly support individual human rights and freedoms - but believe equally in the importance of individual responsibility, social co-operation and mutual respect. We endorse the idea of an ‘open society’ in which, despite fundamentally different beliefs and lifestyles people of good will live co-operatively together, with shared institutions, laws and government that are deliberately kept neutral as between different belief groups.

As Humanists we create meaning and purpose for ourselves by adopting worthwhile goals and endeavouring to live our lives to the full. We feel awe at the immensity of the universe and the intricate nature of its workings, we find inspiration in the richness of the natural world, in music, the arts, the achievements of the past and the possibilities of the future, we find fulfilment in worthwhile activity, in physical recreation and endeavour and in the pleasures of human interaction, affection and love.

June 2005

The Humanist Symposium: Inaugural Edition

Tonnes of humanist stuff.

" intended to celebrate the virtues of atheism and promote the philosophy of humanism as a beneficial, attainable way of life. I believe the positive aspects of godlessness and freethought need to be more widely known".

Secular Humanist First, Atheist Second

reposted from: atheist revolution
Interesting thoughts from Atheist Revolution...

I am an atheist, but I am an atheist because I am first a secular humanist. Atheism is not my starting point but where secular humanism has led me. I focus this blog on criticizing religion and other forms of irrational belief, with Christian extremism spending the most time in my crosshairs. However, it is time to give secular humanism more of the attention it deserves.

What is Secular Humanism?

Secular Humanism is much broader than atheism and entails many things that atheism does not. This will be easy to grasp if you remember that atheism refers to nothing more than the lack of belief in any sort of gods. So what is secular humanism?

Start with humanism itself. According to Paul Kurtz, "Humanism is an ethical, scientific, and philosophical outlook" which can be traced "back to the philosophers and poets of ancient Greece and Rome, Confucian China, and the Charvaka movement in classical India." Humanism is an optimistic stance, entailing "confidence in the power of human beings to solve their own problems and conquer uncharted frontiers." We humanists believe that reason, science, and technology can benefit humanity and seek to promote their growth.

Secular humanism also entails scientific naturalism. That is, secular humanists are naturalists who reject the existence spiritual/supernatural entities because there is no evidence for any such entities. We maintain that reason is the path to knowledge and that faith has absolutely nothing to do with knowledge. It is not a different way of knowing because it is not a way of knowing at all - it has no bearing on knowledge.

Ethically, secular humanism has something important to offer. Our ethics are derived from reason rather than superstition. We recognize that some of the core ethical precepts (e.g., the "Golden Rule") predate Christianity, and we do not see this as a problem. We apply reason and science in evaluating and shaping our vales.

In the political realm, secular humanists seek to foster democracy. We value human rights and believe that such rights apply to all humans. Thus, we are committed to humanity and are unlikely to get caught up in the idiocy of patriotism to the point that it blinds us to global issues. We strive to promote human dignity and respect, and we find that inherently divisive religious dogma is more of a hindrance here than an asset.

Why Does Secular Humanism Come First?

If you ask me why I am an atheist, the core of any response I will give you is that my application of reason and science gives me no reason whatsoever to accept the theistic belief claim (i.e., that any sort of god or gods exist). But why do I believe that reason and science are valid ways of acquiring knowledge while blind faith is not? This takes us to secular humanism.

Even if I respond by telling you that I do not believe because belief is harmful, skillful questioning will inevitably lead me to stating the value that I believe that it is healthier to embrace reality rather than superstition. Again, this is secular humanism. I am an atheist because I am a secular humanist. Applying the principles of secular humanism leads me to atheism.

This does not diminish the value of atheism in any way, however, it does highlight the need for recognition that atheism alone is not a sufficient worldview. In fact, it really isn't a worldview or a belief system at all. Secular humanism is a belief system and a worldview, one that includes atheism.

The Real Value of Secular Humanism

Secular humanism is optimistic, but this optimism is rooted in reality. Unlike the naive optimism associated with some religions, secular humanists are optimistic about human capabilities and realize that the responsibility rests solely with us to improve our world. We wait for no rapture, nirvana, or 72 virgins (not that I'd turn down 72 virgins, mind you). We take on the problems facing humanity ourselves and realize that our successes or failures will determine the outcome. This is both humbling and empowering at the same time.

We have reason and science on our side. We have common sense and education on our side. We are secular because this is where reason takes us. We welcome an interaction between science and values and have no need to constrain progress or discriminate against others based on the ambiguous words in some ancient book. We are vibrant, passionate, and living in harmony with reality. Secular humanism is to be celebrated. It is time to get the word out.

To learn more about secular humanism, visit the Council for Secular Humanism or the American Humanist Association.