Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Chris Price

GET UPDATES FROM Chris Price
 

Less Atheism, More Humanism

Posted: 25/12/2012 00:00

Atheism is a dirty word. But not as dirty, apparently, as humanism.

Recently published census data shows that the number of non-religious people in England and Wales has risen from 15 to 25% in the past ten years. Never mind that the actual figure is probably a good deal higher than that (the leading question 'What is your religion?' causes many non-believing cultural Anglicans to self-identify as Christian), six million more people ticking the 'no religion' box is still a huge number. If you were one of them, and you're someone who goes about their life trying hard to 'do the right thing', welcome along - you're a humanist.

Humanists are broadly defined as non-religious people who seek to live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They believe that this life is the only one we have, trust in the scientific method and place human welfare at the heart of their ethical decision-making. Put simply, it's about being 'good without God'. Sounds like something we can all get on board with, right? To judge by the census data, 'humanism' is a word we'll be hearing a lot more in the coming years. But to judge by the frequency with which the so-called New Atheists use it on the book tour and lecture circuit, identifying as a humanist is about as cool as admitting to being a Trekkie.

One of the things I enjoy doing most in my spare time is listening to or attending debates in which rationalists dismantle the arguments of religious apologists. Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens did a particularly fine job on the Catholic Church a few years back; earlier this month Lawrence Krauss and Michael Shermer gave Dinesh D'Souza and Ian Hutchinson a similar drubbing on the subject of science and God; and on a recent trip to Australia, Richard Dawkins summarily dispensed with the confused and self-contradictory ramblings of the Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal Pell. It's compelling viewing, and I must say it's very sporting of the religious to keep jumping into the barrel for Fry and friends to start shooting.

Early in the Q and A session with Cardinal Pell, Dawkins concedes that the word 'atheism' carries negative connotations, especially in parts of the US, where atheism and paedophilia are viewed as being more or less morally equivalent. He goes on to list a number of other labels - non-theist, secularist, non-believer and so on - which might more helpfully describe his position. Sadly 'humanist' wasn't one of them. I really wish it had been.

In some respects I can understand why. Dawkins is a scientist and values semantic precision in public discourse. Atheism and humanism aren't synonymous and can't be used interchangeably. Not unlike being a Catholic, it's just as possible for an atheist to be a paedophile as an aid-worker. Knowing that someone is atheist tells you nothing else about her values, political views, dietary habits or propensity for recidivism. But Dawkins and his Horsemen friends are humanists, and you don't need to check their entries on the distinguished supporters section of the BHA website for proof. I just wish they would say so a little more often.

Renowned faith-baiter Sam Harris famously neglected to use the word 'atheism' once in his book The End of Faith, an excoriating, laser-precise attack on the pernicious effects of religion. Interestingly though, the only instance of the word 'humanism' in the book is in the opening pages instructing booksellers where to file it. Christopher Hitchens, an exemplar of humanism if ever there was one, does slightly better in God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (seven mentions of 'humanism' or 'humanist'), and did occasionally profess his own humanism publicly, but being the contrarian lover of language that he was, always preferred his own coinage 'anti-theist'.

Concerns among the non-religious over the utility of the word 'atheism' aren't new. Jonathan Miller holds that, just as he needs no word to describe his non-belief in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, any word to specifically convey unbelief in a supernatural creator of the universe is similarly redundant. Hitchens rightly retorted that since 'fairyists' do not threaten eternal damnation for children who do not believe in the tooth fairy, or demand equal billing for their fairyist beliefs in school science lessons, 'atheism' was a useful - indeed necessary - flag around which opponents of religious superstition could gather.

But there's another, more pressing reason why humanism must emerge from the fringes as an 'alternative' to atheism. Some of the six million people now identifying as non-religious since 2001 will want a 'flag' to gather around, and if we wish to continue the upward trend we must give them one. Religion has been that flag for thousands of years. It has always done community much better than secularism, and not just because it has had a lot more practice. But atheism is a denial of something, not an affirmation. If we unbelievers - we humanists - want to bring new friends on board, we need to offer people something to gravitate towards, not away from. Put another way, anyone who lists only their dislikes on a dating website isn't going on many dates.

And it's a specifically moral flag, I think, that galvanizes people in this way. As a journalist, outgoing BHA president Polly Toynbee has been a powerful and very natural voice for the positive ethical stance of humanism. Through her writing she has repeatedly stated the case for the 'good' part of 'good without God'. I'm delighted that the renowned science broadcaster Jim Al-Khalili is taking over from her; along with Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Sam Harris et al, he is doing much to communicate the awe and wonder the universe inspires in us without the need for a supernatural creator. I just hope that, being a scientist, he won't confine himself to scientific concerns - that is, keep the 'good' part squarely on the agenda. He's very qualified to do so.

Chris' book Live Fast, Die Young: Misadventures in Rock & Roll America can be purchased from his Amazon page.

 
 
 

Follow Chris Price on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chrispricey

FOLLOW UK
 
 
  • Comments
  • 129
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
10:25 PM on 01/06/2013
Until somebody prove me wrong, I don't think there is a god, that is my belief
07:51 AM on 01/04/2013
I totally agree! The term Atheist is slaved to the term Theist and if our concern is truly Humanity then why do we need either? I have to use the word Atheist in response to people questioning my religion, but what word is used for me when talking about my morality? Certainly not Christian, and Atheism is no guiding light in it's essence, it simply means I don't believe in any God. So Atheism could be considered a start but it's certainly no driving force! It says we don't do, but nothing about what we should do. So here's to Humanism!
05:52 PM on 12/28/2012
I prefer the Atheist designation, despite it's flaw of only rejecting god belief, instead of rejecting all supernatural things.
Humanism can include those who belive in magic but who espouse the values of humanist groups. Humanism is a moral stance, not a philosophical stance about what is real and not real. The Atheist label is less confusing.
Humanism is indistinguishable from liberal ideals. Those ideals seem justified by a kind of 'faith', not by reasoning and science.
Atheism Plus is pretty much Humanism, since it espouses liberal ideals as a 'best morality'.
Atheists need to think things through for themselves, starting with scientific data, rather that adopt popular secular mythologies. You can be a staunch atheist without worshipping Feminism, homosexuality, etc.
07:53 AM on 01/04/2013
Atheism is derived from Theism, it's a response but not a solution. It is the yang to a ying, but humanism is more then an explanation of one's philosophical stance. It's a guide. If I always tell you what not to do, then you can never do anything... so what we need is something to tell us how to act, not just tell people who we are.
03:51 PM on 12/27/2012
The first Humanist I knew was Issac Asimov. A brilliant, lovely person who simply cared about human beings because it's the logical thing to do.

Atheism is simply this: as there's NEVER been any proof of the existence of any god, I am not obligated to believe it any of them. It's not about negative or positive. It's just logical.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
04:03 PM on 01/28/2013
F&F Cecilia. Asimov rocks!
02:44 PM on 12/27/2012
As a lifelong Atheist I am also a Humanist. This is not a contradiction in terms at all as I believe that a humanist wishes to be kind to others or at least do them no harm plus trying to make the world a more equable place for all to enjoy. The church on the other hand would have us believe that we have done something, what ever that may be, that we need to be forgiven for, by a deity that has the power to forgive the deed. What nonsense. I try to not annoy others for example when speaking to my plumber about the costs involved but may well offend him! If the deity knows all about my life's path then this action must have been pre-ordained, so what is there to forgive? Secondly a humanist is one who derives joy from the daily pattern of life. Choose the behaviour, choose the consequences, is the outcome of our actions, incarceration for criminal behaviour is such an outcome. You are responsible for the choices you make!
09:23 AM on 12/27/2012
If only Humanists were humanists and Atheists were atheists, neither would be a 'dirty word'. Unfortunately, the majority of worshippers of both of those churches are wolves in fleeces who are devoted more to "anti-religion" than they are pro anything else.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Casey Braden
Continuing to not suffer fools gladly
04:07 PM on 12/28/2012
Can't one be both? Isn't it possible to both value the importance and dignity of other humans and also be a counter voice to the religious voices that so often go unchallenged? I don't think these two positions can't co-exist.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:30 AM on 01/03/2013
Of course they are anti-religion, when so many religions demonize people simply for not believing in their claims.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:20 AM on 12/27/2012
So, 'bring new friends aboard' by being an authority on 'good'.

Sounds just like a religion to me, which is all about creating sacred values which appeal to people who are then rewarded with the quality of being 'good people' if they subscribe to them.

I'm not too keen on contemporary morality (good/bad), it always seems to be used as a permission giver to go around hurting people. At the very least, socially excluding them. My ideal sacred value is 'do no harm', which includes physical damage and emotional trauma. This prevents me from believing in British ethics related to justice which depends on the practice of reciprocating perceived abuse. There's no reason why those that need incarcerating should be subjected to deprivation, beyond the indulgence of sadism.

No matter what word is used, values will be attached to it and then there'll be sub-groups with their own particular interpretation. Ambiguity is inherent to language.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
johnstrom
Despondent philosopher
06:43 AM on 12/27/2012
Good article. Thank you. But reading some of the comments here makes me fear that we non-god-believers can be as schismatic as the religious.
02:25 AM on 12/27/2012
The more I think about it, the more Hitchen's non-theist makes the most sense. I don't mind Humanist, though.
11:02 PM on 12/26/2012
Oh! Ye'll say Humanism, and I'll say Atheism,
And I'll be in Scotland afore ye.
09:07 PM on 12/26/2012
I can see no reason to grant credibility to the existence of supernatural being or creator, therefore I am an Atheist.
05:42 PM on 12/26/2012
I prefer the designation human. Isms are fighting words. If we can rise to the level we all call ourselves human we will help heal the gashes in the body of humanity and give it a chance to survive. http://www.thelastwhy.ca/poem/
03:54 PM on 12/26/2012
If Dawkins was precise and by implication " tough minded" then he would admit that the agnostic is at bottom what scientific thinkers should be. An exact scientific conclusion would require the direct observation of what happened before the big bang. Until then no one is being scientific in calling themselves an atheist or a theist . Although the theist is the most logical.
03:33 PM on 12/26/2012
'Atheist' says just one thing about the person who utters the word. To say 'Humanist' opens the impression to all the concepts and modes of thinking that have prevailed since thinking began.
12:11 PM on 12/26/2012
Only the intellectually illiterate could still believe in a god! If you do not fall into this camp take a look at www.thesourcefoundation.com for a rational explanation to how we came to be at our present evolution. It also shows a way forward for all mankind.
10:54 PM on 12/26/2012
I went onto the website, it was very interesting and not far from what I believe in myself anyway as I am an atheist. Religion is man made and was created to suppress and control the masses...sheep and shepherds.

I think that people should be able to believe in religion if they want to as for some it is a great comfort and who am I to burst their bubble?
I would like to think that science and religion can work side by side, completely different views from each other but with mutual respect on both sides...

Merry Christmas from Little Bo Peep :-)
07:13 AM on 12/27/2012
So glad you liked the site. It is a way of life which those who have opened their eyes to the nonsense that is religion cna adopt and make the world a better place by doing so